The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. NW (Talk) 23:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Probable Hoax. Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 23:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the nominator that this is almost certainly a hoax. The only source cited is a book on an entirely different subject. --Malleus Fatuorum 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni F.C. (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 found no sources and few hits on Google. Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 23:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @180  ·  03:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hasn't played at a high enough level to be considered notable. GiantSnowman 19:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - currently playing at 13th level of English football ... no evidence of having played any higher - [1]. Nfitz (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the person who'd already got this article PROD'ed - nobody had disputed the PROD, so why was it felt necessary to bring it to AfD...?!?!?! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agreed, that was a strange decision to send this to AfD when it was already PRODed, although the user has explained why. Still, this club hasn't played at a high enough level, and there's no evidence of general notability. Bettia (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as far as I can tell, they don't meet this requirement: "Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria." Cocytus [»talk«] 23:52, 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 delete - no need to wait for seven days to complete, this was an expired PROD, and also a G3 blatant hoax and a G10 attack: the principal figure in this hoax TV series was a named person who has been the subject of an attack page from this author before. JohnCD (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Social Concerns episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A probable hoax, no sources, no hits on Google. Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 23:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete as a hoax. A check of the Social concerns article shows it clearly is made up as the links to the supposed web site are not to the official network site, and the imdb entry actually is for something completely different. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hoax. No evidence that this show exists. I had already PROD'd the article as a hoax and no one had removed it so AfD was a little premature, but now that we're here... This article was modeled after List of Cory in the House episodes, just as the other article I PROD'd, Social concerns, was also modeled after Cory in the House. The similarities are obvious and some of the information wasn't even changed. Sarilox (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sarilox (talk) 21:28, 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 speedily deleted (G7, author request) by Charles Matthews. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Stone duality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A problematic entry: original research, COI, article ownership and I'm not convinced it's notable. As far as I can tell, this is a research program involving only one person, who is also the main contributor to the entry (see talk). Main contributor also insists he is the only one competent to contribute to the entry or judge notability, and has cited those reasons for removing the prod tag, even though he insists he would prefer there not be an entry on this subject. Needs some expert attention, although the same editor insists there are none besides himself. Hairhorn (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Abstract Stone Duality is the name of a programme of original research by essentially one person (me)" makes it self-evident that this is original research. And you don't have to be a chicken to be able to appraise an omelette. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Kindly read the discussion page

for the reasons why this page exists, and communicate with me directly.

The page was not created by me, but if it exists then I assert my right to ensure that its contents are correct.

Paul Taylor (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We generally communicate in the open around here, it's hard to create consensus through private emails. You are welcome to contribute to articles but there is no right of ownership, simply because there is no ownership of articles. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it says on the relevant policy page at WP:OWN, "Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article." And as it says on every page that allows editing or contribution, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Accounting4Taste:talk 23:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I dont think that having only one person working on this topic makes it improper or impossible to have at least a stub article on it, especially since this is an extremely rarified area of research. general google search for the strings "paul taylor" and "abstract stone duality" together number 539, google scholar 40. the contents of the searches, needless to say, are mostly citations in journals or abstracts of articles by professor taylor. I would say it passes notabity, and thus deserves an article. i know that marginally notable people can request their articles be blanked when there is a good reason to do so. Professor Taylor, is there a compelling reason for not having an article here? The contents of course may be corrected by professor taylor, in the same manner that incorrect biographical material can always be removed by the subject, as long as the material is not already adequately sourced. he could not, say, arbitrarily remove sourced critiques, when and if his work gets to that level. professor, could you be comfortable with a very minimal article, which just allows the curious to understand that its an advanced topological idea, and not something else, with a few links to relevant papers and perhaps your site? regarding the OR claim, its not original research HERE if we (including professor Taylor) are reporting on ALREADY published and peer reviewed original research. remember, all science starts as original research. Im personally not worried that professor taylor is going to in any way abuse his authorship of the theory in either direction. I would welcome any sourced additions by professor taylor. and professor, i assume you would prefer not to have an article about yourself instead?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice chunk of TL;DR, except that the google search only turns up 171 entries if you go to the end. And the GScholar searches turn up passing mentions. It may not be OR but if falls well short of the bar for notability, which includes the words "significant coverage". So Delete it. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the present: I have known Paul for many years; I am also familiar with the area of research described here in broad terms, having been involved in the early 1990s. I'm fairly clear that the creation of the article is a consequence of the inclusion of its topic in the Timeline of category theory and related mathematics, which I think was not prompted at all by Paul (based on my past discussions with him). I say we handle this as follows: Wikipedia:Give an article a chance has not been followed, so for the present the article should be kept. It is a possible merge into Stone duality or some other page, but first of all the material should be edited into "house style". I'd like a chance to assess the content properly under Wikipedia:Original research. Under Wikipedia:Ownership of articles there is a limit to what can be guaranteed to Paul about how the article evolves. I'd like a chance to go over with him this ground, and if it seems the best solution I'll propose a deletion under CSD G7 (author's request). Charles Matthews (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly because of the reasons described by Charles Matthews. I am a professional mathematician and have done original research in Abstract Stone Duality with Paul Taylor. This is a recognized and established area of category-theory/topology/computability theory. It is certainly better to have the article there than to have a misleading link to Stone duality (as it used to be). Also, does everybody's vote here count in equal amount? For example (and with all due resepect), Durrenhusted seems to be basing his vote on a Google search, whereas Charels Matthews and myself are professional mathematicians who are acquainted with the topic. Is Wikipedia an idiocracy? Frege (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. But I have had a quick reply from Paul. The entry on the Timeline of category theory and related mathematics is satisfactory to him; he didn't know of it before. I'm deleting the article since having ASD as a separate topic is marginal for us, and discussion with Paul suggests this as the best solution all round. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:46, 28 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. Cirt (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Youth football coach who does not meet the WP:ATHLETE or WP:N guidelines. Although McDonaugh is mentioned in several sources, there is no detail about his life and career specifically. ie all the source material is about how Hibs are developing youth player A or B, and this is what their coach (McDonaugh) has to say about them. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 23:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom, does not pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 23:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable youth coach which fails the WP:ATH and general notability at WP:GNG due to no significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 14:30, 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. Cirt (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Malibu (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 per WP:BIO, unreferenced, WP:Autobiography, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - not even a reasonable assertion of notability; complete nonsense. Bearian (talk)
• Delete - Non-notable. Found a few hits in a video search, including one local TV show where he is interviewed as a "Malibu resident" (under his real name, not as Mr. Malibu), plus a few that appear to have been privately filmed and put on youtube. If youtube established notability, everybody in the country would be notable. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarent claim to the Kingdom of Jerusalem (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 according to WP:OR and WP:VER

This article refers to Tarent claim to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, nevertheless I don't have found any secondary sources that are about mentioned claim. In wikipedia this is called OR, in fact, in this page we read Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. and Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

The personages who appear until Yolande Louise of Savoy belong to the Cypriot claim, [2] but not to a supposed Tarent claim. After her, the following personages, appear either as claimants to Cyprus (and therefore also of Jerusalem) [3] or of Naples (and therefore also of Jerusalem, across Carlos de Anjou) [4] [5]; but not about a Tarent claim.

In the article a curious affirmation is established: at that point, the claim joined the Duchy of Savoy, but they operated under two different rules of succession, and therefore their union of the Crowns was not perpetual. So, it is assumed simply that the claim to Jerusalem is separated from other kingdoms, as if Jerusalem was a real and effective title, as if such a country existed, or as if there were some organisms (as haute cour) that establised the government or the succession then. In absence of sources that affirm such thing, that is considered to be OR in wikipedia.

Therefore, according to WP:DEL#REASON, this article agrees with Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes), Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed, and therefore it should be deleted. Trasamundo (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - completely non-notable list of claimaints. Bearian (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:OR. andy (talk) 14:29, 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. Cirt (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Bolsover Street has one claim to notability; it is the address of the Arts Tower, Sheffield's tallest building. But there's barely anything else on this very short street, and nothing else worth saying about it. While the article claims it is one mile long, it is more like 100 metres in length. Even the Arts Tower is actually accessed from the opposite side. Warofdreams talk 21:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Arts Tower since this building appears to be the only notable thing about this street. --MegaSloth (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blue Square Thing is quite correct - there are almost certainly many Bolsover Streets thus a redirect is inappropriate and the page should be deleted. --MegaSloth (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing in article to show notability, nothing much in article other two images either. Redirect would be a waste of time as anybody searching for the Arts Tower is unlikely to use Bolsover Steet as a search string. MilborneOne (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above - also likely to be other towns with streets of the same name. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above - not notable, with no references. Yes, very likely that other towns (an example Bolsover itself, a nearby village), will surely have a Bolsover Street, so a redirect wouldn't work. Ggoere (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Transport in Sheffield. Ggoere (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Second thoughts about merging with Transport in Sheffiels: no other small suburban road is included in the page. So I vote for it to be deleted because it is not notable, with no references. And yes, it is very likely that other towns (an example Bolsover itself, a nearby village) will have a Bolsover Street, so a redirect wouldn't work. Neither would a merge.

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted material (as well as no indication it meets the guidelines for inclusion). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle B. Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Google reveals lots of user-generated hits for Kyle B. Thompson, but I can find no WP:RS indicating notability for this individual at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I didn't realize this was a recreation of a deleted page until I Xfd'd it. I've tagged it for a speedy deletion accordingly and an admin will see if it's sufficiently similar to the deleted page, I guess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy removed by admin. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (Edit conflict x2) Comment I have compared this with the previously-deleted one and it is considerably more developed: I do not think WP:CSD#G4 applies here, and I have removed the speedy tag. This should go through its own AfD. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reliable sources to support a claim of notability per WP:GNG. Andrea105 (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 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. Cirt (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marqed (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 totally fail to see the notability of this piece of software, but the article's autor - who happens to be the developer - deprodded the article. De728631 (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable software, and the article itself is very poor. LoudHowie (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete actually this is apparently web content, and fails that test as well: It was founded in August 2009.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any coverage of this software in any reliable sources. Fails the notability test. Transmissionelement (talk) 23:32, 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 no consensus, default to keep.

To begin with, the rough headcount is two thirds in favor of keeping, so we have no manifest consensus to delete and an apparent near consensus to keep.

I must, however, examine whether there is a "delete" argument that, under applicable policy, clearly outweighs the "keep" arguments or even mandates deletion. I find that this is not so. The principal "delete" argument (with which a majority of contributors disagrees) is that the list is highly vulnerable to WP:BLP problems and is not maintained adequately to cope with them. This is a valid, but not a compelling argument, since we do not generally delete articles for having problems (much less potential problems) that can be fixed through means other than deletion, e.g. removal of unsourced entries or protection.

