The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

A purely mechanical headcount shows 8 'delete' and 6 'keep' votes.[1] I therefore considered 'delete', 'keep', and 'no consensus'. However, a closer look reveals that most votes actually include the possibility for 'merge'. Most 'keep' votes are based on the argument that "Waterloo Road is a popular programme", which does not preclude a merge. None of the 'delete' votes contains an argument against merging.

No WP:RS has been given that would indicate that the school has notability outside of the programme. The programme itself is about the school, and most of the article is about episodes from the programme. There is no clear boundary between the two articles, and their names are almost identical, one being just a shorter version of the other.

The only reason brought forward for keeping this separate is that the merged article may become too long. Indeed, the existing article for the programme, Waterloo Road (TV series) is already 31k long. With this article at 21k, it looks at first glance as if the merged article would add up to 52k, which, according to WP:SIZERULE, would mean that it "[m]ay need to be divided". But the actual size will be much shorter, because the concerns about excessive detail will need to be addressed, and because there seems to be a considerable overlap between the two articles.

I also looked at the cited examples. One of them, The Chatsworth Estate (Shameless), has since been changed to a redirect and remained that way for 5 days so far. The other one, Albert Square, remains separate, but that article is not entirely comparable, since it describes a real physical existing set. — Sebastian 18:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo Road Comprehensive[edit]

Waterloo Road Comprehensive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. A non-notable location in a TV programme, failing WP:INUNIVERSE, WP:NOTPLOT and WP:N with no WP:RS. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but change as much as im agreeing with you lot on the deleation of the character articles, im not on this. I would hardly call it "non-notable" - Waterloo Road is a popular programme currently in its FIFTH series (with a sixth being filmed) and WR Comp is the primary location, just as the The Chatsworth Estate is in Shameless and Albert Square is in EastEnders. Just change it. Harleyamber (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; if anything, those should be deleted too if they show no out-of-universe notability. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the Albert Square one does. Just change the WR Comp one so it does too Harleyamber (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "just change it" is not an excuse for keeping an article. Can you provide evidence that this article has out-of-universe notability? GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Yes i can provide evidence for it. There is plenty, just needs putting to use instead of just "deleting" articles Harleyamber (talk)
        • Comment - In which case, you need to actually provide evidence. Can you post some links here? GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as other crap does, indeed, exist. But to expand that there is nothing on this article outside of the primary sources, all information is taken from plots to episodes or from the official website. And looking at the Chatsworth Estate page I would redirect or delete it. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Christ, i don't suppose it would matter what anyone says really, you lot don't seem to listen to anyone else but other mods. I could say "just change it" and "yes there is evidence out-of-universe notability" till i was blue in the face and you still wouldn't acknowledge it. Seems to me its easier to just "delete" than "to improve" Harleyamber (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure who "you lot" are. The page has no secondary sources that establish notability and is written in an in-universe style. There are no "mods" in this AfD, nor on Wikipedia. If there are sources that take this article OOU then present them, asserting "there is evidence out-of-universe notability" gets you nowhere. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - Because you need to provide evidence. I can say in an AFD that Waterloo Road has won the BAFTA for best fictional location, but that doesn't mean that people will just take my word for it and the article will be kept. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment - Im soooooo suprised wiki has lasted this long - there are only two ways articles can go, the right way - or the wrong way and NO MATTER which way they are done, there are always faluted. And by "you lot" im talking about you mods - and yes, you are mods - and on that note im done - wikipedia is not the "public" encyclopdia its advertised to be - FFS even the Wikipedia article on here is a complete joke its laughable. So do what you like, delete till your blue in the face for all i care now, Bye Bye Wikipedia

And finally, wikipedia itself will NEVER be NOTABLE, christ you can't even use it for notability for research as it is, no matter how much you mods reckon articles need all these refrences. And if its fround upon by Uni's, Schools etc for use - you lot really have no chance of making this site "notable", no matter how much you all preech- Harleyamber (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Wikipedia has proper references, and has been talked about in secondary sources. It is on 3,119 watchlists, and gets a minimum of 30,000 views a day or one view every 3 seconds, and is in the top 20 viewed articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is considered notable on Wikipedia. We are not preaching to you, and some schools may frown upon using Wikipedia for research but most academic studies find that Wikipedia is a useful resource, and more accurate than Britannica, due to the open structure. We're not a forum or message board and don't have "mods", we have contributors who volunteer their time, if you want to run a Waterloo Road wiki then I suggest you look into that (similar to lostapedia). As it stands you still haven't proven that a fictional school with no secondary sources or real world references passes the bar for notability. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you know, that's not our goal; our goal is to make it useful. That, to me, is enough reason to keep the article, or to keep in merged somewhere. And most of the people in this discussion are not mods--everyone has a voice here. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article useful in the slightest? It is 100% plot material. Not worthy of an encyclopedia. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In agreement with the OP. The article is almost completely plot, which should be relegated to the episode lists and/or the main series article. Further, it's so massive. In addition, I had a brief look myself for RS; there aren't any on the school. --Izno (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research based on interpretation of primary sources only. ^Chillum 01:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep maqjor location in a major series. Possibly merge to a list of lcoation, but at least a redirect would be needed, so deletion is not appropriate, per WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'll repost what I had to say at the previous AfD, as the same issues apply. First of all, the school itself is not notable by our standards as it hasn't been the subject of more-than-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Furthermore, much of this material is unreferenced, going against our policy on verification. Going beyond verification, this also appears to be nothing but a synthesis of plot-related material without any actual analysis from a real-world perspective. Wikipedia isn't a place to write plot summaries about minor and nonnotable elements of fiction. ThemFromSpace 06:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Waterloo Road Comprehensive has been covered in-depth in real-world context in multiple reliable sources[2] as well as in reviews[3]. That the article has sat and not been improved within some arbitrary time is a reason to fix it through cleanup and sourcing, not deletion. The fact that the authors have not (yet) done so is also not a reason to delete, as Wikipedia does not demand it be done in some arbitrary time frame. If the sense is that the article has too much plot, that's yet another reson for cleanup and editing using the ample available sources, not for deletion. This discussion is about this one article, not the series or other series elements. As with all reliable sources, a reader must be able to (in principal) check the source themselves to confirm the profferred text. If a reader can read it, watch it, or see it, we do not always expect to have the little things written up in the newspapers. For some non-contentious facts, the primary source (the series) is occasionally acceptable for some simple WP:V. However, as stated above... there IS enough to source this article about a notable element that itself has been documented in Reliable Sources. Per WP:DEL, "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page", and "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Per Editing policy offers "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress", and "Preserve information: fix problems if you can, flag them if you can't." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those references are passing mentions which talk about the TV program and mention the school in the context of the setting. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A worried question... who is User:GaGaOohLaLa? The account is one day old and yet is incredibly knowledgable and active in nominating numerous articles for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Striking per AGF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MQS, there's a difference between editing a topic to make it meet our policies and having one that just doesn't meet them no matter how much we pretty up the article. The notability guidelines aren't something that we can apply WP:DEADLINE to, as things are either notable or they are not. We can't just let articles hang around until they become notable, as we are not a crystal ball. Articles either meet the guidelines or they don't. We may edit articles to show that they meet the guidelines if at first they do not appear to but I have checked numerous sources (both this time and before) and I am fairly certain that this specific school has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Primary sources alone do not cut it. Until it is shown that this school has received significant, nontrivial coverage from third party sources, and nothing less than that, than the article shouldn't be left around in the mainspace. The fact that we are imperfect does not excuse us from applying our deletion policy to articles when we identify that they are not notable. In fact, the idea that we are a work in progress allows us to remove articles like this after it is discovered that they don't meet our guidelines and policies. Just because articles exist on Wikipedia doesn't mean that they should be here nor does it justify keeping them around if they don't meet our policies and guidelines. We should be actively trying to search out articles such as this one to better our standards, that is what makes us a better encyclopedia: consistently evolving standards of quality. ThemFromSpace 06:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia exist only for the editors? Or is it that we are here to serve the readers? Why seek out what is not yet in existance rather than fix what is? It strikes me that surmountable problems should be dealt with through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And not to divert too much from your very cogent comment, and to expand on my question above... how is it that the less-than-one-day-old account of GaGaOohLaLa [4][5], showing knowledge and abilities far beyond any newcomer I ever met, is using its first 24 hours on Wikipedia to go after every edit made by account Harleyamber [6][7] from the last 6 months? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Striking... AGF requires that this be accepted simply as coincidence. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure i agree with some of the arguments of MQS about the need for Wikipedia to do whatever the readers want, but it still does exist for a purpose, the purpose of providing information about encyclopedia-worthy things in proportion to their importance. Now, this show is extremely important in cultural terms, and therefore should have extensive coverage here. The major components of such important topics are best treated in separate articles. But even if merged to a list of locations, it would always have a redirect, and therefore deletion is inappropriate. . I challenge the nom or anyone else to tell why a redirect is unsuitable? DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the content to be merged if verifiable then fine, where are the sources that verify these subtopics of the major topic? A show can be very important and have significant coverage, while the subtopics of the show do not. We should not be more comprehensive on a subject than existing reliable sources. There are several days left in this AfD during which sources can be found. ^Chillum 16:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this show is "extremely important in cultural terms". Mozart, Shakespeare and Wordsworth are extremely important. Some soap opera isn't. Anyhow, if a redirect is needed, then deleting first would be good to exorcise this useless material. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup as needed. A major plot element in a major TV series. As such, it is an appropriate spin-off from the main article to avoid that article becoming too long. Excessive detail and any WP:OR that exists (but keep in mind it isn't OR if it can be sourced to the show) can be removed through normal editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "Excessive detail and any WP:OR that exists (but keep in mind it isn't OR if it can be sourced to the show) can be removed through normal editing" - if this is the case, we won't have much of an article left. Probably about a sentence... GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What might or might not remain would depend upon who is working on the article and what efforts they put into it in addressing concerns or actually searching for sources [8], [9]. If a concern is surmountable, then deletion may not be the best answer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no evidence that this article can become satisfactory. There is no evidence that this article can ever transcend a mere description of the plot. Although the term "Waterloo Road Comprehensive" appears in many results, they are always referring to plot or casting elements. For instance, the term indeed appears in articles such as this and this, but both are rather trivial mentions. The latter contains some useful real-world production context for Waterloo Road (TV series). Can any of the article's editors or the inclusionists cite a specific source that would justify retaining this?
  There are Waterloo Road (TV series) and List of Waterloo Road episodes for an overview of the plot. We do not need another. I asked on the first AFD, "What do you envisage as the improvements you can make?", and no-one took any effort to reply. I have never seen any edit to this article that has been about anything other than a retelling of the plot. The main Waterloo Road (TV series) is not the best. I advise editors work to get that to some reasonable standard before creating spin-off pages. Perhaps they might take a look at some good television articles, such as EastEnders, to get an idea what needs doing to WR?
  GaGaOohLaLa is absolutely correct. There will be nothing left if you do strip away the plot material from thios article. That's the problem.
  The article does not need cleanup. It needs writing from scratch. As with notability problems, there would hold no prejudice against this being recreated later if it were written properly, with sources and real-world context. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - shows how much The JPS knows - Waterloo Road ISNT a Soap Opera - its a Drama series, and there is a big difference. Irregardless of the type od storylines it has it's still not a soap opera. I suggest he does HIS research in future. 92.20.41.210 (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete/merge and redirect - seems like totally in-universe, and as such doesn't merit its own article. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/selective merge - it's amazing that a fictional school has a far longer article than most real schools. Merge anything useful into Waterloo Road (TV series). SMC (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I have never seen the show, so I can't really make a keep/delete statement. However, if I was familiar with the series, I would have to use an argument that unfortunately smacks of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS by comparing this two American shows, Barney Miller and Seinfeld. In the former, the squadroom in the 12th precinct is fundamentally the only set used on the show. As such, it is the show, and no separate article should exist as it can not be extricated from the show itself. OTOH, Monk's Cafe is a part of Seinfeld, and I believe it has received secondary coverage as a component of the show. It is not the primary location for that series, but a major location that has served as the plot of several episodes. I would support the inclusion of such an article. Bringing this back to the discussion at hand is where my question comes in - is the school the primary location for the series, or is it a major location? I ask this of people familiar with all three shows mentioned. Vulture19 (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It is never easy to close such a contested discussion, especially when closing towards an unfavored outcome. I close this discussion not to make enemies, but because I believe it is in the best interest of this encyclopedia. On that I may be wrong, but I will qualify my decision to the best of my ability.

When a living person is tied so closely to one single event, that neutral and encyclopedic content cannot be generated from reliable sources, such a person is not fit for inclusion. Reciprocally, a subject who is recognized for mainly one, well-documented event, but has also been covered by reliable sources in one or more unrelated events, is fit for inclusion. Such a person may not be notable for their involvement in one major event, or for their involvement in a number of minor events. However, if the sum of all such events equates to reliable sourcing that allows for verifiable and neutral coverage, then the subject is notable and an independent article is justified.

Such is the case, by my furthest consideration, of Michaele Salahi. The existence of dependable sourcing outside of 2009 White House gatecrash incident thus serves to undermine arguments of WP:BLP1E. Therefore, Michaele Salahi, as a major participant in a historical event, and as a person with adequate coverage outside of that event, is, by my most earnest conclusion, notable. The result was keep. My best regards to all, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michaele Salahi[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely non-notable woman. Only warrants an entry in the Gate-crashing article. Doesn't warrant her own entry. Note – the Tareq Salahi article is also up for deletion as it is equally non-notable. Tovojolo (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. THESE PEOPLE PROBABLY PUT THEMSELVES INTO WIKIPEDIA!!! TALK ABOUT I NEED GOOGLE HITS!!!. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN —208.217.164.134 (talk) [reply]

• Keep. She clearly is the participant in a major news event and a matter of national security. She's the subject of a large number of Google searches and likely a large number of Wiki searches. She has some reason for being here as a model, anyway. Most of all, why is this an issue? Are the electrons getting more expensive? This article was created because there is interest. She is clearly not a "average" person with no notable achievements. There is plenty of space, so leave the article here. -- --35.9.42.152 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If ever there was a person who was "famous" for 15 minutes, this is it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
• Delete. I don't think the incident itself is notable enough for an article, let alone the couple themselves. -Glenfarclas (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a merger proposal on the article, proposing a merger with Tareq Salahi. Also, the tone of Richard C. Weaver, article on an earlier White House gatecrasher, is very silly and could arguably use attention. Шизомби (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Tareq Salahi to form something like 2009 White House 'gatecrash' incident. Like Шизомби said, I proposed the merge earlier (The AFD notice was missing on the article, but I've since added it). IP 220.x let me know about the AFD and suggested the name. I agree that both Salahis are not notable themselves, but I think an average couple getting past White House security is notable, and it's certainly been mentioned in notable media. If merging isn't agreed on, the info should be added to the White House intruders article rather than Gate-crashing. Liquidluck (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Information
  Nice to see someone reads my posts! Sorry Liquidluck, I feel these aren't quite an "average couple". These seem more 'society' people and actually seem to be "famous for being famous". I followed the research links on the AfD page (above) and found these articles (below). It seems very possible (to be verified) that the other guests at least weren't surprised to see them at the White House, See link #2 in particular. This seems to be the circles they mix with.
  

[10] “For Some, Polo Match Was a Dud”, The Washington Post, By Tammi Marcoullier, Sunday, May 27, 2007-Retrieved 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[11] “Michelle Obama’s Hair!”(?) BISNOW –the SCENE, Australian Embassy for the Americas Polo Cup kick off party -Retrieved 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[12] “Land Rover America's Polo Cup Team Plays in USPA World Snow Polo Championships, Aspen, Colorado”, International Business Times, Posted 26 December 2008 @ 05:23 pm ET-Retrieved 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[13] “More wife watch”, The Washington Times, By Stephanie Green and Elizabeth Glover, Page 1, Sep 28, 2009- Retrieved 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[14] “Rumored 'Real Housewife of D.C.' Talks Life and Love in the Nation's Capital”, DIGITAL CITY, By Lauren Lamb, Oct 16th 2009 9:08AM - Retrieved 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Merge. As I said at the Merge Proposal, I have already (about 12 Hours ago) put basic details of the incident in the Gate-crashing article. The two Salahi articles could certainly be merged easily. Then we could wait and see if this blows up into something bigger, ie if they are charged. Or if it becomes a real security incident, they become the basis of a new article as mentioned by Liquidluck. I did not know there was a White-House Intruder article! It could certainly use expansion. BTW the Salahis are already on the list there! Seem that is the first place they appeared on Wikipedia!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• INFO It's getting interesting. Tareq has been a naughty boy! Sorry, NPOV right?. I allege on the basis of verifiable sources, he has been a 'naughty' boy. See [15] --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The incident itself is definitely notable -- Glenfarclas is quite wrong. Two uninvited people gained access to one of the most secure facilities in the world. Pretty notable for sure. The balloon boy hoax has it's own article, so why wouldn't this incident qualify? It's widely reported in the media and there are oodles of secondary sources on it. As for this article, she is notable in her own right as evidenced by multiple media reports on her prior to this incident. It appears that she is a well-known Virgina socialite that is under consideration for inclusion in a D.C. based reality show. She has been covered in the Washingtonian and Washington life magazines. Seems to meet WP:NOT pretty clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.67.83 (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess I put the incident in roughly the same category as the 2009 Obama White House menu typos incident. The political spin-cycle-of-the-moment may get wide press, but isn't always of general notability. So I stand by my view that this incident probably is not notable, and the individual members of the couple definitely aren't. YMMV, of course. -Glenfarclas (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't like the Salahis, as people I find them utterly detestable, but then again plenty of detestable people have biographical pages. Michaele Salahi should be notable just for her modeling career and considering that the winery dispute, the polo cup, and the *ahem* "charity" had all generated plenty of column inches in various news outlets before the Bravo TV show and the White House incident the biography is worth keeping. Deleting a bio just because someone is an a--hole runs contrary to the point of this site existing. And this page is important for people to use to discover why this couple managed to scam their way into the White House. --Scooteristi (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Scooteristi[reply]
• Don't Merge. If the context of their lives were solely the gate-crashing incident then yes, they should be merged, but in the context of his notorious family legal disputes, his polo career, and the fact that he won't be a "housewife" on the Bravo show they should be kept separate. --Scooteristi (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Scooteristi[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Having several minor claims to notability does not simply add up to notability. If the couple (particularly Michaele) proceeds to have their own reality show that changes the situation, but as of yet that is not the case. --Dhartung | Talk 18:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In which case the answer is to not rush to hasty judgment because this case is likely to play out in the media for a while increasing the fame and notability of these two douchebags. Again, being a douchebags isn't a reason to delete a page, if it were there are a few thousand people whose pages I'd love to delete.--Scooteristi (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Scooteristi[reply]
• Keep. Like it or not, "Michaele Salahi" generates about 280,000 Google hits. Yes, they are unhappy people who love media attention. No, they are not just a one time 15 minutes of fame. If deleted, where will people go for information when the name comes up? Charles Merriam (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (with possible resurrection as a section of the inevitable Real Housewives of D.C. article). Subject is only notable for the single event. As this controversy may be linked to the upcoming Real Housewives show (reports indicate that a Bravo crew may have been in on the incident), then the best solution may be to merge this info there when the show's article is created. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep it. Single event or not, Wikipedia was the first place I went in order to find out who these folks were. They are public news enough at this point to warrant inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.64.136 (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BLP1E; we really must stop creating an article on every event or person who gets 15 minutes worth of fame. Wikipedia is not a news service; that is what Wikinews is for. HonouraryMix (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Charles Merriam and Scooteristi --Banzoo (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is precisely the sort of situation for which we have BLP1E. If she happens to do something that garners further attention then we can look at having an article. This has nothing to do with whatever you think of the person in question. Quantpole (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Tareq Salahi to form something like 2009 White House 'gatecrash' incident. (I concur.) This might lead to criminal charges, please note.--Conrad Kilroy (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Intense dislike of publicity sluts like this, but they're just gaining notoriety by the minute, and there's no reason to delete an article on people with this much publicity notability. It's not deletable. Maybe merge as husband and wife, but I'm betting on two articles and individual notability. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Conrad Kilroy's proposal above. The event got significant media coverage, but this does not mean that the individuals themselves are noteworthy. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 23:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I agree with Conrad Kilroy's proposal, the articles should be merged to an article regarding the breach of security. Gage (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. These individuals are not at all notable outside this one breach of security. JEN9841 (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is exactly what she and her husband want. more publicity. this is single issue article. 174.16.174.183 (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's some kind of publicity worm virus. It's affecting other Polo related articles (the sport, not the clothing line). It is sure to spread to fashion from there. Lock down any Redskins articles please! What other shows are on Bravo? This thing is dangerous. GavinSimmons (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They are notable - if being headline news around the world for a week doesn't deserve a wikipedia page I don't know what is. Like others wikipedia is where I came when I wanted to know who she is. Jhksk2 (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to an article about the incident, per continuing coverage such as in the NYT.  Sandstein  02:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I created the article 2009 White House 'gatecrash' incident based on Gate-crashing, as many suggested its creation, and it would have inevitably been created at one point. It was also given undue weight and suffered from recentism in the article Gate-crashing. Cenarium (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is notable because it highlights a major failure of the U.S. Secret Service. The article will obviously be added to, revised and improved as the story develops. This couple accomplished something noteworthy in the age of terrorism.