Finally, the "keep" majority view, while not generally very well argued, is not so poorly presented that it must be given sufficiently little weight so as to be outweighed by the "delete" minority. We have, therefore, no consensus to delete this list, and it is kept by default.  Sandstein  08:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of male performers in gay porn films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Much better implemented as a category. This list is silly and continues to present BLP issues (see for example here). --MZMcBride (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is it better as a category? Polarpanda (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not, lists and categories are to complement each other. A category only lists articles that already exists and gives no other information. This list is in the middle of a lengthy needed overhaul that I started five months ago. -- Banjeboi 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- "B-b-b-b-but it would be a better category!" is not a reason for deletion. BLP issues can be dealt with by editing, there is absolutely no reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I looked over the previous four AfDs for this, more than I've ever seen for any other article, and can offer no better-reasoned or better-phrased argument than that of User:DGG from #2: "Keep Much better as a list, in addition to a category--the list offers the opportunity of providing context such as dates, thus assisting navigation. There is no such thing as too broad a list if it is being properly maintained, as this one seems to be. As justifiable as all film actor lists, all of them good choices as topics for lists--except of course to the people for who all lists are listcruft. Nobody is forcing them to read or work on them, and they should find better things to do than delete navigational devices that other people find useful." Could there possibly be a rule that if something survives five AfD's, it's bullet-proofed against subsequent ones? I don't find it difficult to assume good faith, but surely there must be topics that could benefit more from the time and effort involved in the AfD process. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if kept, should this be renamed "List of performers in gay porn films" since having "male" and "gay" would be redundant (in the sense that no females can be gay, only lesbian)? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because all males, including transmen and dragqueens who appear in gay porn films, are not actually gay, some are bisexual, questioning or even gay-for-pay. -- Banjeboi 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah didn't know that. Disregard my earlier comment. 14:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. This list was deleted after the initial AFD, and the consensus regarding successor articles, more than once, was to keep only so long as the list was limited to performers verified as notable by reliably sourced articles. It's now a gigantic redlink farm with several entries identified at BLPN as obviously linked to articles on different individuals known by similar names. A ridiculous number of the entries have unreliable sources -- blogs, imdb, promotional retailer/producer pages, etc. It's become clear that the list isn't going to be properly maintained, and that the failure to properly maintain the list spawns major BLP problems. The problems are much more manageable if only the category is kept, and navigational aids can easily be generated as needed by using increasingly fine-grained categories. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists and categories work together as noted above and previous 4th AfD. Also sourcing issues are being addressed but if any actual BLP problem - as opposed to general alarm or "concern" - exists then please note it on the talk page and I will fix it of no one else does. Also redlinks are there to show which performers we do have articles for as well as those we do not - we include them to specify them as distinct from articles of the same name that do exist. People adding wikilinks to teh wrong article has been an issue. Semi-protection may be a good option but the volume of vandalism doesn't seem to rise to that level. -- Banjeboi 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Such a list is clearly a BLP disaster magnet, and we should depart from our usual "if it can be maintained" standards. "If" is not good enough. First off, if kept, a list like this must be protected against vandalism. Secondly, it must have people who will promise to consistently maintain it, people trusted by editors to have high standards and through understanding of Wikipedia sourcing. If we can't get such a group of editors whom we can trust, then delete (see below) will be the way it goes for me. I'll look in on this discussion from time to time. Ray^Talk 00:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just don;t see that. It is limited to notable performers, nd their inclusion in it must be justified in the article on them. if there are sufficient sources for giving their role, there are sufficient for the list. People added without there being Wikipedia articles can be removed easily enough, as for all such lists where BLP or spam are real possibilities. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but since when do we delete things because they MIGHT be difficult? Should we not be assuming good faith? Umbralcorax (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith in each and every editor I interact with is not quite the same as boundless, Kellogg-Briand Pact levels of optimism in their omnipotence and perfection. Given that this is the 5th AfD on the subject, I think a touch of skepticism on our ability to maintain such a list without BLP violations is not out of order. Ray^Talk 04:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have been cleaning this article for five months but if someone would like to join forces and proves to know what they are doing i would love to collaborate, I hope to get this to featured list but I'm not in a rush. -- Banjeboi 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to Keep per Benjiboi's work. I spent some time reviewing it, and it does seem properly sourced - there is immense potential for BLP violation, but actual violations seem to have been minor and dealt with properly. My request for page protection was denied on the grounds that we don't protect articles currently at AfD; I strongly suggest the closing admin indefinitely semiprotect the page to protect from IP vandals and the like. Ray^Talk 21:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if and only if the article is reduced to bluelinks and semi-protected indefinitely. The list itself is notable and its presence is encyclopedic, but the content is prone to vandalism and BLP errors. Reducing the article to bluelinks about people known for their performances in porn will help with the BLP issues, as would semi-protection and a rigorous demand for reliable sources. ThemFromSpace 04:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anon vandalism hasn't been unmanagable and there seems no reason to treat this list any different then all other lists on people. If there is any actual problem then civilly point it out on the talkpage and I'll sort it out of no one else does. -- Banjeboi 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and unfortunately a trout for nom.

Whack! The WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis) is used to make subtle yet hopefully long-term adjustments to clue levels in experienced Wikipedians.

As the last AfD, five months ago, showed the list is on a notable subject, is indeed much more than a category is and can be sourced and cleaned up. I have been doing so for months and generally have seen very few issues that weren't easily fixable. Every issue remains normal editing which means this is not a good candidate for deletion by any measure no matter how loudly a certain editor wants to beat a drum about BLP - if an person indeed is verified as acting in gay porn?, that would seem to address the concern that we aren't besmirching their reputation. it may prove shocking but many porn actors gay and otherwise, are actually proud of their work and career. Social stigmas notwithstanding all issues are simply clean-up ones. -- Banjeboi 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 05:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur that given the subject matter, the BLP concerns, and the past history of the article, that it is worthy for deletion. MBisanz ^talk 06:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridiculous. What few BLP issues may exist are easily fixable by correctly disambiguating, adding sourcing, or if needed removing items as unverifiable. We don't delete entire lists because a problem might exist, show what items are actually a problem and fix those, normal editing can address these issues much as they do on every other BLP. -- Banjeboi 06:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Benjobi.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And, I might add, this was closed a "keep" just months ago. There should be a rule against renominations of keeps so quickly -- if at all.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - due to the BLP problems that have been documented at the BLP noticeboard. Yes, normally we should not delete when there are problems with an article that can theoretically be fixed, but for good reasons BLP should and are an exception. From the article history I do not see much effort has gone into maintaining this list (understandably given the size of the list and the multitude of references that would have to be checked individually) in the past, so given this, the past deletion discussions, and given the way Wikipedia works the only likely outcome is that this list will remain a BLP nightmare. Pantherskin (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense. Over the past five months 200+ references have been added and the majority of items vetted. Declaring that problems can only be "theoretically" fixed is sheer foolishness. Systematically every item has to be checked, claiming there simply must be problems is vague and quite misleading. Items are given context and sources and this has been taking place since the last AfD five months ago when the list was no more than a list of names with a lede. The references there are not the issue, the only ones that need to be backed up are IMDb - and even those are likely acceptable to show a stage name is used in gay porn - so the only entries to cause concern are the ones with no context or sourcing. Claiming BLP is a serious issue that needs to be backed up with regular editing to fix any items that are found to be problematic. That deletion of the entire list is even considered suggests this is reactionary and not based in sound editing or policy. -- Banjeboi 08:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Wow. Simply astonished at your diatribe and your distortions. I strongly suggest that you retract this reply. That the BLP issues are still not resolved five months after the latest AfD supports my point. Pantherskin (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every BLP issue that has ever been pointed out has been resolved, that others might exist likely means it's a big list. If you have a particular BLP item please fix it by adding sources or tag it as needing sources, etc. If you're unwilling to do the work please don't disparage those that are. -- Banjeboi

That is simply not true. Yes, some issues has been resolved, but that is besides the point, as this article has continually created new issues that typically remained unresolved for months, what is simply not acceptable given the serious BLP violations. If this would be the first or second AfD, I guess then it would be reasonable to hope that in the future more attention is paid to these issues, that this has not happened after the fourth AfD means only that there a few doubts that it will remain a BLP violations magnet. Pantherskin (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what is false is the idea that "this article has continually created new issues that typically remained unresolved for months". I have personally vetted everything that has been added since I started clean-up and there were indeed some vandalism which was found to be lacking merit and simply removed. Little of it has remained for more than days. And every article is subject to some vandalism, if this one seems to be getting too much we simply look to see if semi protect is needed. I think if it were requested now it would be denied as there just hasn't been that much. -- Banjeboi 19:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If the list was made into a category, or if we required all the red links to be removed, someone is likely to create articles on all the currently red-linked performers, as nearly all seem to pass WP:PORNBIO. This would create bigger maintenance and BLP problems overall. Epbr123 (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On some of the individual bios we currently have I have been recommending merge until a stand-alone article could be called for. This is exactly how lists keep this information in check. -- Banjeboi 08:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for all the valid reasons listed in the previous 4 nominations. Any person on the list incorrectly sourced can easily be removed, if that is the BLP objection. What a waste of time re-nominating.—Ash (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't get the "waste of time" argument. Nobody's obligated to participate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it contains useful information, and a category cannot be properly watchlisted. It would seem that there is not a similar list as informative as this anywhere on the Internet. I also agree with all of the above keep !votes. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, despite the fact that the list presents many problems and challenges. I simply can't find a solid, policy-based reason to delete. The page will clearly require significant patrolling and maintenance, but it contains verifiable and potentially useful information which merits inclusion. Doc Tropics 15:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• BLP problems? I look at the talk page, and all I see there since August is a discussion over whether it should have an image, and what the image should be. I do see that there are a number of people listed without articles, but in each case a suitable reason is given --generally an award that would presumably qualify them for an article. Checking a few, it is not the case that they had articles, but the articles were deleted. Strange--I was under the impression that this was one area where we had fairly comprehensive coverage. We seem to have more work to do in writing articles than I thought, DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been a concerted effort to first stub then delete content/articles in this area. After all the awards have been added I was going to start looking through more scholarly efforts as the awards tend to be a bit U.S. and major-studio -centric. Then each entry could be better seen for which entries likely should have an article next. This is especially true for early stars who certainly meet notability but no one has really dug in, or for those that have helped shape the industry like Aaron Lawrence (entrepreneur) who seems to have rewritten the book on male hustling including his entrepreneurial use of self-made amateur porn. -- Banjeboi 19:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:BLP - "Article improvement to a neutral, high-quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced to good quality sources, neutral, and on-topic." Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:SALAT - "Lists of people must follow Wikipedia's policy on biographical information about living people. For example, care must be taken when adding people to the list of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, and must be sourced reliably." Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:LSC - "Don't use a list as a "creation guide" containing a large number of redlinked unwritten articles". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should know this but here goes, (i) No one has mentioned any dubious material yet but if the topic is brought up on the talk page likely it can be addressed; (ii) No one's suggesting we should violate BLP in any way and obviously a listing here places no one in a category of actually being LGBT; (iii) No one's using this as a clean-up guide, instead this is becoming the parent article to see where gaps in our coverage are and to see what standards could be set for what would be considered notable list inclusion; likely we'll end up with several paths to inclusion depending on when the person was active. -- Banjeboi 02:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - five nominations?! Jeez. Not every category deserves a list, but this one does, as it can be used to present much more info than the category - year of debut, nationality, awards etc. GiantSnowman 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - with a barnstar to ben for all of his work on this article. Instead of putting the article up for deletion, why not solve those potential BLP issues? Ikip (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is an interesting and important list. Keraunos (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important how? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Award winning or otherwise important pornographic actors are listed here. If the proper term is pornographic, not porn, then shouldn't the name be changed though? Dream Focus 23:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now there have been claims of ongoing BLP problems that for months haven't been addressed. If that is the case, I might change my mind, but I'd want to see an example or two and the deletion side has yet to provide any as far as I can tell. Anyone? Hobit (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Matt. @Kate (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - major BLP concerns and there is no need for there to be a list on this when categories more than suffice. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please demonstrate what major BLP problems exist rather than "major BLP concerns", also categories only list an article title with no contextual information so not only do we lose any listing that doesn't have an article we also lose all the context that WP:Lists provide. -- Banjeboi 16:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I am not the nom here, will not be !voting here, and don't necessarily think the list should be deleted. I am concerned by the BLP issues which I have laid out here (and please don't turn this AfD into a rehash of that thread, Benjiboi). The idea that this article is actually providing information not available throgh categories seems to be predicated on some other list or perhaps an idealised version of this list. Additional categories may be required -- such as Category:GayVN Award winners or similar -- but to me that preferable to the nest of unreliable websites improperly used as references in this list (including porn sites which request a login name and password). The use of categories also avoids some of the issues related to red linked articles and inclusion of performers even after their articles have been deleted for sourcing and notability concerns. Compare this list to List of pornographic actresses by decade, the most closely analogous female porn performer article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Odd, you seem to be locked in a loop, going over the same arguments again and again. After my first edit on this list, you immediately welcomed me with several of the same questions (diff), in particular the issue of login which I answered on my talk page. Perhaps WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT has some guidance that might help you?—Ash (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't agree with your characterization of product pages on commercial porn sites as reliable sources, or your contention that it was reasonable to link to porn sites which require login credentials. It was clear from your response that any further discussion would be a waste of my time. BLPs require more care than usual in choosing appropriate sources - BLPs which label the subjects as gay porn performers doubly so. The policies and guidelines are very clear on this, but it seems editors are not inclined to work on these articles to bring them into conformance. This is likely the reason why there have been so many AfDs for this list. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The BLP issue, that we claim Johnny Foo as a performer in gay porn is immediately answered by linking to his own porn page or his bio/page on one of the porn companies. It would be better to replace those with more neutral sources but to appease BLP we are indeed ensuring we remain compliant. If you honestly think a gay porn actors own page is not a reliable source that he indeed is a gay porn actor then maybe the good folks at RSN can help clear that up. There really was no need for any AfDs for this list beyond #4 when the article started to undergo sourcing to comply with BLP concerns. That overhaul has continued for five months now and will continue long after this discussion closes. Your characterizing of all editors working on hundreds of articles as unwilling to abide policies is disingenuous at best. I've yet to see an article on gay male pornography that hasn't gone through drama similar to what you seem to offer where content is deleted and then restored with sourcing and policy-based reasoning. As far as I can tell your sole contribution in this area is to work at deleting content and articles forcing other editors to address your concerns no matter what the motivation. It seems disruptive to me. -- Banjeboi 18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Ash has pretty much called it. This is very much sky is falling BLP! BLP! Why wouldn't we re-hash that BLP thread, or the ANI one before that? This all started because you seem to want to remove/diminish an image of Michael Lucas (by David Shankbone) from the lede. You started the ANI thread when you let it slip you simply couldn't be bothered to address the BLP concerns because you were too busy edit-warring on the image. Then at BLP you were basically proven wrong and likely lazy - the big BLP concern? - that wikilinks went to the wrong person - ((sofixit)). But no problem, every issue will be sorted out, those links to pornsites confirm that we aren't violating BLP - presumable your current concern and every other reasonable issue will be dealt with by more level headed editors who really have no vested interest in whether we have this content here or not. And the reason that the only comparable list of women in porn to you seems to be List of pornographic actresses by decade likely has only one explanation - this is the only list for men in gay porn films. And more categories simply don't equal replacing a list - see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. -- Banjeboi 17:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Benjiboi, please strike your remarks. Calling me "lazy" and once again implying that I am a homophobe are clear personal attacks. As is your repeated claim that I edit-warred over an image (which the article history will show that you were the one reverting multiple editors to restore). I'm here to comment on the issues raised in this AfD, not to bicker with you. Incidentally, you may wish to check the credit on that image - unless you know that Commons user "I Smell Beaver" is yet another of David Shankbone's alternate accounts, the image has nothing to do with him. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again you are the only one bringing up homophobia - but it seems like the fourth thread you've done so. And you know very well which image I mean and it remains your edit-war. As for lazy there likely is a better word or turn of phrase. I mean to state that although you claim BLP concern about wikilinks pointing to the wrong person - which is easily fixable - you have shown "a disinclination to work or to take trouble" to fix the problem you seem to think is important enough for two admin threads and now the AfD discussion. You seem to be very inspired to delete content on gay male pornography but completely disinclined to ensure our coverage of it is thorough or comprehensive in any way. If there is a better explanation than that or a more accurate word than lazily correcting BLP concerns I'm very open it. -- Banjeboi 18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is an AfD, not ANI. You are welcome to leave your comments on my talkpage. Please strike your personal attacks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Checking the discussion here and considering the guidance of WP:PA, I don't believe the word "lazy" used in this context would be considered a personal attack. Perhaps you should have a nice cup of tea and a sit down instead?—Ash (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While appreciating that the nom showed good faith in his thought that consensus might have changed in the few months since the article's last keep, consensus has not (yet) changed. The notability shown then has not declined. The arguments toward it being a problem article only require care and a good watch. Surmountable issues do not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I worked on maintaining this article for a while, which at the time mostly meant deleting redlinks. ("Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles"). As long as the list is carefully maintained it isn't a problem. OTOH, I think this material is covered in other databases so the information wouldn't disappear if were deleted from here.   Will Beback  talk  19:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other databases are still not Wikipedia, are generally not as reliable, neutral, dispassionate and are much more likely to be commercially related or biased. We can help set a higher bar for material that generally avoids all those issues while adding encyclopedic context including links to other articles. Additionally I'm more and more convinced that once a conscientious overhaul has taken place we'll be more readily able to see some of the gaps of coverage we may have in this area. Since many involved in the industry are known to be Internet friendly we may even win over a few editors to being good Wikipedians. -- Banjeboi 19:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - listcruft in the extreme & a BLP nightmare. References would have to be extensive and impeccable - they haven't been, though - Allie ^❤ 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain better how this is either WP:Listcruft -indiscriminate or trivial lists - or extreme listcruft? -- Banjeboi 01:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. From Wikipedia:Listcruft#Meaning, it is my opinion that this list meets points 6, 7, 9 and definitely 11. Also marginally, points 2 and 8 - Allie ^❤ 02:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great, let's look at those now:

6. The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable

This is hardly true, it's being maintained presently and as the clean-up continues we'll probably lean on WP:Pornbio to help delineate what parameters should apply to which performers - likely by time frame as sourcing and awards differ greatly over time periods. Also the industry has greatly changed so someone who is not very notable may have plenty of coverage now whereas a superstar in the 1980s may have very little coverage available online.

7. The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category

You seem to be looking at a different list completely if all you see are wikilinks already in the category.

9. Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view, and reliable sources for avoiding it are not available.

Already demonstrated as untrue although sourcing will remain an issue, I'm convinced that many names will continue to try to be added so the lede will have to adjust to define inclusion. We clearly aren't there yet but i don't believe anyone claimed we were.

11. The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date.

Also untrue, there is a disproportionate effort right now but only because of what seems to be a concerted effort to target this cntent. No worries - our coverage of gay porn will indeed be improved because of all this attention.

2. The list is of interest to a very limited number of people

I hope you're kidding on this one, this subject is obviously of interest but some page stats could help clear up if anyone is indeed looking atthe page.

8. The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia.

On traditional encyclopedias? Possibly not but a good encyclopedia certainly would. -- Banjeboi 04:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, most likely. 6) The list has been shown to be unmaintainable. That's why we're back here now. Lots of promises last time & no action. It accumulates cruft & unreferenced BLP problems. 7) It's a bunch of links and redlinks. A category would work better. Merge the repeated stuff back into the main BLPs. Job done! 9) Sourcing is a massive issue and you're understating the problem here. We need to be "there yet" as this is a BLP nightmare. I suggest all unreferenced entries be excised immediately and future ones get removed if unreferenced. No 'getting there' - not with biographical articles like this. 11) Speaks for itself. The article will need constant monitoring & right now, about 130 people are watching it - mostly due to this AfD. Not enough as the number of active editors will be waaayyy less than this. 2) Not kidding. It's niche. 8) It's unencyclopedic. On traditional encyclopedias? Definitely. On Wikipedia - yes, IMO - Allie ^❤ 05:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly disagree. 6) "Lots of promises last time & no action" is patently false, any look at the article history over the last five months shows at least 500 edits 7) "It's a bunch of links and redlinks." is also patently false. The vast majority of entries list and source accomplishments of each performer to indicate why they are included 9) This remains yet not a BLP nightmare at all, the big concern was a wikilink pointing to the wrong person, that happens all the time and is being fixed; unreferenced entries are being looked at, as of yet I think I've found exactly one that I couldn't easily find sourcing to indicate they had, in fact, been a performer in gay porn. 11) "The article will need constant monitoring" - every article needs constant monitoring, one each entry has been vetted that becomes even easier; semi-protection was declined as the vandalism has been insignificant. And it only takes one editor, but there have been quite a few reverting vandalism - we have yet to establish that certain editors or a set number of editors have to watch certain articles; this one should be treated the same as all others regarding vandalism; 2) "It's niche." would be a reason to merge to a larger list if this niche wasn't such a massive industry. If this were a sub-list like list of male performers in gay bondage porn films you may have a case, but no. 8) "It's unencyclopedic. On traditional encyclopedias? Definitely. On Wikipedia - yes, IMO" You seem to be contradicting yourself here but plenty of editors disagree with you on this so it may not need belabouring. Thank you for sharing your opinion though. -- Banjeboi 17:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi, it might be illustrative to look at the "clean-up" statistics on a monthly basis rather than in the aggregate. The previous AfD was in July 2009. There were 266 edits that month, likely inspired by the AfD itself. In August there were 37 edits. There were 27 edits in September and 37 edits in October. It wasn't until this AfD and my posting at the BLP noticeboard that there was any serious effort made to even verify that the links actually pointed to gay porn performers. I found half a dozen without even trying. I'm sorry, but your promises to clean up the article have not resulted in an improvement, but a larger problem. I have not undertaken to fix this myself because of your ownership issues and your personal animus against me.

Judging from you edits to completely unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs, you do not seem to have a firm grasp of the policy. You shouldn't be adding to unsourced BLPs, you should be asking for them to be userfied or deleted until you can find references. Articles you have edited very recently like Paul Carrigan, Nick Harmon, Pierre Fitch should likely be stubbed until better sources can be found. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention to gay pornography is indeed commendable, we likely wouldn't have this AfD at all if your alarmist threads at both ANI and BLP didn't occur. As for me doing routine clean-up on an article? First off please - for the fifth time - please leave me alone and stop following me around - it's WP:Wikihounding. It's not my job to fix every problem on every article and you should know that by now. I don't know who you think appointed you hall monitor but you have made routine clean-up into a toxic and drama filled mess where none was needed. As for pointing out what I should be doing you miss the more salient point - you're all hopped up about what you see as a a BLP issue but yet you fail to fix the very easily-addressed wikilink while admonishing me for not doing something on articles I'm really not that involved with ... because ... I'm cleaning up this article as you've stirred up excess drama here. At some point you may wish to consider if your editing is to cause tension or actually work to build consensus - that it's not readily apparent may indicate more of the former is taking place when the emphasis should certainly be on the latter. Your edit summary as well - "claims of clean-up" seems to indicate an eagerness to cause distress or WP:Bait which seems wholly incompatible with our WP:Civilty policies. -- Banjeboi 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this AfD alone, Benjiboi has stated half a dozen times that they have been cleaning up this list for 5 months. That claim is simply not supported by the history of the article. A concern was raised on the talk page about a link pointing to the wrong person, but remained unaddressed for almost two months during his alleged clean up. How did that bad link get there? Benjiboi did it! The editor that is supposedly cleaning it up! For four months, we told readers that a Canadian football player was a gay porn performer. Several people here have commented that their keep votes are predicated on the idea that there the article will actually be cleaned up and watched over. I'm not advocating deletion of this article, but no one should be under any illusion that it will differ significantly from the way it is now unless they make it happen. I offered to start a working group to resolve some of the BLP issues, but no one took me up on it. It is clear that Benjiboi would prefer that I stay away from it, so I am. For now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A category would cover this quite nicely and would make BLP issues much less worrisome. AniMate 22:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been addressed already, a category only list the actual titles of articles within a category and, obviously only those that already exist. The existence of either does not negate the need for the other nor do they duplicate each other. That should be fairly obvious in this case. -- Banjeboi 01:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It seems every time this is nominated for deletion, people will say it's managable/can be fixed. Yet several months later, we're back discussing the same issues. As others have mentioned this is a BLP nightmare and quite listcrufty. The fact that over 50% of the entries in the list are red links so the extend of the problem. If this is kept, all redlinks should be removed, as is done with other problematic lists on wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I started fixing it last time - 5 months ago - and everyone agreed that the issues were indeed resolvable. The list has been continually cleaned up since then and we are making a sincere effort to make it a good and eventually featured list. That redlinks exist means that we are woefully lacking coverage in this area. If you actually dispute any of these performers have been in gay porn films please make a note on the talkpage so the issue can be looked at. -- Banjeboi 01:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Several editors have taken on the task to ensure each listing directs to the correct article or add a disambiguation if not, we are roughly 2/3 done over the last few days. -- Banjeboi 01:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this list is over 170k long!!! Good grief! %-/ - Allie ^❤ 02:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be including html, once all the drama moves on a clean-up aspect will have to address breaking it down into several smaller lists although it seems premature until we actually clean-up and remove entries that likely don't belong here and add ones that do. -- Banjeboi 04:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and take to FL. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but immediately remove all unsourced entries. Only replace them once reliable sources have been found. There should be no unsourced entries here at all. LadyofShalott 07:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's only a handful that I'm aware that don't have either sources or articles. Once the wikilink clean-up has completed I intend to ensure every entry is sourced or hidden/removed. Part of the issue is ongoing maintenance, we need to develop some criteria that are logical and intuitive so when someone wants to add something we can match it up to see if it meets inclusion. Likely a list on the talkpage of removed entries will collect some of those so we don't have to re-review every few months for repeat customers.