Teneriff (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both Tareq and Michaele into one event article, keeping the individual entries as redirects, ideally to sub-headers within the combined article. Because of WP:BLP1E and the fact that the articles are nearly identical. The incident was definitely notable, so no reason for deleting altogether. gidonb (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete They're not notable besides the fact that they breached security and should surely face criminal charges. Let's not feed into this couple's desire to have media attention and/or a reality show. conman33 (. . .talk) 05:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is too soon guys, if she manages to get out of the trouble she is in then may be, but this is no different then running in front of a bus with a bikini on to get attention right now. If you want her in put her under Secret Service page. This smells because the page is 65& Washington Post. I'll keep bitching until we figure out a process to include Examiner.com in referral section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.86.21 (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC) — 70.180.86.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Merge along with Tareq Salahi into 2009 White House 'gatecrash' incident. Notable for the event, not notable in their own right.DCmacnut<> 05:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT For anyone who has missed, it this debate and a quoted comment itself, have made it onto another website here 24breakingnews.com [16] --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And the winner is....Scooteristi whose comment on this page of 17:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC) was deemed quotable. Congratulations! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge along with Tareq Salahi into one brief paragraph in 2009 White House gatecrash incident.  --Lambiam 08:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge dito kernitou talk 10:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2009 White House gatecrash incident. Salahi does not merit her own article (see WP:BLP1E) but her name is now a plausible redirect and some of the information in this article could definitely be merged into the aforementioned article, especially considering the fact that it's a stub at the moment. I would like to note that Salahi has not yet been selected for that reality show, and as such the gatecrash incident is her only possible claim to notability. Again, fifteen minutes of fame doesn't result in notability. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , redirect and mention in the Gate article. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. There are 3 basic reasons to Merge or Delete being given: she is not famous, simply experiencing her 15 minutes of fame; she is desperately looking for attention; and she is only notable for one single event. These 3 reasons are mainly subjective and emotion-driven. A strong dislike or annoyance with the Salahis should not interfere with this process, but it is. She was notable before the White House incident, she was a member of the U.S. Delegation to India for the America's Polo Cup and her husband announced India's participation in the cup at the Indian Embassy in September. Michaele was interviewed by the CBS Early Show 2 months ago, both have been covered by major publications prior to the incident, and both are involved with heated legal issues, as well as allegations against them of major charity fraud. There is an article on the Balloon Boy and his family was much, much less notable than the Salahis prior to the Heene's hoax (their notability exclusive to YouTube and WifeSwap), and the Balloon Boy incident itself was much less note-worthy than the successful breach of security at the White House by two white-collar socialites. It's fortunate for Wikipedia that the majority of people who use this website don't venture onto these discussion pages where you see the subjectiveness that has pervaded Wiki. We don't even know if they're going to be charged with anything yet and there's already a discussion to delete? One more comment: Many claim that making articles of major news stories like this is not encyclopedic. Stop comparing Wikipedia to Britannica. Deleting this article is nothing more than an effort of some annoyed people to remove a legitimate encyclopedic entry because they don't want to grant this couple their 16th minute of fame. They will get their 16th minute, and their 17th and 18th; this isn't going away. -- AJ24 (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If you check, Ballon Boy redirects to Ballon boy hoax. We do not have an article on the boy, Richard Heene, or anyone else in the family. However, I googled further after reading your comment, and I still think she and her husband should be merged together. Everything that makes them notable ocurred while they were married. And, as you said, their most major incident was the White House gatecrash- so I don't see why they shouldn't be merged into that article. However, you mentioned some great information beyond the White House gatecrash, so if you can link me to a few sources, I'd be happy to bring this article up to scruff myself. Liqudluck✽talk 18:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge into article about event. Honestly, how many WP:BLP1E articles need to be created? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to 2009 White House gatecrash incident, at least until there is sufficient information on her in reliable sources outside the context of that incident. It does not appear to be disputed that the incident itself is notable, so outright deletion should not be considered an option. Merger there should not be taken as an excuse to prune all information about her as an individual, given that (as with the parents who perpetrated the Balloon Boy hoax) their bios as hopeful media/reality TV stars provide helpful context for understanding this incident and their motivations. WP:BLP1E might need to be reworked given that it is often used as a blunt club to support deletion of anyone covered in reliable sources because of one event, regardless of whether that event only occurred because of that person. When the event itself is indisputably notable, those who perpetrated it at minimum merit coverage in an article on that incident. The oft-ignored statement at WP:BLP1E is: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." I would also support merger of the Salahis two articles into one on both of them, maintained separate from the incident article, but at this stage merger with the incident article is probably best. postdlf (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reasons for keep do exist. Some are quoting the Wikipedia rule of keeping the event and not the person. There is some reason to abide by this rule. However, I read in the Wall Street Journal Europe an article about the Salahi's and how they are a new breed of internet reality TV (minor) celebrities. Since they are covered in a reliable source about them and not an article about the incident with a passing mention about them, then that may be the beginnings of an article. Also in the article were brief mentions of other people like them, such as Balloon Boy's father. In short, there should be a discussion about how what we want in Wikipedia because this is yet another debate with both sides quoting Wikipedia rules without resolving the basic issue that keeps coming up weekly. For the purposes of vote, my vote is abstain as long as these points are discussed. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to be consistent with similar or more serious White House intrusions. We have three articles covering this, and only on the other incidents in this list. As far as I can tell they haven't stolen military hardware, attempted to assassinate the president, or tried to destroy the White House itself, so if anything this should have one article, and those should have two or three. WFCforLife (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to 2009 White House gatecrash incident. My support for that incident article is a weak keep at best, but one thing is clear: a separate article for Tareq Salahi and Michaele is completely unnecessary, especially when they are both known for one event that already has its own article in the first place. What a mess this one is going to be... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - If the individual articles should be kept, I would also strongly argue that they be combined into something like Tareq and Michaele Salahi, rather than kept as two. As both are notable for the same things, it would be unnecessarily redundant to have one for both. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no reason to propagate charlatans or unsavory behavior in one's quest to be famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evnucci (talk • contribs) 23:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We wouldn't have many biographies at all if we deleted them based on the bad conduct of the subjects. postdlf (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep People are looking up her biography. If people look, it needs to be here. We aren't saying she is a lesbian or a thief, we just need to write her biography. Head of Security for the World (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But since she's only known for one event, that information would be available to our readers if this were changed to a redirect, right? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2009 White House gatecrash incident. All the notable facts are there. Savidan 04:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2009 White House gatecrash incident. This person is otherwise non-notable.Cmholm (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the information is located at 2009 White House gatecrash incident. There is no reason at this time to have multiple articles with the same information. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteHer otherwise unremarkable life does not justify her 15 minutes of fame extend to such a worthy and important record of history contained within this site. Please delete for the sake of humankind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.64.146 (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to White House intruders or 2009 White House gatecrash incident if it survives. Despite handful of passing references previously, she is only known for gatecrashing a dinner. We shouldn't have a bio about her per WP:BLP1E. Fences&Windows 16:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BLP1E. Her five seconds of fame are over. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• MERGE with the hubby's article as there seem to be reliable sources documenting their notoriety prior to this brouhaha.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is both notable and verifiable and goes beyond one event. The article has 20K hits since it was started. See here for stats --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While grok.se's stats are interesting, see WP:POPULARPAGE. Those stats might be used to make the argument that people would hope to find information on her on Wikipedia (which is not in itself an argument that there should be), those stats can't be used to make the argument that it is better to have a page for her alone, rather than have one for her and her husband combined, her on her husband's page, or her and her husband on the WH 2009 gatecrashing incident page, or them to be mentioned on the WH intruder or gatecrashing pages. Шизомби (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Taku (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2009 White House gatecrash incident as a WP:BLP1E. Robofish (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2009 White House gatecrash incident.--PinkBull 00:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - merge into 2009 White House gatecrash incident.--Blargh29 (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporary Keep: Re-examine in a week or two.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly a case of WP:BLP1E, to my mind, anyway. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable for her "accomplishment", article will contain information not found in the gatecrashing incident. --Vizcarra (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete Information should be at 2009 White House gatecrash incident due to BLP1E. Angryapathy (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the articles for Michaele Salahi and Tareq Salahi into 2009 White House gatecrash incident. This has been an important event of US President Obama's Administration, and will likely have an impact on the Secret Service, but separate articles violate WP:UNDUE. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not news and this person will not be notable for more than 15 minutes. Jonathunder (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. Add her info to that of her husband and put it into an article about the incident, then redirect his and her articles to the incident. WP:BLP1E. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge Yet another recent news event from non-notable attention-seekers. Reywas92^Talk 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this article with Tareq Salahi. This is a major new story.I am Zeus, king of the gods (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename to the incident, as described by other editors. Significant event due to lapse of Secret Service. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to 2009 White House gatecrash incident. See here for my longer comment on that article. All three of these articles should have been considered together and it's probably advisable for the same admin to close all of them. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep People are citing WP:BLP1E, but note that it says "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Thus far she's been the subject of non-stop media coverage for a week, and with ongoing investigations and a likely Congressional hearing, the coverage is likely to continue for weeks to come. Obviously, we can't predict the future, but we can afford to wait and see how the story unfolds before deciding whether to merge into the event page. Binarybits (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article exists only because of a temporary news item that will be forgotten in a year, if not in a few weeks.Johndowning (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge into article about incident; her "modeling career" and the couple's legal woes are not noteworthy - plenty of people have similar problems, should we wiki them, too? How about the person with the Guinness World Record for most lawsuits while we're at it? And to those referring to the excessive press coverage as reasons to Keep, the coverage is of the incident, not of their personal lives, which are completely non-notable. —Godheval^{T C H} 18:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article but Merge with her husbands, the couple and their incidents are very notable, even here in Australia, where they're been talked of on the news. AnOicheGhealai (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Purely WP:RECENTISM, will be totally forgotten in a matter of weeks (OK, maybe months). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a crystal ball you've got there? Binarybits (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on, I don't need a crystal ball to know that in historical context this is a complete non-event! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2009 White House gatecrashing incident. No notability to speak of aside from this incident--virtually everything in the article can be repeated in the gatecrashing article. Blueboy96 23:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect to 2009 White House gatecrashing incident as previously suggested. Rorybowman (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Because she has been involved in some private litigation, which does not make anyone notable on its own, and made up some stories about her life, which does not make anyone notable on its own, also does not make her notable prior to the alleged gate-crashing. Let's not forget that this, at present, is only an accusation. To me, the content meant to support notability really has been stretched. Some of the sources in the article defy the concept of reliability: poptower.com, gossiprocks.com, askmissa.com? Eek. If this results in keep or merge for some reason, someone needs to consult WP:BLP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The arguments for "keep" seem to apply for the gate-crash incident. Some information here might be important for that article, so it would be best not just to redirect. Otherwise, keeping an article about this person is very uncyclopedic. The person is not notable in any field. The security issues that the incident raises seem to be appropriately covered in the gate-crash article. That is the subject that may merit the status of some historical importance.Maziotis (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2009 White House gatecrash incident.VR _talk 19:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP or merge per 35.9.42.152 - These people are notable, as well as notorious. Wikipedia should chronicle their rise... and certain fall. There should be a new category 'ultimate public douchebags who think their $h** doesn't stink' and let them, along with "Spencer and Heidi", headline for 2009. The woman's and her husband's articles can be combined, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moucon (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - This is English Wikipedia not American Wikipedia. And this certainly isn't a showbiz blog. This is not even major news outside the USA, compared with more important events which don't have their own articles (because they didn't happen in the USA, presumably). Rapido (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

then write the article on the non-US events--as you correctly mention, we need more people working on them. The en WP covers all countries, English-speaking and otherwise, and tries to do it comprehensively. If something is a major news story in one country--any one country, the US,. the UK, Italy, Indonesia -- it's notable for Wikipedia purposes. International notability is not required, but in fact there are some non-US citations here. When we argue for international notability, it's to demonstrate that something is certainly notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nice biography for a person that I looked up and was happy to see it here. If it is merged with the gatecrashing article, then most of the biographical stuff will probably be eventually lost. That is like book burning. Book burning is bad. A1234568 (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete These people did this stunt to gain popularity and this article is proof of that. WP is not a tabloid and I see absolutely no long term notability for the that the incident page itself cannot cover. Wikipedia is NOT wikinews! Corpx (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep about one additional NYT story a day focussing on her. I see them elsewhere too, but there are too many to notice. Deleting this is another example of our short-sighted ability to discern what will clearly be historical & make the distinction from routine news coverage. . I agree about getting rid of events only the tabloids report, no matter how often they report them, but the NYT is not a tabloid. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Clearly notable, as per coverage by reliable sources. Bryan Hopping ^T 05:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unrelenting coverage in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The gate-crash incident should not be an excuse to talk about this person's childhood, career and family life in an entry that pretends to be an encyclopedic article of a notable individual. Also, a lot of people arguing for "keep" seem to miss the point about a solution that does NOT involve the removal of the information that has been "relentlessly" explored in the mainstream media. I think all that attention and the analysis of security issues does justify the cover of an incident with historical importance, but we can do that through the article of the "gate-crash" incident. The entry for the name of this person, Michaele Salahi, can redirect there. That is the common practice in Wikipedia for cases like this. Otherwise, I haven't yet seen any good argument that can justify reading an encyclopedic article on "Michaele performing with the Washington Redskins", etc.... Please see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid#Notability_fallacies. The subsection, "It's in the news", seems particularly important.Maziotis (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as shown at the top of this AfD (via sources from before the gate crashing) she was likely notable, per WP:BIO, before this and clearly is now. Hobit (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recap: Notable for DC dinner & Redskins events[edit]

As of 3 December 2009, there are now (at least) 2 separate, major-source events concerning Michaele Salahi, so that passes WP notability (no longer WP:BLP1E):

• 2009 White House gatecrashing incident
• 2005 visits with Washington Redskins Cheerleaders Alumni Association (major source: Washington Post, 2009-12-02, "Former Redskins cheerleaders doubt Michaele Salahi...", webpage: WashPost-781).

Consequently, Wikipedia cannot reject the article as a non-notable person, because of those 2 events, separated by 4 years (covered by major reliable sources).

Note to closing admin: This evidence refutes the AfD claim of "Completely non-notable woman" and so the AfD must be rejected. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comment: Is the article you want for the second point Washington Redskins Cheerleaders? --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further opinions[edit]

• Keep. Passes WP notability because of 2 different major-source events, separated by 4 years. Merging with her husband would just duplicate the text in the WP server databases, beyond 15 minutes of fame as "30 units" of WP storage. Keep as separate article, per the requirements outlined within the policy WP:Notability. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The Redskins story only exists because of the attention given to the gatecrashing. Do you think the Washington Post (or anyone) would have published this story at all if the bigger story had surfaced? It's still fallout from, and directly related to the One Event. Angryapathy (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Angryapathy: Exactly. Шизомби (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep content, merge into one article on couple. No, they don't deserve to be notable, but there's no escaping it; they're the moving figures in a notable event and there's significant independent coverage of them extending beyond the event. BLP1E requires that the subject "otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" and it's rather clear that that just isn't going to happen. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashes to Ashes (2010 film)[edit]