• I just counted four with no bluelink or citation, a small number, but they must be removed (which I am about to do). Also entries removed do not belong on the talk page for the same BLP reasons they don't belong in the list. I also find the results listed below of Hullabaloo's analysis troubling. We need impeccable sourcing for a list such as this. LadyofShalott 19:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC) I have now removed those four entries. LadyofShalott 19:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This issue remains however that entries may be removed for not being notable but still might be male performers in gay porn films thus they wouldn't be any BLP violations. Similarly, if someone means to add for instance John Foo, We simply have a list of people removed who show either no involvement in the industry and/or no demonstration they notability guidelines. That would certainly not violate BLP. -- Banjeboi 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up. BLP issues are fixable, and the list exposes a lack of coverage that categories would not. Would the information be better presented in a sortable table (stage name, name, awards, details)? --Clifflandis (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not although that is still in consideration. Some of the entries descriptions are rightfully larger and that diminishes the usefulness of such a table. The other issue is the many performers who use multiple names including single names. Alphasorting by last name is more standard on Wikipedia but the industry seems to favor listing by first name; we'll also have to cross-reference the a.k.a. names. The main problem with a table remains that the descriptions will always be lengthy in some cases which would seem to make it impractical. -- Banjeboi 17:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like every man who was ever credited for appearing in gay porn is featured here, which is not encyclopedic. BLP issues are flagrant, and WP:RS is barely considered. This would be better suited strictly as a category. Warrah (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly ever man involved ... but believe what you will and the category issue has been addressed several times already. -- Banjeboi 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Despite the frequently-made claim that the article has been substantially cleaned up and properly referenced, major BLP and RS issues remain, probably more than at the time of the previous AFD. For example,
  • 23 items are cited to message board posts (ref 12, 36, 290, as of current revision)
  • 62 items are cited to the "Adam Gay Video 2004 Directory," a low-rent pornographic publication of no demonstrated reliability
  • more than 30 items are cited to imdb, and most of these are the only citations for the listed name
  • about a dozen items are cited to the unreliable iafd
  • 24 items are cited to the "Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory"
  • 39 items are cited to the "Adam Gay Video 1999 Directory"
  • 14 items are cited to pages on the Lucas Entertainment retailer website
  • 10 items are cited to a list of "awards" given by an online columnist identified only as "Onan The Vulgarian"
  • 4 items are cited to the National Enquirer (ref 104)
  • 1 item is cited to a self-characterized "male escort review" site (ref 144)
  • 18 items are cited to retail pages or other promotional material for Bel Ami Films
  • 6 items are cited to retail pages for Falcon Studios
  • Other sources failing WP:RS include retail site AEBN, used magazine retail sites, retail site tlavideo.com, retail site nakedsword.com, at least half a dozen blogs (eg gaypornblog, thugofalltrades), and the menatplay retail site. The lack of reliable sourcing is endemic.
  • Although the list is supposedly limited to notable article subjects, many of the entries have no sources evidencing notability under the applicable specialty guideline, and users involved in maintaining the article are inconsistently arguing at AFD that content for subjects who fail the notability guidelines should be merged into this article.
    
• BLP issues remain rampant; many of the alternate names and identifications listed are either completely unsourced or manifestly unreliably sourced. Note, for example, the listing of the independently notable František Huf, who is identifed as performer "Boris Tomek" even though that claim has never been sourced; an imdb page not mentioning Huf is provided as a "reference." It is, of course, possible that Huf could turn out to be Tomek, but it's also clear that no one has ever provided a source actually associating the two -- the most basic requirement for making the relevant claim, both here and in the individual article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These remain sourcing issues but are routine clean-up. Linking to a porn site where someone's name is confirmed to indeed be performing in gay porn would indicate that in fact they do thus addressing BLP concern. And those "non-notable" awards listings do exactly the same. -- Banjeboi 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• And more Roughly 20 names on the list are cited as notable because they have won something called the "Dave" Award; in about half the cases this appears to be the only claim to notability. The "Dave" Award, it turns out, is "awarded" by a single non-notable reviewer in a non-notable minor pornographic magazine. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't this analysis be better moved to Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films for further discussion and potential action? A link would do the job as a justification for your opinion. Note, I have raised RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source as this particular catalogue is the most widely used reference called into question.—Ash (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think so, but if you want to, feel free to copy it over there. One of the issues here is whether the list is properly maintained to avoid BLP/RS problems, and the post addresses that directly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      This is good work, and I understand that you want it to be visible here. But this page is already very long and creates problems (see my talk page), so it would be better to keep it only in the most appropriate place and refer to that from here.

      I also understand if you are frustrated that earlier issues have not been fixed. To keep it fair, we would have to search for them in the old AfD discussion, and assess whether they have been fixed now. We also need an agreement on which sources count as WP:RS. That can't be done in the normal time for an AfD. A cleaner and more feasible alternative seems to me to start a list of clear conditions now and set an ultimatum - say 3 months - for these to be addressed. After that time, we can ask ArbCom to assess if these are indeed fixed, and based on that assessment the article will be deleted or stays. How does that sound? — Sebastian 00:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • I don't see any reason to move it elsewhere, because it speaks directly to an issue raised by the nominator -- whether this navigational guide is "better implemented as a category." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • Which has already been addressed that it obviously couldn't - entries are here that don't have articles yet but obviously could. What remains is routine clean-up. -- Banjeboi 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

          • No, it hasn't. It's been argued about and danced around, but the main issue hasn't been resolved. This isn't a matter for "routine cleanup"; if we actually did routine BLP cleanup, most of this list would be deleted. The "cleanup" since the last AFD has included a substantial increase in the amount of unacceptably sourced content, promotional linking, and general ignoring of the relevant notability guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            • Actually it has, lists and categories do not negate the need for each other - they work in tandem and complement one another. In addition there are folks who certainly are notable enough but simply, IMHO, don't yet need an article. For them a list i sideal as we simply note why they are notable and allow that an article could someday be written about them. And yes, every concern mentioned is routine clean-up (fixing wikilinks, tightening the lede, better sourcing, etc) these are things that are addressed through regular editing. And "promotional" websites can indeed be reliable sources and they certainly aren't being used in a "promotional" way. This is a massive list so the cleaning up is going in waves with the first wave to note which performers have been recognized with awards and when were they active as performers. As you may guess this would help point out who was considered notable and when. In addition they are the variables that those awards didn't always exist, some have stopped while others have started. Also they tend to be US centric, I haven't yet added the international ones. Meanwhile it's hard to tell the average anon you can't add ____ unless you prove they meet the list requirements as we haven't been be to clearly define who could/could not be allowed for the above reasons. Ergo we have allowed those who are in gay porn but maybe not notable while removing those who there is no indication of gay porn involvement. Then there is the systematic homophobia/pornphobia where content and sources have been deleted on the list or individual articles making everything take longer to verify . Then there is also the systematic bias that finding material abut these subjects which would clearly denote notability is stymied by the lack of archiving the magazines except in more obscure or private collections. For every entry there is an uphill battle to NPOV represent them. I'm convinced it can be done but also that we shouldn't expect everything to happen immediately. It takes time and is being done in good faith with an eye to making it meet the letter and spirit of all relevant policies. Any insinuation that it isn't is misplaced and a little confounding. I have absolutely nothing to gain by adding someone who will later be removed as not meeting the minimum threshold, however there is a lot to gain by coming up with the best parameters for anyone listed here for future entries. Clean-up in volume of course takes time and apparently we're not in a huge rush so over-reacting is not helping anything one way or another. -- Banjeboi 23:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think most of us forget too often the hardworking volunteers who make this whole encyclopedia possible. There is at least one very dedicated editor for this list; we need more people like this. Such discussions take away our best editors' time and motivation. I am confident that a dedicated editor would much rather spend the time weeding out BLP violations and deleting or referencing unreferenced redlinks. — Sebastian 20:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comments here about the clean up effort. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting. If this article has indeed undergone 5 months of cleaning, and still contains so many unsourced entries, then it seems it is indeed very hard to maintain. I struck my "keep" vote for now, but am amenable to change it back if this concern is answered. — Sebastian 07:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are actually no unsourced entries - four were removed and the rest have their own articles. The past months have been researching and noting who's won what awards. -- Banjeboi 23:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, so the main question seems to be: What counts as RS? I understand that they are harder to come by in this area, but I don't think Wikipedia should lower its standard here. I'm certainly willing to fight any bias based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but if we allowed just any sources as references in one area, it would amount to reverse discrimination. As I said above, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's list above is a good start for talking about this, but this page is not the right place for such a discussion. I recommend creating a separate page with a table similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources. I think this would be very helpful for a whole range of articles within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, WikiProject LGBT studies, and possibly WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment. — Sebastian 03:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure about all the applications but I do agree that specifically identifying possible sources specific to gay porn is quite helpful to the pornography project - which seems to mainly not deal with gay porn - and once we work our some notability criteria that may prove helpful posting a page discussing how and where to look would certainly seem useful. I've already started a list but you make a good case that formalizing for others would benefit all. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cool! That's worth a try, so we should keep the list for now. We can revisit the situation when the RS table's done and implemented. How long do you think it'll take? — Sebastian 03:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - Are you kidding me? There are several BLP problems with this article, half of the references are shit (blogs, porn sites, etc). Half of the list is redlinked, which goes even further to show that half the people there probable aren't notable enough to pass the BLP policy. There is no reason to not just have a category for something like this. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There actually is and it's been discussed here already. Additionally many of these sources were added simply to show that they indeed were performaers in gay porn thus rendering the BLP "concern" moot. As clean-up continues we'll better able to sort out who still needs to be added or removed based on reliable sourcing. -- Banjeboi 23:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on the availability of reliable sources. I've begun research on this topic, trying to locate reliable print trade magazines and books so that I can aid in the clean-up effort until consensus is reached. Unfortunately very few libraries have collected trade magazines like Adult Video News ISSN 1024-8811 ISSN 0883-7090 or GayVN (whose online Dec. 2007 issue gave the ISSN 1525-3880, which has a different title in WorldCat). Additionally, I do not think these trade magazines are indexed anywhere, which would mean research would be a slow process. I believe that this reflects more on the attitudes of culture than it does on the value or reliability of the trade magazines. So, reliable trade magazine sources exist, but they are extremely hard to research in depth unless you live near a library that already collects the items. As for books, there are some gay porn actor auto/biographies, as well as some popular and scholarly works on the gay porn industry. However, many gay porn stars who are notable in the field (awards, etc.) may never have their names appear in a book--they may only appear in printed industry trade magazines. All that to say, using reliable web resources (although not ideal) may be the only option for the current time, until someone interested in this topic can get their hands on the print publications. BTW, if anyone has print copies of GayVN just lying around the house, I'd love to borrow them to start my research! --Clifflandis (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do what was done to List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex - i.e., move to incubator and noindex. See here. Seems to be a good compromise here, to avoid losing content while taking into account BLP concerns related to this list. Once entirely cleaned up and relevant issues dealt with, further maintenance should not be too difficult. Tim Song (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually that was a miscarriage of process so is a pretty bad example. The AfD and DrV both supported the article remaining yet an eager admin userfied it and I pushed it to incubation. So that was hardly a compromise but it is what it is. The BLP concerns have been greatly inflated when in actuality it was a wikilinking issue pumped up dramatically and IMHO, based off of personal issues having nothing to do with the list itself. -- Banjeboi 23:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That outcome may not be supported by consensus in that case (you might have noted that I !voted to overturn at DRV) but here, where there are much more substantial support for deletion, it is IMO a good compromise. Tim Song (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here the delete !votes rest on the spurious BLP claims which have been shown to be utterly false. A wikilink? I think we can fix that. Better sourcing and tweaking of the lede? We do that all the time. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was just making a suggestion in the event it is determined that the article cannot stay in mainspace - an issue on which I voice no opinion. My point is that, in that (not so unlikely, IMO) case, incubation would be preferable to outright deletion. Tim Song (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Get rid of it I've had this article on my watchlist for years, and it's had the same problems for years. The article doesn't lend anything to the encyclopedia; all the information is covered elsewhere, and categories perfectly well suffice. Bastique ^demandez 23:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same problems may have existed for years but an overhaul started five months ago so past history is largely been rendered moot. That this information is already covered elsewhere or has no encyclopedic value is patently false. As is the assertion that it could be covered by a series of categories. That simply is untrue. -- Banjeboi 23:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And five months later it's still a mess. There are ton of red links that are likely to remain red links, and the sourcing is still in bad shape. The commercial websites masquerading as reliable sources and not attempts for a company to make money is atrocious. Also Benji, and I'm not sure if your aware of this or not, you don't have to argue with every single person who disagrees with you in this debate. It's getting a little... repetitive. AniMate 00:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm aware it feels repetitive however the same misleading assertions are repeated and if left unanswered feel unanswerable. The statement "still a mess" remains subjective, you know this right? In fact there remains no unsourced entries and the genesis for this concern, setting the personal issues aside, comes from the BLP alarming post on that page which was ZOMG a wikilink goes to the wrong person. That is not the reason to cause distress and certainly not to delete. The commercial links are a stop gap if nothing else to indicate they indeed are performers in gay porn, that answers BLP concern. It's a bit empty to complain BLP then complain when BLP concerns are directly proven to be false. Frankly it's a little absurd to think that any company is going to actually be making any impact by having either their website listed as a reference or even their performers listed. The case could be made the performer's reputation is enhanced once they have an article but frankly Wikipedia readers are not their target audience. They need absolutely no help from us to market or brand themselves. -- Banjeboi 00:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can't make the BLP issues go away by waving your hands and dismissing them. There is no reliable sourcing for many of the alternate names. Despite repeating, over and over, that the BLP problems aren't substantial, it's taken you and our coworkers days just to verify that the basic links on the list are correct. That's not a signal that the problems are trivial. I pointed out a completely unsourced claim identifying an independently notable person as a porn performer, and you have done nothing about it. The response about the commercial links is more hand-waving -- why is it acceptable under policy to insert unreliable and unacceptable sources into the list without establishing the notability of the entries? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete BLP disaster, redundant to a cat. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 05:37, 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.