Ashes to Ashes (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFF. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Changed to Keep: Per WP:CRYSTAL Improvements. Joe Chill (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As Joe Chill said above. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per continued coverage in reliable sources since 1996, allowing this as one of those that do meet WP:NFF per coverage meeting WP:GNG... specially as it now moves toward filming. Even with its postponements and it being CRYSTAL, the continuued coverage [17], [18], affirms notability, and allows it to merit an article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As User:MichaelQSchmidt said above.Managerarc (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mentions of people planning to make a film at some point in the future is not significant coverage and we don't predict the future. The fact that the film has had mentions since 1996 and yet no film has emerged says it all. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by prediction? Enough evidence is available that the film is planned to be released sometime next year so we can give it a chance.Managerarc (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it hasn't started shooting, and no source says it has started shooting. That is the bar that needs to be met, once film is rolling and a date is fixed then it can have an article, but TBA 2010 and no evidence of any actual filming means it will have to wait. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... but not all the coverage since 1996 has been brief, as this is a pet project of Hawn, she has many times spoken of it at length, and it has been covered for years. Even projects stuck in production hell can be notable for that coverage of production hell. The bar that must be met to qualify for inclusion is set by WP:GNG, as a topic may be seen as notable if it has coverage in reliable sources... which this one does. Not surprisingly, and not asserting WP:INHERITED, the involvement of two notables has understandably kept that coverage alive. Perhaps a proper and temporary merge of the informations to the Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell might even be worth considering... but the coverage is of the film... sometimes in relation to or because of the principles, but not solely of the principles themselves. In this case, a keep and allow expansion and inprovement through regular editing can improve Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you concede that not one single frame of film has been shot for this "film" (which at the moment is just a script), so then all information in this article is already on Hawn's page and this should be a redirect at most, but fails NFF. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concede? My argument is toward the topic of the article meeting WP:GNG, upon which guideline WP:NF and its section WP:NFF rely. The film might never be made... but its the continued coverage in reliable sources over a 13 year period that grants notability to the topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article is incorrectly named, it should be "Ashes to Ashes (Goldie Hawn pet project with no specified release date nor idea when production will begin)". Because a sparse number of references to a script is not a film. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that all available sources are "sparse", as many of the more recent ones speak specifically about the film and its pre-production. I do think expanding a "Background" section to include its history could be a terrific addition. There are many articles with Ashes to Ashes as part of their title, so perhaps Ashes to Ashes (Goldie Hawn film) might work... with a namechange that includes the date when filming commences. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a film, is it? Without a frame of celluloid it is just a script and an intention to become a film. And all the details can be easily housed on Hawn's page, then spun back out once it actually starts shooting. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Incubate or userfy for continued work per WP:WIP and WP:IMPERFECT. Per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per sufficient references in news stories over the years. Yes, some of them were not "significant coverage," and in totality it's a judgment call whether this topic meets notability requirements. Can I !vote "no consensus in my own mind"? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Neutral per mix of sufficient ongoing references plus lack of financing = uncertain future. Unlike topics that will not increase in notability over time, we can delete and have the closing admin specify delete without requiring a DRV if and when an article is created that clearly establishes notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Some form of incubation or userfication is also acceptable by me. Then again, so are keep and delete, as it's too grey to call. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm going with the letter of WP:NFF, which says "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. … Until the start of principal photography, information on the film can be included in articles about its subject material." Accounting4Taste:talk 23:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If one scrolls up the page from that subsection, one will see that WP:NFF is part of WP:NF which states "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline." And WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.", from which one can see that if any topic meets the GNG it can be assessed notable... no matter if a planned film or a book or an event or a person. Its the coverage that matters, not the subject. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Unless there are much better references than those in the current article, this is not one of the cases appropriate for an exception. One of the refs says that it has not yet been financed. The other two are the barest mentions of an film about which nothing but the name of the stars and the production company is known. The rule was intended to prevent just this sort of article. It might be appropriate to mention it in the article on Goldie Hawn, sourced to the interview she gave that mentioned it as her current project. I'm not sure a redirect even is warranted at this point. The phrase I usually use to describe the situation, is "not yet notable" DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC) see below DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

• So let's incubate the thing so that it might be appropriately rewritten, expanded, and sourced to show its coverage since 1996... or if no one is willing to even consider that option, have it userfied to me and I'll do it myself... specialy since Goldie is currently in India. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy.Keep. Per new sources Per Schmidt.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm currently working on a complete re-write more suitable for incubation... one that better reflects the history of this unmade film: Ashes to Ashes (Goldie Hawn film project). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added a few sources to the article to better define its coverage over 13 years. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep very well referenced article now. Ikip (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing administrator This article has gone through significant improvements since it was first put up for deletion.[19] Ikip (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well... lack of sources actually IN the article was a continued concern... and one not too difficult to address. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as revised by MQS. Several of us said that if it were notable, there would be references--and so there are. My earlier comment was based only upon what there was in the article, and someone who looked further found what is often found by doing that. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant media coverage of anything makes it notable by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 12:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I think this meets the mark. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus on whether or not to delete or simply merge/redirect. Also, mass-nominations are procedurally flawed, as they don't allow editors to efficiently evaluate each page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo Road characters[edit]

(View AfD)

Articles nominated:

Karla Bentham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Grantly Budgen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kim Campbell (Waterloo Road) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tom Clarkson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aleesha Dillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ruby Fry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Danielle Harker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Steph Haydock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Helen Hopewell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Emily James (Waterloo Road) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lindsey James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Denzil Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rose Kelly (Waterloo Road) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sambuca Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Paul Langley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jo Lipsett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Siobhan Mailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rachel Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ros McCain (Waterloo Road) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Christopher Mead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Luke Pendle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amy Porter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Phillip Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bolton Smilie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Josh Stevenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Max Tyler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Michaela White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Brett Aspinall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Roger Aspinall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maxine Barlow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Janeece Bryant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chlo Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Donte Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rob Cleaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lorna Dickey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mika Grainger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Earl Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Marley Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jasmine Koreshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eddie Lawson (Waterloo Road) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Flick Mellor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Izzie Redpath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jack Rimmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Melissa Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lewis Seddon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Davina Shackleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Andrew Treneman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Matt Wilding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete. Sorry for the en-masse nomination, but these are the character pages that have no out-of-universe notability and just excessive plot summary. All relevant information is already at List of characters in Waterloo Road or List of minor & recurring Waterloo Road characters. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all I have been keeping an eye on these articles for months and made the main editors aware of the need to provide real-world context and establish notability using independent sources. There has been absolutely no attempt to do this. Vitally, there is no evidence that it ever will be done as there is insufficient coverage. It is not that these are bad articles, it is that they never can become good ones because there isn't the material out there. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all This appears to be a large collection of original research based on interpretation of primary sources. If any of these characters has achieved significant real world coverage by independent reliable sources then that may be the basis of an encyclopedic article, but this is just something fans wrote based on their own personal knowledge and primary sources. If I am wrong, then please correct me by providing citations and preferably putting them into the articles. ^Chillum 21:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - WP:OR. Crafty (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect them all to List of characters in Waterloo Road. As much as I disagree with The JPS about nothing being done to change them, ( I myself have tried before but within hours [sometimes minutes] they have been re-edited again) im sick to death of them, and it can be such a hardship even reverting the endless vandalism to them. let alone trying to get them in proper order. So just redirect them to that page, and have it done with. As the OP has said, all relevant information is already on there Harleyamber (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CCould we add Waterloo Road Comprehensive to this? Same show, and the article suffers from the same faults as the character articles. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waterloo_Road_Comprehensive - no concensus the last time it was nominated for delation Harleyamber (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would have to be a separate AfD. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterloo Road Comprehensive (2nd nomination). GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• merge for the minor characters merge properly, with information not just the duration, but the role in the plot,and the complete list of episodes in which they appear. And if even that is not wanted redirect. No reason whatsoever has been given above why a redirect is inappropriate. As for the major characters, & I am not familiar enough to tell whom they are, - keep them as separate articles, or as a second choice merge properly, with the appropriate information as above, or at the very least redirect. A redirect is the absolute minimum to give the posibility of compromise. No possible reason has been given why a redirect is inappropriate. I challenge any of the people who want it deleted to give one. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge minor characters properly to List of characters in Waterloo Road where they have notability and then set the several dozen redirects. Either keep major characters or merge only if sourcing is not available. Note: Mass nominations usually and quite sadly prevent diligent efforts for improvement during an AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And who is supposed to decide which characters are "major" and "minor" without breaching WP:POV? And how are "major" characters any more notable. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question., We do it by discussing them one at a time, rather than in a combination discussion like this, which combines the notable and the non-notable. We can and do use research to decide if something is notable, or for other things that come up in a discussion at AfD or about how we should handle an article elsewhere. WP:OR means we do not use OR for writing the content of an article. The usual criteria in the many such discussions which have generally kept such articles are whether someone is the protagonist or a principal antagonist, or has been a character of key significance to the story over multiple episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 16:02, 27 November 2009

We should only use independent reliable sources covering the topic to decide if they are major or minor characters, the problem is a lack of such sources which leads to the more likely course of people just deciding based on their interpretation of primary sources(ie original research). The rules about original research include how we decide which content goes into which subject, if we put a character in the "minor" or "major" article, then we need basis for that claim beyond primary sources or our interpretation of it. This is why I don't think merging would make sense, it is a judgment call without verification readily available, and yes merging content is about the content of the article so of course OR applies. There are several days left in this AfD to find such sources however. ^Chillum 16:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there were 4 or 6 or even 8 charactes in the above list, I would agree that the several days left could be adequate time for such research. But since mass nominations preclude diligent research, a proper merge will then allow sources for the multitude of characters listed in this AFD to be individually researched. Again, and not meaning to whine, it is the size of mass nominations such as these that makes very sensible suggestions such as yours so very difficult to meet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that this content was created as an act of original research without the benefit of proper sourcing. It is not simply about notability, but about verifiability. If such content should exist then it should be created by looking at the sources and creating content based on that, not by taking a large amount of original research and eventually(as in probably never) add sources to support it. We should not start with opinion and attempt to support it with sources, we should start with sources and represent those sources. Just my 2 cents. ^Chillum 21:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that people are required to, but has there been any substantial attempt to get any of them up to standard? We don't need perfection, but evidence of effort would be nice. Or a statement of what they will do to improve these, with evidence of sources. No reliable sources = no article. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all "properly", as DGG puts it. The default position for character articles is to merge and no reason has been given why that shouldn't be the case here. If any prove notable enough for their own articles, they can easily be re-split at that time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What about the concerns regarding original research, that is one reason that has been presented as to why it should not be merged. ^Chillum 21:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be a reason not to indiscriminately merge every word, not a reason to delete every article outright. Also, anything that can be sourced to the TV series is not OR. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The TV series is a primary source which we are not supposed to be interpreting, we need to use independent source's interpretations. ^Chillum 04:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes interpretations would be original research, but that doesn't mean everything (potentially) sourced to a primary source is original research. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are worthless by our strictest encyclopedic standards. Delete, and create redirects without history if necessary (I have already voted above). The JPS^{talk to me} 16:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming you thoroughly researched all 50 articles and determined that there is not one sentence even worthy of being in the history of the redirect? I find that highly unlikely, esp. considering that I checked a few at random and found usable material in every one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The JPS has never liked anything to do with Waterloo Road or the articles, no matter whats put in them. Even when the have sources he still wants them gone 92.20.41.210 (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, diddums. I can't recall seeing you add a source, so enough of the personal attacks and accusations, please. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Listify/redirect/protect redirect if needed - AfD is not clean-up and this is one big merge subarticles into a list. If "vandals" or whoever is restoring content they obvious want to see it so redirects seem needed. It may also make sense to somehow indicate if there is an offsite wiki - maybe on the list's talkpage - for fans who just want more. -- Banjeboi 20:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you !vote for keep and redirect at the same time? :S GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So long as people realise that any merge article will not be the sum of these parts. The "information" would be significantly trimmed. Just because the kids want to see the content doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (G7) NW (Talk) 21:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Counsell[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article makes a borderline indication of importance/significance, so doesn't quite qualify for speedy deletion, but I can't find any coverage in reliable sources for either the subject or his company (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing out there that isn't one of his own social networking pages. Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn are not reliable sources. DarkAudit (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable individual. Crafty (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Declan Clam (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, biospam, and I don't trust an "ideas person" who spells ideas with an apostrophe... Hairhorn (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's wrong with having an apostrophe, but having it before the "s" implies that he's a person of just one idea. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G5 by User:SchuminWeb. The creator of the page is now banned. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 00:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Blackbeard[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by a sock of Alexcas11 (talk · contribs). However, although sprinkled with more than enough fantasy elements, this article does have a bit more by way of actual truth than the norm. The article asserts that this film project was originally titled The Return of Captain Kidd, which is a film in production (IMDb link); the article even gets the proposed cast correct, although then gets the writers, producers and other details completely wrong and the new title is, per the Alexcas11 style, complete fantasy. However, although IMDb states that the film is in post-production, other sources seem to suggest that it hasn't started filming, for example this article from Screen Daily from 11 November It would seem that this film fails WP:NFF, for the moment, although of course it would more than likely become notable in the future. But failing WP:NFF combined with the obvious hoax elements (including the title (!)) in this article would suggest the best thing would be to delete and then recreate the article when sources become available in a year or two. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5, creation by a banned user, see evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexcas11. Tagged as a speedy request. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wordsmith Media Inc.[edit]