The result was Speedy Delete per G12 by Orangemike. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ARTAS (software) (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. No assertion of notability within article. Only reference is to the company's own website as well. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This would appear to be a system of some public interest and importance: a system designed to establish an accurate Air Situation Picture of all traffic. As such, the fact that Google news, books, and scholar has never heard of it suggests that it is not well established enough to support an article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.eurocontrol.int/artas/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 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. Cirt (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mulk downloader (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) 19:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BURDEN, sources aren't in the article. The authors are the best people to provide that. Miami33139 (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, nothing on google books or scholar. Polarpanda (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unable to locate any coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above, clearly non-notable. Haakon (talk) 10:19, 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. Cirt (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The One Ring Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems to be a non-notable web game. Google search turns up no reliable sources to prove the subject's notability or verifiability. — The Earwig @ 18:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a facebook app with no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• added a review to the page - showing coverage in a reliable source, also google search for the one ring game now shows it here [[6]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.176.170 (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC) — 195.137.176.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• That Google result is no more than a press release, which isn't significant coverage. --Teancum (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Google now shows the game in 8 out of the first 10 entries for the search 'The One Ring Game'. 3 December 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvandil (talk • contribs) 12:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC) — Kelvandil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • But are any of them significant coverage in reliable sources? One of them (for me) is actually the wikipedia article! -- Whpq (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - found no significant coverage. --Teancum (talk) 13:16, 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. Tan | 39 15:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Self-written vanity page; don't see how this meets WP:PROF. Reads more like an academic CV, no indication that this individual is particularly notable within their field. See also this afd. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – this article has been the subject of an earlier AfD, and the result was "keep". The author, despite his somewhat irritating self promotional tendencies, is in fact notable, as more careful searches establish. He is also the inventor of the EcoSCOPE. The article needs rewriting to remove the "vanity", but this is not a place to punish such behaviour with an inappropriate deletion. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Although he is perhaps more notable as an innovator and photographer than as an academic, Google Scholar nonetheless credits one of his papers with 114 citations. He is well represented in Google Books.--Geronimo20 (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not impressed by the quality of the previous discussion. The deletes are mostly "vanity" and "non-notable" without any elaboration and the keeps are mostly "verifiable" and "notable" without any elaboration. It looks more like a vote than a discussion. I think that, rather than relying on precedent, we should come to a fresh consensus on whether he passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree that the previous discussion was from an earlier time (it was a VfD) and should probably be ignored. Also agree that the subject is a shameless self promoter. He probably should be encouraged not to edit his own article or articles where a COI would be too great of a temptation for him. However, regarding "subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources" this the biography clearly meets. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep on basis of GS as much of the self-promotion has been pruned. Delete on further consideration. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Can someone point out an example of third party reliable source coverage? Nearly all of the references are to papers written by Kils. The prizes/awards may be of note, but I'm not sure how notable these particular awards are. I do know that research awards are not uncommon. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the article has been written by my former students, i only added high resolution royalty free images, some information and links. everything is true and proovable. eb-1 visa http://www.foreignborn.com/visas_imm/immigrant_visas/employment_immigration/eb-1.htm for which you need an international notable price in the league of nobel prices? i am retired long time.

you can cut it down to 5 lines no picture. it would be nice if the categories stay.

best greetings and good luck to wikipedia, which is the greatest on the planet (see my endorsements on user kils, my gallery there and my gallery on commons user uwe kils

http://web.archive.org/web/20010803121250/krill.rutgers.edu/uwe/

Professor Dr. habil. habil. uwe kils

user kils Uwe Kils

• Strong Keep - kils was a great professor, worked all over the world, has many international recognized prizes, cared for the week, donated millions, was an inventer and is still one of the most gifted photographers and filmmaker of the planet, just cut the article down as much as you like. http://filaman.uni-kiel.de/photos/PicturesSummary.php?ID=300&what=larvegg this image uwe also donated to wikipedia Vikings (talk)

Commment Third party reliable sources supporting these statements? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Vikings is "a group of professors, teachers, former students, parents, children and friends from professor uwe kils." Xxanthippe (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment - hallo itsJamie. you can click on "credentials" and "studenten Bewertung" (student evaluation". the original files you can get fron RUTGERS UNIVERSITY) on http://de.wikiversity.org/wiki/Kurs:Biologie_der_Antarktis, for the "meier leibnitz prize" there is a link to "german science foundation", we contacted german ministery for science and technology (BMFT) long time ago for proof of the "heisenberg prize". you can contact them. you can contact shaw distinguised professor rudi strickler great lakes water studies http://www.glwi.uwm.edu/profiles/jrs/ - he wrote on the occasion to invite uwe to the usa "he is at least 10 years ahaed, inclusive my laboratory". or contact his doctor father gotthilf hempel, he wrote "kils has much more in store than he published" there is a publication out on the web as pdf file wher the author describes wikipedia and is astonished that there are articles with high resolution images and mentions Professor kils and his page on plankton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton. he has hundredths of photo- and science prizes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kils, see his gallery on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kils/gallery and on commens http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Uwe_kils/gallery.

The Visual Side of Wikipedia

Fernanda B. Viégas

Visual Communication Lab, IBM Research

viegasf@us.ibm.com

http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/papers/viegas_hicss_visual_wikipedia.pdf

"

This is where Uwe Kils comes in. Dr. Kils is an associate professor of planktology in the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, at Rutgers University. A few years ago, he was asked to donate one of his images of plankton to Wikipedia. He liked the project so much that he decided to donate over two hundred of his scientific images to the encyclopedia [10]. Like Dr. Kils, there are thousands of Wikipedia users around the world that contribute images to the encyclopedia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Tomopteriskils.jpg

Figure 1: Image of a Tomopterus, by Prof. Uwe Kils. Photograph donated to Wikipedia by the author. similar to traditional, printed sources such as the expert-created Columbia Encyclopedia, in terms of formality and language standardization. They attribute this phenomenon to the high degree of post-production editorial control afforded by Wikipedia—for instance, the ability to easily edit other’s entries."

---

some editor even took off his image from fisheries biology before the vote was done. uwe and his photographers and models like mikki uploaded over 8000 photographs and donated over 40 000 dollars. uwe is extreme angry, such a treatment he has never experienced in his whole life. beeing banned for a week only for asking to put the right author tags on six of our high resolution photographs. copyright violation is a crime, also in the usa. he had to fight with editors who did not disclose their name nor education nor books nor publicatiions. uwe wrote over 300 publications 30 books, raised 500 students, all but dr. thethmeier, dr. waller live outside germany and are millionaires, most billionaires and over 20 000 over internet. uwes secretary chandra will email you soon. have a nice day user vikings Vikings (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC) — Vikings (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Strong Keep - at the age of 18 he studied informatics, at 19 he wrote three image programs, one for realtors, one for stockbrokers, one for physicians. he advertised them in manhattan and dubai. they sold over 200 000 times. after this year he returned a rich men and could have stopped working.. his dream was to study marine biology. he travelled to all famous institutes. kiel germany was that time the best and biggest. at 28 he was invited to participate in an antarctic expedition and take the photo documentation. at age 29 he got his dr. title with "summa cum laude" and "opus eximium". here is his original dr. degree http://uwekils.com/kils15.jpg a few days later his dissertation was translated by the international centre of antarctic research at texas a & m university by professor sayed elsayed and printed as book. it found mention as book review in scar and was sold out all over the world in 5 months.uwe did not give away the copyright so he can serve it to poor schools in the 3rd world. His incredible (over 40 000) photographs found mention in an article about wikipedia http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/papers/viegas_hicss_visual_wikipedia.pdf

and in SCIENCE http://ecoscope.com/science/index.htm. here is his virtual microscope http://ecoscope.com/cybermic/index.htm

here is a publication http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/126/m126p001.pdf

responsible for this page

professor sylvia klein

user sylvia klein

Sylvia klein (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC) — Sylvia klein (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep So far as I can see from the article he is of note. Rather more so than the Assistant Professors of Economics (appointed in 2007) and so on that we get. This looks like achievement, not puff. Can I just suggest that the supporters keep their contributions here well below dissertation length - if they're short and sharp more people will read them. And someone can take care of that 'citation needed', I hope. Peridon (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• strong Keep

all is true and reliable. just check the sources or contact professor Dr Dr. h.c. gotthilf hempel or shaw distinguished professor dr. rudi strickler or the white house Oceanographer (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC) — Oceanographer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• strong Keep

His students love him: "The teacher was excellent, funny + entertaining as well as informative + intellectual - the computer Interaction!", " This was the best class I've taken at RUTGERS so far.", "I enjoyed the enthusiasm with with Uwe gave the lectures. Once Uwe started his lectures, three hours went by in five minutes.", "This was my favourite course of my 3 years at RUTGERS.", "Dr. Kils encouraged students to become acquainted with other aspects of science - photography and computers. When he saw a weakness in the class's knowledge, he tried to fill it. He was also very pleasant personally - and a pleasure to greet every Friday morning", "I don't think I could be so nice and positive on such a regular basis".

It is the dream of any scientist to have her name in NATURE or SCIENCE. His was in both.

His students are allowed to publish without his name on. All his publications are sold out.