Wordsmith Media Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Material appears to be promotional in nature. WP:NOTE criteria not met. Alan (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete g11 I wonder if there are American PR firms working the holiday thinking Wikipedia is on vacation and this is the time to sneak in their spam? Miami33139 (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Until recent weeks I wouldn't have believed that professional PR could possibly be so bad, but then I discovered that "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER" cost $250,000. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • 5 Facts About Wikipedia You Don't Know! #6, Pays design firms rather than asking one of the thousands of volunteers who work for one. Miami33139 (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apart from the above issue, I can see no particular notability in the subject. And there is no attempt to give any references to convince us. Personally, I would think this more amateur than professional PR. 'Excited' and 'inspired' instantly say 'this is spam', but the general comprehensibility falls below most of the professional PR that optimists keep trying to sneak in (while at the same time usually adopting a user name that is transparently obvious). Peridon (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The one supplied reference doesn't mention the company. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not even close to notable. Angryapathy (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't appear to have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Thus, it is not notable enough to merit inclusion. Additionally, the wording of the article, as it currently stands, strikes me as POV. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birkenhead Library, building controversy[edit]

Birkenhead Library, building controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a pity so much time and effort has gone into such a non-notable local-issue article. Most of the references are from a free community newspaper - these are not generally considered reliable sources, and in New Zealand they have a tendency to take sides in local issues or wage campaigns. The major metropolitan newspaper, the NZ Herald, has only run two items on the dispute in 3½ years. The lack of reliable reportage makes it difficult to ensure NPOV, and it is notable that the sole contributor to this article is a single-purpose account. I detect a pro-library bias. dramatic (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
• Delete but merge any WP relevant stuff into Birkenhead Library. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatic, i have spent a great deal of effort avoiding bias by sourcing everything written, from the council records and local paper. Just because the latter is free doesnt make it unreliable, and your claim that its a non-notable topic seems pokemonically absurd. Ditto your contrast between "local" and "major metropolitan" - in the age of the hyperlocal thats merely snobbery. So just exactly what have you detected??

As to merging.. well, I've just split it off from the Library article because that one was deemed too long.. OohAh (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatic is merely following WP policy. There is no suggestion of snobbery or that local papers are less reliable. Wikipedia:Reliable sources requires the use of "mainstream" newspapers as sources. Personally I would prefer that editors try and avoid newspapers as much as possible. We should go to the source to avoid the editorial bias of the newspapers. Altough WP is touted as not being paper this should not be an invitation to include everything. Producing a comprehensive article on the controversy about a local library building introduces a sort of local systemic bias into WP. There are many articles that are yet to be written or articles that need expanding before this very local and low notability article is added. It is a shame that all your hard work is put up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, cut the material by 90% and work it back into Birkenhead Library. This is clearly someone's pet issue. -Glenfarclas (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I regard the North Shore Times-Advertiser as a reliable source, and have used it as a reference myself for several articles. I agree that the subject matter is pushing the boundaries for what is suitable for a Wikipedia article, not because it lacks suitable sources, but because the material is such a small sliver of local politics. The best solution is probably to merge it back to the library article, and to condense the material a bit. It might be worth looking for an alternative host for it. I'm not aware of a North Shore wiki, and the Auckland wiki I know of died a few months ago.-gadfium 06:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an article with so many citations (63) is a sure sign that is not a notable subject. Already mentioned in main article probably no need for any more than that. MilborneOne (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, merely following, i get that. This is not the place to get frustrated at policies that suggest there is a hierarchy of topics to be covered. i just dont think the world, or wp, is that simple, tidy, necessary or likely. i wrote in the spirit of wp. i could get pissed at 'pet project' sneering though - what on wp aint? Just to be clear: this article is not really new, its the sub-section from the original article, almost verbatim, and it was written about 2 years ago. I note that during its writing, and since, noone objected in this way. Hence my bemusement. Somehow what was acceptable as a subsection has become untenable as an article. Be that as it may, whatever. Fit it as per policy. I'm not too fussed about the work, that's long done. Good luck. OohAh (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The North Shore Times isn't the only source of references, some are from the council and other newspapers. The number of references is in itself an indication that the topic is notable and independently verifiable in future. I've not read enough to worry about POV concerns but they are seperate from the decision as keeping the article - SimonLyall (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - while it is a local issue, based on the wealth of citations (and enough of them seem reliable and neutral enough to me) it seems like it has garnered enough coverage to merit inclusion. If not keep, then relevant information should certainly be merged back into the main article. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The depth/extent of the article gives an exaggerated sense of notability to a local and relatively minor issue. By local I mean Birkenhead, not the North Shore as a whole. The best solution would be to merge it back into the main Library article (2 or at most 3 paaragraphs should be sufficient). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has plenty of references to reliable sources (plural) that are independent of the subject, so it is notable (according to Wikipedia's definition). That's really all that matters. If someone has already put in the effort to produce an extensive and well-sourced article, why throw it away? -- Avenue (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the main points to Birkenhead Public Library and delete the rest. So much of this won't matter in a few months, it's all local bickering. This needlessly-long article is more like a committee report than an encyclopedia article. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While its not the most important article here, it is here now and I see no reason to delete it. I don't have a problem with local newspapers used as sources as they are supported by sources from a national paper and primary council documents. While I agree with some others that there are more important and notable articles that aren't in wikipedia yet, that is no reason to delete this one just because others haven't been created. I'd also disagree with the idea that the large number of citations hints that the subject is not notable, in fact I'd argue the opposite. Obviously if not keep then merge back into the Library article. Mattlore (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GarlicSim[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this, and I checked the page you linked, but I don't understand what you're looking for. People who are using the software? Places that it has been discussed? We had an open space in EuroPython 2009 about this project. cool-RR (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage like reviews, news stories, and book mentions in multiple reliable sources. Joe Chill (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. LoudHowie (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doc Quintana (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Merrill[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Speedy tag removed over and over by a series of socks, nominated for AfD in lieu of yet another speedy tag; I don't think a prod tag would last long either. Hairhorn (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is some coverage of this person in the Duluth newspaper but not nearly enough to meet WP:BIO demands of significant coverage RadioFan (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the networking site he established might just possibly be notable, but that needs to be considered on its own merits. PatGallacher (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If anything, the website itself might deserve an article (no opinion), but I have a hard time believing that creating a non-notable website is itself the stuff of notability. -Glenfarclas (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A7 - This article is written like vandalism. But apparently it's not. We're told the website has been mentioned in four newspapers, so possibly some potential there, but not for Pete Merrill, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (after edit conflict) Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. I have replaced the template in the article, as there is no indication that this is worth spending time and effort discussing at AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - per A7. December21st2012Freak (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deletion declined but delete anyway. I have declined the speedy deletion nomination, as the article at least makes a claim to some sort of notability. However, I believe that claim will not pan out when faced with the need to produce the goods for real. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientrix[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally prodded as "not clear what exactly the product is. Certainly absolutely no evidence of notability" Creator removed prod & changed a few words - but the original prod hasn't been resolved. Skier Dude (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising This is a "concept(tm)" article written as a standin for the company, which is bolded in the writing. This meets several speedy delete criteria. Miami33139 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Blatant advertising, absolutely 0 evidence of notability. LoudHowie (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G11. --Alan (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Either OR or spam. Possibly even both. It's a 'new innovation'. Apart from difficulties with 'old innovations', that militates against notability and whispers 'spammmmmm'. Peridon (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thornbury town fc[edit]