He programmed the virtual microscope. he has own web servers and does not need space on wikipedia, see FOTO KILS http://web.archive.org/web/20001019164813/www.ecoscope.com/fotokils.htm and on his university servers http://web.archive.org/web/20010803121250/krill.rutgers.edu/uwe/

have a nice day

Freydis 10:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC) — Freydis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• strong Keep

hallo wikipedia - i am a former student of professor kils. Hisfaculty respect him: "Dr. Kils is possibly Europe’s most outstanding young marine scientist. Members of the Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences with experience in oceanography regard him as one of the world’s most innovative individuals working in this field", "Kils’ contribution to this area is acknowledged as the best anywhere". every friday he worked with handicapped students in the cape may high-school. his photographers and he gave over 8 000 imagees to wikipedia, many in high resolution. just read the publication above. he has over 200 photography prizes from all over the planet. just go to ecoscope.com and click on teacher, then "space". have a wonderful day on the beach

Mikki joergensen (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC) — Mikki joergensen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• strong Keep

hallo, here is katharina r. i graduated from professor dr. dr. dr. habil. habil. uwe kils´´ elite university in germany and nyny. good luck Katharina r (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC) — Katharina r (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Note to closing admin The WP:SPA-tagged accounts all appear to be affiliated with the professor, most have few edits outside of userspace, and many have been inactive since 2005, suggesting that they were recently recruited. Most of the arguments presented simply regurgitate the article; I see very little that actually address WP:PROF. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Keep on the basis of having developed a major scientific facility. the actual citation counts are not high (5 papers, counts 34, 29, 26, 16, 5, 1, but the work is nevertheless important as judged by the textbook and other references which do not show up there.. The irrelevant arguments of some of the SPAs above should of course be disregarded, but we shouldn't allow their misjudged support to affect the decision in a negative way, either. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you missed another paper with 115 citations --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to visiting posters who don't post anything much It is irrelevant how good you think he is, or what his class thought, or how nice his cat is, etc. What you need to be doing is producing references from independent third party sources about what he's done. Comments about 'buying Wikipedia' will only damage your cause. Not MY cause. I !voted Keep based on my reading of the article, etc. Remarks like that could induce the 'real' supporters to desert. I say 'real' meaning those who are regular contributors to Wikipedia rather than those who appear out of the blue and get hot under the collar instead of addressing the problem in a proper manner. If you don't like the way Wikipedia works, start your own. Until then, it's our ball and our rules. If there's evidence, FIND IT and put it on the table. Personal opinions are NOT evidence. Self-published stuff is not evidence. Editable sources (including Wikipedia itself) are not evidence. If you have queries, ask an admin or someone with long and regular service here. If you can't do this, then keep quiet. The more unverifiable noise that appears on an AfD page, the greater the liklihood of deletion - with possible salting to prevent a recurrence. Peridon (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded: If you look over the user pages, there's literally a collective web of how they all relate. Then there are very disturbing things like User:Viking, 2 clicks later, I'm staring at this frightful topic from ages ago. No longer active, but scary that apparently no one cared about these things 5+ years ago. Basic searching get you here. If that's something I ran into in less than 5 minutes of backwards links from one self-admitted colleague in this discussion, I'm shaken and too conflict to offer a stance below. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. change to No Opinion, based on a COI of this matter after starting to look at a massive blanketing effort by some here and many other related users. This marks a good case of why and where policy on academic professionals is being looked over. All that personal bio info and the images? Meaningless. Written a lot of books? Not automatically enough. SPR/OR as lone source? Not great, but he gets some mentions in participation of notable scientific projects. Those being the absolute key to notability and those mentions aren't in any need of debate since those events already have their own articles. Vanity? Meh. Likely, at least a bit, and using your own book as for citations is no good at all, but the keep is based on the professional work and not anything stated about the man whatsoever. It could be anyone's name whatsoever on the article who had the same work history and it'd be the same. This should be an ar article about a person who accidentally happened to be a participant in notable matters, not about why or how this a person came to be in those events. May want to trim out some of that biography content. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken, with my reason above ...Oh, and I'm taking it we're looking past posters nearly/arguably outing themselves and one another above? ♪ daTheisen(talk)

Notice: This discussion has been posted at WP:ANI for review and discussion related to suspect opinions offered in this discussion. The current active link is right here. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per DGG. How often one is cited is surely relevant. As for the good doktor's student and colleagues, it is shocking to see how undervalued reading skills are. Character references and resumes were never asked for; simple third-party sources were. Drmies (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep one the basis of his scholarly achievements and research, whose citaion is well documented here. Influential scientists, regardless of how obnoxiously self-aggrandizing they are, if their actual influence within their field can be documented, are notable. As you can tell, I find his begging for us to keep his article as a legacy to his family nauseating, self-serving and gross, his claims that all the money he gave should afford him special treatment somewhere between laughable and unethical, and all his behavior on wikipedia a colossal waste of time and AGF, to all be reasons to personally vote delete, if only for self-satisfying vindictiveness. However, on the basis of pollicy, I think his notability is well established. ThuranX (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep keep (see below) due to winning the Heinz_Maier-Leibnitz-Preis award and inventing the EcoSCOPE, those seem to fit point #2 and #1 of WP:PROF, respectively. (I saw the discussion at ANI) --Enric Naval (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.D.: I notice that he also got a EB-1 visa [7] although I can't get a reliable source for that, it seems that he also got a "Heisenberg prize". I suppose that he means the Heisenberg Programme [8], either a fellowship or a professorship. By the way, those are two red links which should have stubs created on them. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:59, 4 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. Consensus is that the scope and content of this list violates WP:NOTDIR.  Sandstein  08:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After this discussion started, the article in question was moved to Lists of Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu.

Directory of Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a directory of contact information. This appears to just be a list of contact information people for different organizations, and cannot be re-written into an encyclopedic list article. Singularity42 (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Reasons clarified after comment below. Singularity42 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep. This does not contain contact information and is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics. These organizations and individuals are all closely associated with environmental conservation and environmental education in Tamil Nadu. Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY#DIRECTORY says there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous (notable) because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.Marcus334 (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Marcus. --CarTick 19:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC) changed opinion. see below.[reply]
• Delete "This list will facilitate communications between the environmental community and the general public." That's very nice, but Wikipedia is not a free web host. This does not appear to be a serious attempt an encyclopedic article, and it doesn't even need to be re-posted here because it already exists on the internet: [9]. Furthermore, WP:NOTDIRECTORY specifically mentions that Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business, which is the clear and obvious intent of this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal:

• There is no original content "hosted" here and linked comment "not a free web host" applies to user pages.
• This list is more encyclopedic (adjective: comprehensive, full, complete, vast, universal, wide-ranging, thorough, in-depth, exhaustive, all-inclusive, all-embracing, all-encompassing and thoroughgoing) than the primary reference.

• This list contains about 1/3 more organizations than the primary reference.
• None of the other 48 linked references in the list are included in the primary reference.

• The list is amenable to rapid updating, while the primary reference is fixed in 2008.
• There is no mention or intent of "conducting business".
• If "it doesn't even need to be re-posted here because it already exists on the internet", that argument could equally be applied to any Wikipedia article and then there is no need for Wikipedia.Marcus334 (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rapid updating - Not relevant; WP:WEBHOST is about user pages - Right, however WP:NOTMIRROR; This list is more encyclopedic [...] than the primary reference - then we run into possible original research problems... --Cybercobra (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment not appropriate for Wikipedia, but this should be taken straight over to Appropedia or similar, which would welcome the content. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: Agreed that it's probably not appropriate here, and it's definitely welcome at Appropedia. I've imported it to Appropedia:Directory of Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu, after edited the usernames in the XML file (to list the Wikipedia userpage address). Please note that any such page with some kind of value in environmental, design or development issues is welcome to be transwikied to Appropedia. (An Appropedia admin would be needed to do the import thing, but if it's mainly the work of one person, they can just be credited in the edit summary, or add it themselves.
• I don't want to preempt a deletion - that should be considered separately on its own merits. --Chriswaterguy talk 04:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTMIRROR - We don't reproduce primary sources without good reason. I also have very serious doubts as to the notability of the topic; this appears to be a "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization". --Cybercobra (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's nothing encyclopedic about this. It's virtually directory information. Shadowjams (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have made several substantive changes and additions to eliminate negative perceptions of this as just a directory copied from another source. Naming this a directory was inaccurate. It is more accurately a short article including a series of comprehensive up-datable lists. I suggest that the article be moved to a new space titled Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu. See:List of countries by ecological footprint, List of songs about the environment and other Lists of environmental topics, for other environment related lists to compare their notability, appropriateness, encyclopediaocity and Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization.Marcus334 (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The changes you have made and propose to make are purely cosmetic and do not fix the underlying problems. Pointing out that other similar lists exist is generally not considered a valid argument. I think this would be more appropriate as a category. Any organizations that are sufficiently notable on their own would have their own articles, and the category could be used to organize them. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The examples you cite are at least general in scope, whereas the article in question is rather specific (IMO too specific), in this case on a geographic basis. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it can be merged with Environment of India and the current title could save as a redirect. --CarTick 01:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Marcus' comments. This is a very comprehensive list of organizations in a notable field, per List of environmental organizations and List of conservation organisations. Because this list is so comprehensive and lengthy, it shouldn't be merged into those articles. Also see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of environmental organizations for some more keep rationales. I think the sentence "These lists are intended to increase public knowledge of the professional environmental community in Tamil Nadu...." should be removed because it gives the wrong impression that this list is being used solely for advocacy. Instead, it's a very encyclopedic list. And the title should be changed to "List of..." Priyanath ^talk 05:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the general concept of environmental organizations is notable, and many instances of them are notable (hence a general list of the instances is permissible), but I doubt the oddly specific underlying topic of this list, namely "environmental organizations and resource persons in Tamil Nadu" is notable. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Environmental and conservation organizations are indeed notable, but this is a directory of contacts, not an encyclopedic list of organizations active in Tamil Nadu. As the nominator states, Wikipedia is not a directory of contact information. For me, the fact that the individual sub-lists are hidden by default emphasizes the fact that this page is designed to serve as a database, not an encyclopedia entry. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per . Warrah (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Moved to Lists of Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu to avoid people getting obsessed with word Directory. Lists is more accurate. Marcus334 (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:AFD: "While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, and can make the discussion difficult to track." In any event, whether or not moving the article during an AfD is problematic, manually changing the discussion code at the top IS a problem. I have reverted those changes back. Singularity42 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only changed name from Directory to List as everyone is referring to it as a list and wanting to delete because WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Content is unchanged. Marcus334 (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Especially worrying is "Independant consultants" section. Materialscientist (talk) 12:25, 4 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. seems to be lacking sources that discuss the subject so the most policy based argumebnts are the delete ones Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhse elite university (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 evidence that this "university" is in any way notable. Even tiny universities would typically have more than 165 Ghits. References in article mostly have to do with research, not the research platform itself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete – the article appears to have been entered largely by its owner, the somewhat self promoting Uwe Kils, a current editor and former administrator on the English Wikipedia, and contributor of compelling images (example shown). So there is a COI here. The article is also badly written, suffering from Kils' poor grasp of English. Nonetheless, the article contains material of unusual interest which should be salvageable in some form. Part of the problem is the unfortunate name of the article. It would be better named something like "Uhse floating laboratory". Kils has been responsible for some remarkably innovative marine research, and has been widely referenced elsewhere in Wikipedia. Most of this research originated with, and was possible because of the nature of this unusual floating laboratory. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe that the author was ever an admin on English Wikipedia. In fact, Kils is currently blocked for making silly legal threats. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then read this or item 2 here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, didn't show up in the user rights log. Either way, those links only serve to demonstrate the questionable judgement of this user. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. But his "questionable judgement" and self promotional tendencies as an editor is a separate issue which is not relevant to whether or not this article should be kept. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely, I see that you, Ohnoitsjamie, have been involved in recent conflict with this editor. In addition to nominating this article for deletion, you have also nominated Uwe Kils for deletion. It appears that you are engaged in a punitive campaign of retribution against Uwe Kils. I repeat, no matter how badly he has behaved as an editor, that is not a relevant reason for deleting these pages. Now, not only is Kils behaving badly, but you are behaving badly. I suggest you redeem yourself by withdrawing these nominations. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You consider an unblock decline a conflict? That's the only interaction I've ever had with the user. I noticed the articles when I was investigating the situation. There is no "retribution" here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... while Ohnoitsjamie is compromised and should butt out, I see Kils created yet another article, way back, Antarctic Technology Offshore Lagoon Laboratory. Kils is a pain in the fundamental. He has also, as anyone who can be bothered can easily check, promoted himself all across the web. Still, the earlier article, in my view, remains notable, and should supersede the current incarnation. Consequently, the current article should be deleted, and I have struck through my "Keep" above. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Seemed almost impossibly spammy. but I reduced it to what seems the important parts. Still needs some expert attention. I renamed it as suggested above. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks better, but I'm still not seeing any 3rd party sources to indicate notability, just papers published by Kils. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 06:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment

hallo from uwe```s secretary, dictated over satellite phone, he is sailing: promotion was important in my professions to raise funding (230 billion krouns in 41 countries) but i retired when i turned 35. You can make the uhse elite university down to 5 lines no image or rename it or erase it. the rest we can take on our servers http://www.uhse-elite-university.com http://web.archive.org/web/20001019164813/www.ecoscope.com/fotokils.htm he is sick beeing banned only for asking for correct copyright tags of six of our high resolution photos, kicked out as admin for only erasing part of the highly pornographic page on fisting so we can use it in schools in danmark, germany, norway, and treated like an ememy. good luck! chandra for professor dr. habil. habil. uwe kils

Uwe Kils

• Merge with Antarctic Technology Offshore Lagoon Laboratory. I'm not sure which name to keep the merged article at, but ATOLL seems slightly more covered in independent sources. -Nard 19:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge that is fine with me. reduce it as much as you like, call it "atoll elite university" the rest we will take on our for pay server in kopenhagen s and dubai s elite universities (there famous scientists are treated with respect). we wanted to add much more for free education, but if some authors (most of which are unknown) don t want it, we don t care, we might stop working with the english wikipedia

user professor dr. dr. dr. dr. habil. habil. uwe kils Uwe Kils 10:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep

with the eggs and links to ivf images and publication. this is the group who invented ICSI embryos and are still leading. all other fertility clinics have higher mortality rates and crippled embryos

Sylvia klein (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC) — Sylvia klein (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment? Disaster? This actual article was a redirect as of 27 November, so this AfD is moot. Literally. Actually, it was redirected 4 hours after the AfD started. Redirect would be the decision of the AfD, and not just done. How was this not noticed, and what justification does anyone have for unilaterally doing so? Very literally, a decision rendered from this AfD cannot be performed on a different article with a different name. The history of the redirect-only article seems to have been removed, which I really don't understand either. I'll close this myself if no admin bothers to... Also figure this to be a complete disaster of an AfD with the blanketing and/or canvassing, combined with the article being changed without cause. Likely need to go over to RAA unless there are at least some answers. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It gets better. Antarctic Technology Offshore Lagoon Laboratory. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not redirected. Moved. Tim Song (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not persuasive above. Shadowjams (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No independent sources mention this. Fences&Windows 22:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep article needs clean up but has merit. Racepacket (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article is now Uhse floating laboratory but that name is only found on Wikipedia! Glittering Pillars (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article is highly promotional. Also I searched by Uhse "Uwe Kils" -wikipedia and got 8 hits on Google, so this article cannot be kept. Glittering Pillars (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NOTE. Lack of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Also, Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Cirt (talk) 15:35, 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.

The result was keep. There's agreement that it's notable (WP:NTEMP). Also, AfD is not cleanup. Fences&Windows 17:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Centre, Doncaster (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 is put together in a way that tells you nothing informative about it whatsoever. It is badly presented. The title 'Construction' only talks about Phase 2. The 'background' has very little to do with it. It would probably be more useful and constructive if this article was deleted and started from scratch. --06SmithG (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - agreed, the article isn't wonderful at present, largely copied with permission from a primary school's website about the centre, but there is enough useful content for the article to be worth keeping. The centre was a big project, and surely notable. The Millennium Commission ref would be useful for improving the article. Someone somewhere has probably got archive material (in print) about the centre, from which a fuller article could be made. There must be stacks of coverage in local newspapers, some of which will be available online. Needs to be improved, not deleted. PamD (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I've found a couple of articles in BBC News and The Independent which I'll add as ELs for now. PamD (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as PamD says it's not brilliant at the moment but it's notable. Mark it up with whatever cleanups are needed but deleting it is not the way to go, no matter how poorly written, if it meets notability criteria. NtheP (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sources establish notabiilty. Racepacket (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - looked at links and references, agree with all keep comments above.Vulture19 (talk) 16:11, 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.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested WP:PROD. Article is original research advancing bigoted theories on Islam, Gypsies, and hip-hop culture. A synthesis of ideas not supported by the provided sources. An essay, not an encyclopedic article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Revised: Points well taken; revision has been made. AceKnight (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An essay. Joe Chill (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Maintain: All this information already appears throughout Wikipedia. This is commendable attempt to redefine otherwise disparate ideas into one common thread, for better understanding. AceKnight (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an attempt by you to advance your own theories. None of the online sources even use the term "retrograde force." This is not the editorial page of a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. We don't "redefine" things here, or publish our own thoughts and feelings. We report facts already documented by reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails on several counts, original research, essay-like, NPOV. PatGallacher (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-factual. Presents certain controversial opinions of the influences shaping human society as though they were undisputed facts. Even the article title is irremediably POV-ish. I can see a way to rescue the title, but only by making the article about an aspect of Dynamics (physics). Philip Trueman (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article fails to present any evidence whatever of the notability of "retrograde force" as a concept beyond what the bare use of the words would provide. Yes, Churchill used it. We don't have articles on every phrase Churchill used. Instead, it includes bald assertions by the author - in that sense, it fails both WP:OR and WP:N. Ray^Talk 20:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply original research by synthesis. If there were numerous independent sources that drew together the skeins of this essay in exactly the same way, and defined the title exactly the same way, that would be different; this material is irredeemably non-neutral. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR through and through. Cherry picking articles of disparate meanings does not an article make. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; per above, sources listed don't even use the term, which is very general and has been used (per google books) in a variety of contexts -- it's clear that even those who use the term retrograde force don't agree on what those forces might be, as the author implies. OR, non-notable, and very POV. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR and WP:NPOV, and the sooner the better. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is clearly a synthesis from various disparate examples, and there is no evidence of sources for this as a general concept. Also at least some of the sources are not reliable, though I have not checked them all. The whole thing is clearly an attempt to promote the author's own point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Despite cosmetic editing in an attempt to make less obvious the nature of the article as an attack page, it is still quite clear that the essential thrust of the article is an attack on muslims. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is a textbook example of WP:SYN (and the kind of content that policy is meant to prevent). Robofish (talk) 17:02, 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 delete.  Sandstein  08:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McGrath (computer engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Speedy declined. No notability. No coverage in Google News (he isn't the cricket player or journalist) The article promotes a new company which doesn't even have a web site. Working for notable companies doesn't confer notability. Not uniquely credited with a successful notable product, more of a back-room manager role. References listed in the article so far as I've checked in the last 5 minutes are irrelevant to the subject. Edit comments by single-article contributor assert "he's going to do something notable " which is WP:CRYSTAL; no need to create article now, if his fame will be that notable in a couple of months; there's plenty of time. Wtshymanski (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Userify For what it's worth, I think we're in the right forum now, instead of an A7 speedy. Move this to user space, let him work on it, and if the subject ever does establish notability, it will be painless to move it back. For the moment, this fails the WP:CRYSTAL ball test. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nominator Nothing showing up on Google Books, certainly not after you put "computer" in the search - this is not an Australian environmental lawyer. Of course this is the right forum, it's 10 times as much work and has a good chance of stalling out because no-one undertands how to participate. There's a reason only 1 in 1200 articles makes it to FA status... --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Userify the lack of coverage in reliable sources makes the topic of the article clearly NN Josh Parris 22:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from the Author: Hello, all... He isn't the sports photographer, either, and that's the guy who has the most pages. Whew! As the writer of this article, I really appreciate everyone's feedback. I am learning a lot from it, and cannot disagree with anything that has been said here. Josh Parris has suggested moving this to user, both so that I can work on it some more and so that it can wait until McGrath gains some notability. It is already at my user spot, so what do I do to just take it down off regular versus having it deleted? Do I have to do anything other than what I have done here, which is to say "Okay by me..."? I am fine with Delete & Userfy for now. Someone has also done some editing - thank you - so I will copy that and incorporate it into the user article, with the hope that we can put back up later. (Although I am not sure I quite get all the "citation needed" notes and would welcome comments about those...) Again, thanks for the comments and the help. Ideabender (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I've copied into User:Ideabender/Chris McGrath (computer engineer) and tagged the article space with CSD:G7 Josh Parris 23:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I declined the G7 since more than one author has contributed, but I understand that all the authors would now prefer deletion, and I don't have any objection to a WP:SNOW close and deletion if this is the case. - Dank (push to talk) 01:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Copying into the user namespace would go against the GFDL, especially because there is more than editor to this article. The appropriate action would be to move. I have removed the copy/paste version, per WP:CSD#G6. It can be replaced with an appropriately attributed (i.e., moved) version of the article once this AfD closes, if that is the consensus. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are many people with borderline notability in the world and who have had press reports about them. UNfortunately I see this guy as the wrong side of the border. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:34, 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 deletion - Vianello (Talk) 04:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Louis Dinia (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 on John Louis Dinia is clearly a hoax, materials mostly taken from the article on Leopold Schefer with some colloquial additions. -- €pa (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Is there any reason this shouldn't just be G3 Speedied? Even if not, get rid of it as nonsense. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:43, 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 Userfy. Moved to User:Extremepro/Heart no Kuni no Alice, deleted redirect. Arguments for keep are mostly based on liking it and the article being new, and consensus favoured incubation or userfication. Fences&Windows 18:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heart no Kuni no Alice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A manga. No assertion of notability and no evidence thereof. "An English series might be published"! — RHaworth (talk · contribs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a new article the lead has been edited and references added. A new article should only be deleted for serious issues like vandalism, copyright violations, and BLP violations. -- allen四names 00:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now This is a budding new article and references have been added, I would wait and see what happens. For this article to have potental it will need third party references however, and not just based on a single source like ANN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate Given the video game connection, the subject may have received coverage in Japanese gaming press. We can revisit the notability issue later once a search for more substantial source is conducted. Is there anyone willing to have this moved into their userspace and work on it? —Farix (t | c) 18:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to remove it, that the same is deleting it. Dream Focus 12:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. As deleting means that all the page history will be unseen by non-admins/crats while userfying/incubating means that the page history can be seen by everyone albeit not in the main space. Extremepro (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 18:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: a more palatable link to a NA release than from bookstores. --KrebMarkt 21:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the original report from ANN. However I didn't included it as it was based on an Amazon.ca listing, which even the ANN report admits wasn't always a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 01:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I click Google news and see plenty of mention of it. The first mentions the video game is a bestseller doing quite well in Japan. [10] Search for the second mention of the name in the article. Plenty more coverage out there, but this enough to prove it notable to me. Common sense indicates that high sales figures make something far more notable than just some magazine reviewing every game made from a company that buys advertisements in them. Dream Focus 12:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What search terms did you use. My search of Google News didn't turn up a single hit.[11][12] And looking at the other link you provided, the coverage is extremely minimal. But also video games do not have a separate notability guideline so it will fall under WP:N. And as has been established before, sales rankings are meaningless towards notability. —Farix (t | c) 12:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a number of times when sales figures alone proved quite notable to those in the AFD. It depends on the opinions of those around at the time to comment, and that of the closing administrator. And the Google news link at the top of the AFD is what I used. Dream Focus 13:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is no one to userfy or incubate it then let go to No consensus. The upcoming English release may provide the needed coverage for a clear Keep as reviews tend to appear within the two months of release. This series is absent from the English publisher website which may mean the release being delayed. I won't mind this article send to Afd again in 6 months if not enough evidences of notability are found within that time frame. Another point this article should be renamed Alice in the Country of Hearts according to the announced official English title. --KrebMarkt 14:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Edit: Userfy to Extremepro. --KrebMarkt 16:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy to me please. Extremepro (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer incubate to userfy. -- allen四names 19:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case incubate will be inefficient as evidences of notability will appear in 4-5 months at the best. --KrebMarkt 08:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is true this article would and perhaps should be deleted in incubation. That said I still prefer incubation to userification. -- allen四names 17:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:11, 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 speedy delete - author has blanked the page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Pure original research hung on a neologism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:No original research -- the personal narrative and total lack of references strongly suggest that the article solely describes the unpublished research of its author. Andrea105 (talk) 19:45, 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 16:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avro Keyboard (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'm unable to find significant coverage for this software. Reads like an advert, as well. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 16:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep It has many download links but no real articles, excluding the website.--Pookeo9 ^{Say What you Want} 17:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: The software is widely used as a Bangla keyboard interface. As you can possibly guess, it is for Bengali language speaker, and most references are in Bengali. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcbuet (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has received coverage in the national English-language press: [13][14]. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:45, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unremarkable website. No note made of it on the Web is discernible via Google. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unable to locate coverage in reliable sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sources to support notalbility -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 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. Cirt (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luna (language) (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 about a constructed language which doesn't even assert notability, does not cite any sources, and has about zero google hits (tough to say because there are "Luna" language schools), so it borders on WP:MADEUP. CSD A7 has been declined on procedural grounds, so here we are... No such user (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Update A Luna language seems to exist, according to Ethnologue. However, it's a living language of Bantoid group, not the one described in this article. No such user (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Despite there being a language with the same name the page says nothing about it. None of it would survive in the new version, and while it's up it's misleading, perhaps even offensive to speakers of the language (imagine if someone misrepresented your language as a crude pidgin). It might be a long time before it's updated as I would think there are relatively few specialists in African languages here, and it might be created under a different name. JohnBlackburne (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Are we sure this isn't a hoax? The only reference cited is "The Ultamte (sic) One Page Guide To Luna Grammar", which does not seem to exist anywhere except on this Wikipedia page. --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
• Delete - Like MelanieN says, there's no evidence that the language exists at all. If anything, it won't stand the WP:V trial. I'd like to make a suggestion to the author, though: copy this article to FrathWiki or the Conlang Wiki at Wikia, which is, I think, where it belongs. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 10:48, 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 deleted by Juliancolton (talk · contribs) due to an expired prod. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halim Nassim Abi Chahine (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 is not established, cited references have little/nothing to do with article subject Eli+ 16:21, 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 delete under criterion G3, as a blatant hoax. Future animated programs are the target of frequent creation of bogus articles. The lack of sources at Disney or IMDB backs up Darrenhusted's conclusion that this article is eligible for speedy deletion, and I have deleted it. —C.Fred (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jones Family (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 unreleased TV series WuhWuzDat 16:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can go under CSD, no need for this AfD. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:21, 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. Non-notable neologism/dicdef Fences&Windows 03:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Neologism - TB (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete content doesn't even match title. Not every adjective/noun pair is a topic for an encyclopedia article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Worthless article, fails under multiple criteria including WP:NAD, WP:RS, etc.. --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Melanie[reply]