Thornbury town fc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG - does not compete at top tier professional level per WP:ATHLETE and fails WP:CLUB. ukexpat (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A general rule of thumb for English clubs is playing at the 10th level (at worst). This club plays below that level. (Also, Wp:ATHLETE doesn't apply to teams.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I know that strictly speaking WP:ATHLETE doesn't apply to teams but I couldn't find a general rule for English clubs. – ukexpat (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - See Wp:FOOTYN. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Duly noted, thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - never played at a notable level of football -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hasn't competed at a high enough level of football to be considered notable yet. GiantSnowman 16:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether a merge is a good idea is not clear from this discussion and should be discussed on the relevant talk pages. Regards SoWhy 14:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TCP hole punching[edit]

TCP hole punching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No meaningful text, only garbage. Timwi (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, if you know the context its not difficult to understand. Important topic albeit not well written. I copied the lead phrase from a related article although I admit an outsider might still struggle to put it in context. --Pgallert (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I also vote for keeping it. The subject is very complex. I agree that this article does not explain the solution - it only mentions some ideas. Hence it was called garbage. But if it is kept, maybe it will encourage people to expand it. Rather than deleting, I would put "this article is a stub" tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.211.196.37 (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, useful technical reference, but admission of copyvio above should be considered. Kcordina ^Talk 09:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - of no value in explaining subject matter to someone not already an expert, could easily be word salad produced by a random phrase generator. Not all technobarf needs to be included in Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Wtshymanski: this is an unreadable article without context, and would seem to contain a lot of how-to manual material; hard to say, because the text is almost entirely unintelligible. Sysadmin trivia like this falls within the overemphasized portion of Wikipedia's inherent bias. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and more clearly identify context in the lead section. I disagree that there's no value in it because you need to be an expert to understand it - the value of knowledge is inherent but it should be rewritten for a broader audience. Wikipedia isn't meant to instruct, only to inform. Ivanvector (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there should be a WP:ICANTREADIT. Deserving of cleanup, yes. Needing more than 20 edits to make it readable by the average Reader, yes. Notable, yes. Needing deletion, no. There are plenty of articles on WP that are difficult to read (e.g. Hamming code, Inflation (cosmology), Optical tweezers), but isnt that the point of the project? That over time, the topic is explained better and better. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 17:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 17:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion is avoiding the issue of WP:V: can we have some evidence from reliable sources that this is a notable topic in computing? Fences&Windows 17:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment shouldn't this be closed as no consensus? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to NAT traversal and let someone write one intelligible paragraph. This is both a good editorial decision, but also as Fences and windows says, the material as it exists is not verified for a standalone article. Miami33139 (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to NAT traversal. It's good info, but probably not notable enough for it's own article right now. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge but definitely don't delete. Very worthwhile.--Brunnian (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with other similar technical pages. Don't delete. andyminicooper (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Merge with related topic, or rewrite to be clearer but no need to delete. Prefer merging. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge Seems to be a worthwhile topic, either needs to be edited for clarity or merged. If kept, it should most definitely be expanded upon since this is a complex subject. LoudHowie (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Translate Articles need to be comprehensible to a wider group than the ones who know what they're about. That might sound obvious - but how many articles fail it? If I am looking something up on Wikipedia, I like to be able to read the article. Peridon (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reliable sources have been shown to exist and neither chart success nor national news coverage is required by WP:V, WP:N or WP:BAND to establish notability. Regards SoWhy 14:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X Is Loaded[edit]

X Is Loaded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable band who fail WP:BAND. Only sites and refs found are fansites and myspace etc. Non relaible sorces found and tag confirms this therefore the non-notablity. AtheWeatherman 18:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - while a couple of reliable sources exist (a BBC review, for example), they are by no means significant. No indication of chart success. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement that they have chart success for them to have an article under wp:band.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The BBC article is one leg of criterion 1 for me. I would be interested in hearing some views (especially from the UK) on Glasswerk. I see we have a number or WP articles citing to it. (or any more sources, such as the Bath Chronicle article hidden behind a pay turnstile). Am leaning keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Epeefleche (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Another comment. I see they've also come out with one album and a number of singles on notable labels--had it been two albums and no singles, the would clearly meet the wp:band criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep. Based on the BBC article, the other press, and the notable label releases.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What Epeefleche said. There appears to be enough coverage to pass WP:BAND, with sources including two BBC articles [20][21] and one at Drowned in Sound [22].  Gongshow ^Talk 07:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The BBC has regional divisions covering local news, these articles are from BBC Southampton. Cassandra 73 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Still works for me; couple with the other indicia of notability. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 17:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't think that local news show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Joe. Why not? As I read wp:music, the only requirement is that it be an RS. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The subject meets WP:BAND criterion #1, with non-trivial coverage in independent sources BBC.co.uk, Drowned in Sound, North Wales Weekly News, and coverage (and therefore airplay, almost certainly) on Xfm radio [23]. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per user request. Willking1979 (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Tyrrell[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject would like the entry removed (UTC)

• Comment trying a G7. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visionapp Remote Desktop (vRD)[edit]

Visionapp Remote Desktop (vRD) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined G11 nominee. Asserted to be non-notable software product. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Reads like a sales brochure. No notable sources cited in the article and I am unable to find significant coverage for this software. LoudHowie (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I was unable to find significant independent coverage of this product; the closest I came was this, which is not close enough. The long license section is spammy, and it doesn't help that the author is single-purpose and seems to be associated with the subject [24]. Haakon (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam and non-notable. andy (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Not only is it spam, but everything except the infobox and History and See also sections is a copyvio (clumsily reworded in a couple places, but all of the significant text is cut-and-pasted, including grammar errors) of the official site, helpfully listed in external links. —Korath (Talk) 09:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it was probably posted by the owner of the software I suggest we let the AfD run its course to establish lack of notability, in order to prevent re-creation, rather than speedying it. andy (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, agree with all above, also yet another article that sprung into being complete with infoboxes, as one of the creator's first and only edits.[25] I can't speak for the software, but this article was made by pros. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The reasons mentioned for deletion are actually either a) reasons for editing / cleanup (used for self-promotion, bad sources) or b) not valid reasons for deletion (not popular anymore, WP:JNN). The delete !voters failed to explain why the subject is not notable anymore. As such, there was no consensus for deletion. Whether cleanup is required is something that can and should be discussed at the article's talk page. Regards SoWhy 13:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BeatThatQuote.com[edit]

BeatThatQuote.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, self-promotion

Nominated for deletion because I do not believe the site is notable, and the article has a history of being used for self-promotion. Furthermore, at least two of the references appear to be just recycled press releases. A look at Alexa's traffic rankings also indicates that traffic has collapsed since the 2008 period which is cited for notability. Shritwod (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, if it was notable in 2008 it's notable now. I'm impressed by the FT article. Polarpanda (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps John Paleomylites might be notable as an entrepreneur, but I feel that this particular website is not. The FT article was from 2006, nearly three and a half years ago. Shritwod (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does the fact that a source is from three and a half years ago have to do with whether an encyclopedia article should be deleted? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this truly was a notable business, there would be more than a quote from three and a half years ago in the FT to back it up. Also, note that CompareTheMarket.com which is a substantially larger and more notable operation does not even have its own entry, just a mention of its parent BGL Group. Yes, there are some bits and pieces here and there but I really don't think that this passes the notability test. Shritwod (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite The article has already been through nomination once with a Keep consensus. I feel that it should be rewritten to tone down the promotional style. LoudHowie (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rewrite Over promotional. It might be useful if someone with a bit of time could add the other side of the coin. (Don't look at me....) Peridon (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and DePuff Many internet sites have lower traffic over the past two years -- but "once notable, always notable" was a byword. Best solution is to remove the problem prose. Collect (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Never thought this article justified it's existence Jasonfward (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Lodato[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author, list of works include one book published this year, and one upcoming. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 15:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't try to define what a notable author is. Mr Lodato is based in London, Uk. Accordingly, I would prefer it if somebody Uk based were to contest the veritability of this article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pegasuspublishers (talk • contribs) 16:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC) — Pegasuspublishers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not from the UK, but Google.co.uk news results show nothing. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable author, editor seems to have a Conflict Of Interest as the username is the same name as the publishers of Lodato's book. Jarkeld (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - This is strongly leaning toward a7. Smithers (Talk) Give thanks! 16:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and sanction Non-notable author with little evidence of third-party coverage. Wikipedia has guidelines as to what constitutes notability. If you don't want others to review the content you post, then I suggest you don't post. You also do not set the rules as to who can or cannot review articles. DarkAudit (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my own nomination, and pass me the Kleenex. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 16:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment commented out some of Pegasuspublishers's remarks as borderline attacks. As for the article I say mega delete. Article claims notability, so isn't A7 worthy. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly doesn't pass notability guidelines - but not G7. Skier Dude (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree this is promotional materials with no notability. andyminicooper (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No independant sources, no evidence of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of reliable sources from which to write an article. Mrathel (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:IAR closure as snow/speedy/hoax. tedder (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing the Line (2010 film)[edit]

Crossing the Line (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Future film, far too early to know if it will meet Wikipedia notability criteria. Db-a7 speedy declined as WP:SPEEDY a7 doesn't apply to films. Hoping for a snow close without prejudice for re-creation after notability established. Doing this instead of PROD to prevent summary re-creation. Creator used a username which suggested intent was promotional. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: If it's coming out in January, there should be something on the film if it's notable in the slightest. All I can find is the Twitter page which links me in turn to a Facebook page of some sort. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Thejadefalcon (talk · contribs) nominated this for db-a7 just prior to this AFD. As much as I agree with him in spirit, db-A7 doesn't apply to films, db-g11 "blatant advertising" is too tenuous to overcome "when in doubt, don't speedy unless it's necessary, e.g. copyvio, attack, etc.," and "db-reason|don't reward abusers of the wiki" is not a good use of WP:IAR. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not finding coverage for this film. The title makes searching difficult . I'm finding lots of coverage for a film about North Korea with the same title but nothing that mentions this title and the filmakers name. RadioFan (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a ((hoax)) tag, hopefully if this is real someone will find a reference. However, it's probably moot as it's not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 November 2009

• Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP is not a list of jimcrack films, that is what IMDB is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunnian (talk • contribs) 20:03, 26 November 2009
• Note: The editor who created this article is currently blocked due to problems with his username. It's reasonable to assume he would want to keep the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Finding absolutely 0 coverage for this film which is supposedly releasing in all major UK theaters. Googling "Paul Cooper Crossing the Line" brings no results but the Wiki article. Possible hoax or spam, delete. LoudHowie (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If you want to see some of the people named in the article, this might be interesting: http://www.myspace.com/fezichimo_25 It could be coincidence, of course.... I get the feeling from my Google searching that this group are sixth form students, and that this is either a three minute YouTube video they are thinking of making, or a total hoax. Peridon (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

!vote changed - see below. Peridon (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice toward recreation if and or when this film can meet WP:GNG. Currently there are no sources to be found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Hoax Another quick look on Google even tells me the name of the school at which the Sixth Form is located. All but two of the 'cast' are there - and the two missing ones might not have achieved over 95% attendance..... This article is the only ghit for one of the names and the word 'crossing'. This article is a student hoax. Peridon (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't see as much as you did but I did find enough to tie at least 3 people to the same pre-college/university-level school. Agree, delete as hoax. Speedy or IAR/SNOW doesn't matter at this point. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Tagged for speedy with ((db-reason|investigation at AFD revealed that it is ''extremely'' likely this is a hoax. There is no support for this article at AFD, so a snow-closure under AFD may be appropriate as well.)) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As the topic has been proven notable and encyclopedic, deletion is not required; rather, the article needs expansion in order to pass inclusion criteria. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nyctohylophobia[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded; page should be moved to Wiktionary. Bwrs (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is true that the present article presents little more than a dicdef, but any disease, medical condition, etc has potential for expansion beyond a dic-def. It's an acceptable stub which should be kept, allowing it to grow, and there is no WP:DEADLINE for improvement (and the article is only been around for 4 days). Power.corrupts (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a dic-def, an article about a word, and a made-up word at that; it could never be an encyclopedic article about the thing the word denotes because that thing does not exist. The source cited is an "anxietyinsights.info" website which has great lists of these, including:

• Theologicophobia: An abnormal, persistent fear of theology
• Santaphobia: An abnormal, persistent fear of Father Christmas
• Hydrargyophobia - An abnormal, persistent fear of mercury based medicines
• Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia - An abnormal, persistent fear of long words

Anybody can have fun sticking Greek words together and making these up and compiling lists of them (I remember one of Willie Garvin's tall stories involved a girl with arachibutyrophobia, a morbid fear of peanut butter sticking to the roof of the mouth - and now I check, there it is on anxietyinsights.info); but they are not real words and do not correspond to anything real - I doubt if anyone has ever been diagnosed with any of them, or if any psychiatrist ever uses them. I would need to see evidence to the contrary before I considered this for an article. I doubt if Wiktionary would be interested in artificial words like this, either. JohnCD (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Oxford handbook of psychiatry‎ - Page 353 - but I admit that the terms does not seem to be in widespread usage, but it is not WP:MADEUP Power.corrupts (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that too is just a list entry - it doesn't saying anything about it that could expand it beyond a dic-def. I don't suggest it's made up in the WP:NFT sense, but in the sense that it's a constructed word rather than one used to describe something real. JohnCD (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I started all this by creating the page in the first place, I have to say it probably does exist, but no-one seems to know very much about it, so a dic-def on Wikitionary would probably be more appropriate. At least it would then be covered by some research source. --06SmithG (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikitionary. While not something made up in class one day, there's still nothing here that justifies an encyclopedic entry here for this "condition". Transwiki it over, and if anyone ever wnats to build a real, informative article that goes beyond the definition, that'd be fine. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A psychological condition that can be backed up with many, many sources including; [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. It might seem like a dictionary definition but it is still a medical condition, something that makes up the cornerstone of any good encyclopedia. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PowerCorrupts' and Marcusmax's reasonings. De728631 (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from nominator: there are many simple phobias. All of them can be mentioned in the article on specific phobias and/or the list of phobias, as well as being defined in Wiktionary. On the other hand, many of these simple phobias have their own article, so that would be an argument in favor of keeping, albeit a weak one. Bwrs (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is basically that if deleted, there will not be any expansion; if kept, expansion the normal Wikipedia way is at least possible. For some concepts and -isms a stub can look deceptively like a dic-def, until improvement has actually taken place. Sometimes I also try to step back from the nitty-gritty detail of all these guidelines (disliking WP:CREEP) and ask myself if a deletion will actually improve the encyclopdia, beyond the satisfaction and peace of mind in knowing that policies and guidelines are duly enforced. There is a difference (though subtle) between arguing WP:NOHARM of keeping, and WP:NOBENEFIT of deleting. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Marcusmax has shown there are several reliable sources available. Edward321 (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Power.corrupts. Needs to be expanded. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki In order to not be a WP:DICDEF, the article needs to demonstrate that the specific phobia is notable per se -- that it has been discussed in a specific scientific/cultural context, that it has properties beyond those of a simple phobia, etc. The many creative -phobia words for kinds of fear are tempting sources of lexical richness for the authors of the works cited above and in the article, but unless a particular phobia goes beyond the minimum threshold of a rhetorical flourish, it should remain a list entry here and be made a Wiktionary entry. (For an example of a phobia article that meets and exceeds this bar, see agoraphobia.) — æk^Talk 11:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super chimney[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

speculative megaproject based on solar updraft tower that's going to fix global warming as well as generate lots of power ;there are no Gnews, book or scholar hits, and the web hits are either for the project itself or for various blogs discussing it and concluding that it's a crackpot idea. It was previously proposed to merge the two but IMO this idea isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons given, or at least merge to solar updraft tower. Bob A (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, non-notable. Johnfos (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not because it's speculative, pseudo-scientific, etc. but because of lack of coverage. Note the "Reuters article" is a press release, not an independent source. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fringe view to promote a website – not notable. I would not merge to Solar updraft tower because the latter is a proper article which would not be improved by anything from the article under discussion. It might be satisfactory to replace Super chimney with a redirect to Solar updraft tower. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of significant third-party coverage. Don't merge as there's nothing worthwhile there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Solar updraft tower. Agree with Johnuniq and Boris... a merge is not appropriate as everything worth mentioning is already discussed in the tower article. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 14:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 14:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note There is a real product called "Super Chimney", so I'm inclined to oppose the redirect. Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magnoe... could you tell us more about this real product? Is it likely that an article would ever be written about it? Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a brand of chimney liner, as you can see here. It may be discontinued, as I didn't turn up a manufacturer's page, but at any rate I don't see us ever having an article on it. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, why the opposition to a redirect? I think it likely that people would search for the term "super chimney" in the context of looking for information on Solar updraft towers, so it seems like a logical redirect to me. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because then, by implication, we would be validating it as a kind of updraft tower, unless we specifically mentioned it as a bad design thereof. If it's non-notable because it's someone's idea that hasn't yet caught on, our best approach is to ignore it entirely. Mangoe (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rochford community church[edit]

Rochford community church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable community church in England. Does not pass WP:ORG. Warrah (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, no useful google news hits. Polarpanda (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ORG. FairmontMN (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google is not the only arbiter of notability. This is a community church that has existed for 26 years, that makes it very early in the house-church movement, and in a community like Rochford keeping any sort of religious community open is a matter for congratulation. Yes, the article content is sparse, and could be enlarged upon. The church has two web sites, so material is available. if the site is not kept, it should at least be merged with Rochford.--Brunnian (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid you've missed the point on notability. It's not whether the organisation should be congratulated for something, it's whether there is coverage in reliable third-party sources. Google is not an arbiter of notability, but it is customary to search Google / Google News to see if there are any article out there that would support the article. There's no reason why you can't mention the church in Rochford, but the regulars on that page might expect equal coverage with all other places of worship. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable church. The organisation's websites do not constitute reliable sources. Crafty (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing on news search, only blogs and directory listings on web search. The only clause in WP:ORG that might speak in the article's favor would be longevity, but I don't think it suffices. Favonian (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article does not assert notability. Article author has a WP:Conflict of interest, and if the church were sufficiently notable, a third party could write an article about it. Martin451 (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- It is a regret to me that most local churches are NN. The best solution is commonly to merge the article with that for the palce where it is. I have undertaken the requisite edit to Rochford. This means that there is nothing worth retaining here. Alternatively, convert article to Redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing in the article show notability, although the article has very little content other than a mission statement. MilborneOne (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I think i must apologise. I am the author who posted initially the article on Rochford Community Church. I have since added. It wasn't my intention to use the page as advertising for the church. My intention was to build a page to show to other church leaders in Rochford, Essex and to suggest that we could either all have a page or add our individual churches to one page "churches in rochford" for example. I hear and agree that it doesn't fit (in it's current form) within notability guidelines. Is there room for negotiation and some conversation regarding this at all? If not i understand. I am of the opinion that churches do not use web 2.0 that well and am very keen to utilise this medium to it's fullest potential. Any thoughts please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdaddywhale (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dusted Magazine[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability tag has been on the page for almost a year. I have no opinion one way or the other, but would like to know what the community's stance on its notability is before possibly using its reviews in other articles. Remurmur (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this online magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not much coverage found, although some Google News mentions. The site is perhaps not sufficiently notable for an article, but that's no reason to discount it as a source.--Michig (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No coverage, not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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