• Transwiki to Wiktionary but they won't want it so delete Thinboy00 @208, i.e. 03:59, 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 speedy delete. GedUK  18:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Autobiography, notability is not established Eli+ 16:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment may i add that facebook and similar sites used as references; suggesting deletion as per Wikipedia:Vanity Eli+ 16:09, 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 delete non-admin closure. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Either a work of fiction, speedy-deletable under category G1, or a non-notable legend. Nothing in a quick web search, possibly a very local legend. In either case, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. A7 speedy tag removed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per User:Joe Chill. Also, I had speedy tagged this article after it was created by a user or users attempting to add similar content to Nagol. Harmless Not a cause for panicky over reaction in the main, but disruptive. Tiderolls 17:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my poor choice of words. Tiderolls 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a work of fiction, given away by the first sentence: “If you ever travel to this wondrous country of Nagol...” •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  "If you ever travel to thos wondrous underwater city of Atlantis" - it might be a legend, but I'll give you 99-1 it's totally made up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under G3, or just let the AFD play out until it is snowballed. Making something up does not justify a wikipedia article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as hoax. Tagged G3 hoax. DarkAudit (talk) 21:33, 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 delete. GedUK  16:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gutierrez/Moreland Theorem of Owning Probability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Clear lack of verifiabilty. Wikipedia is not for stuff madeup playing online video games one day. MuZemike 14:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 14:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, clearly. –xeno^talk 14:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, amusing, I especially like the reference (1^ The source). This isnt Humourpedia though. Delete per WP:NEO, notability guidelines. --Taelus (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 16:36, 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 consensus here seems to indicate that the article ought to be merged. However, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michaele Salahi was closed as Keep, I am reluctant to close this one as "Keep, AfD endorses merge". Instead, I shall close it as "Keep, and have discussion continue at Talk:Michaele Salahi/Archives/2014#Merge discussion." Cheers, NW (Talk) 23:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tareq 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 man. Only warrants an entry in the Gate-crashing article. Doesn't warrant his own article. Note – the Michaele Salahi article is also up for deletion as it is equally non-notable.Tovojolo (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This story continues to evolve. Given the shady charities this couple runs, and the growing attention to their background, in addition for being summoned to testify in Congress, it is likely that that they will be more than just the gate crashers. They will get more than their 15 minutes of fame, and it will not be good. Look into the charity: Journey for the Cure Foundation, run by Tareq.
• KEEP per Scooteristi, below. Sorry, I'm a noob at this. This couple is most certainly notable as well as notorious, and their story is just beginning to be told. Wikipedia should continue to chronicle their rise... and certain fall. —Moucon (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in accordance with WP:BLP1E. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Briefly notorious is not the same as notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michaele Salahi. --Dhartung | Talk 18:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 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 this douchebag and his wife. 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. I don't like the Salahis, as people I find them utterly detestable, but then again plenty of detestable people have biographical pages. Tareq Salahi should be notable just for his winery (he was famous in oenophile circles and is mentioned in dozens of books about wine), the ensuing legal dispute, his polo career, the polo cup, and the *ahem* "charity" that had all generated plenty of column inches in various news outlets before the Bravo TV show and the White House incident thrust the couple in the White House. 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
• 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 Scooteristi (talk • contribs)
• Delete Only notable for the single event. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Tareq Salahi is not note worthy and it looks like spam. Somebody who works for newspaper put this up I'm sure. —70.180.86.21 (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2009
• Delete WP:BLP1E; we really must stop creating an article on every event or person who gets 15 minutes worth of fame. HonouraryMix (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per Scooteristi --Banzoo (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We should not be hasty about creating articles for people whose notability is not yet determined. At the moment this is a BLP1E violation. Quantpole (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Michaele 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]
• Merge - I agree with Conrad Kilroy's proposal, the articles should be merged to an article regarding the breach of security. Gage (talk) 23:51, 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 23:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously these people shouldn't be encouraged, but they are, objectively quite notable. Even before this incident they probably could justify a page on their life, certainly can after it. I'm entirely amenable to seeing the two individual biographies merged, but I think their importance goes beyond just the gate-crashing. —Chironares (talk • contribs) 01:04, 28 November 2009
• Keep Tareq Salahi was notable before the White House event. As the owner of Oasis Winery, he has received a decent amount of coverage prior to November 2009. See Breaking Away to Virginia and Maryland Wineries (2002) and The Middleburg Mystique: A Peek Inside the Gates of Middleburg, Virginia (2002). Both of these books provide significant coverage about Tareq Salahi and the work he has done as the owner of Oasis Winery. Additionally, there is the article titled Tareq Salahi - Owner, Oasis Winery, Hume, Va. from the Washington Post (date: Apr 15, 2001). Because Tareq Salahi was notable before the White House state dinner incident, the concerns about BLPE are invalidated. Cunard (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Merge it with the article on his wife, then rename as an article about the entire incident, as thats all they're really notable for; I for one don't really care about his polo career or legal problems, and there are plenty of other people who play polo or have trouble with the law who don't get articles. At present, all he and his wife are notable for is the party, and that in itself deserves an article, especially if it leads to Secret Service policy changes or leads to criminal charges.--C628 (talk) 1:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• The two books I cited above are not about his polo career, the White House state dinner incident, or his legal problems. The articles are about his career as the owner of Oasis Winery. Because the two publications came before the incident, I believe he is notable. Cunard (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There would appear to be about half a dozen references to Salahi in two books, all as part of a larger context, and a newspaper article about the winery, not him. Seems like they would be suitable material for an article about Oasis Winery, but I see nothing to advance the idea that he was a significant figure before this incident, beyond owning a business, which really isn't sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. C628 (talk)1:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• A sample from one of the books: "Salahi, the driving force behind Oasis, is also one of the most visible figures in Virginia's wine industries. He schedules an epic number of wine-related events and dinners at Oasis, as well as forging marketing partnerships with Wolf Trap Performing Arts Center, the nearby Marriott Ranch, and the Virginia Gold Cup..." This chapter provides sufficient information about Tareq Salahi to constitute "significant coverage" as per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Salahi receives far more than "half a dozen references"; nearly every single paragraph of the two passages I cited above are about Salahi.

  Owning a notable business would not sufficient for inclusion; however, receiving significant coverage about how he manages his business is sufficient for inclusion. Although Tareq Salahi is notable enough to have an article solely about himself, I am amenable to the merge proposed above. Cunard (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, you've convinced me that me could have an article of his own; however, I still believe that there should in some way be a separate article referring to the party incident as a whole. Already, it encompasses a greater scope than merely his life, as the Secret Service has issued statements to the effect that their policies are under review as a result; if this is indeed the case, and if criminal charges are filed, than it would become a significantly larger event, and should certainly receive a separate article. In this case, they wouldn't be merged as such, but parts of his article could be included, and there would probably be some overlap, but not an entire merging of articles.C628 (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest redirecting both of these to an article about the event. I haven't seen anything yet to suggest that wouldn't be sufficient. Savidan 01:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Also, a good precedent for merging the two article on the Salahi's is the "Balloon Boy" incident earlier this year, also on Wikipedia. Originally, during the event there were a couple of separate articles on the various people, which subsequently went through a candidate for deletion process as well. The outcome? All the articles were merged into one, which I believe is called "2009 Colorado Balloon Incident." The whole thing seems to bear a great deal of resemblance to this, and the outcome provides a good precedent for merging these articles. C628 (talk) 1:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Redundant vote struck. Cunard (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to an article about the incident, per continuing coverage such as in the NYT.  Sandstein  02:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, at least for the moment until further information is found. I've seen news reports that Tareq & his wife Michaele are notable for being notorious social wannabes. If this story dies after a month, then these stories are unfounded rumors & we can revisit this & delete the article. (My chief attraction to this story is, why are the national media pushing this story? Is this a case where the Beltway Insiders are upset at this couple & want to make an example of them?) -- llywrch (talk) 03:08, 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]
• 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) 05:43, 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) 05:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge along with Michaele Salahi into 2009 White House 'gatecrash' incident. Notable for the event, not notable in their own right.DCmacnut<> 06:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge along with Michaele Salahi into general Gate-crashing article. It's not a big enough deal to support its own article. —64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2009
• Keep--Nshervsampad (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge along with Michaele Salahi into one brief paragraph in 2009 White House gatecrash incident.  --Lambiam 08:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Taku (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2009 White House gatecrash incident. Salahi does not merit his own article (see WP:BLP1E) but his 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. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These folks are remarkable in their circle. If Paris Hilton has a page in Wiki, they certainly should too. And face it - crashing the White House is not a simple party crash it has super far reaching ramifications. The Shoe Bomber, for example resulted in in changes in airline security globally, even though he crashed a flight and was bumbling around unsuccessfully trying to light a fuse on his stupidly (thankfully) designed thingy shoe. --MexicoDoug (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2009 White House gatecrash incident. I've put the template on the two articles. --Vlad|-> 18:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They may be publicity sluts; but just because they did something to embarass a president most of you are in love with doesn't mean this page should be deleted. Besides, if an unremarkable dude like Jason Kottke deserve a Wikipedia entry, so do they, as it could've been a historical moment for the country.--Dministrator (talk) 19:22, 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 him 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 him 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) 19:31, 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) 22:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side comment, can husband and wife be co-list? Having to post identical arguments twice is a collossal waste of time and server space, and it's inconceivable that one would be deleted and the other kept. WFCforLife (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --77.181.194.106 (talk) 00:05, 29 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 Michaele Salahi and Tareq 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) 23:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Both Salahi's are at least as noteworthy as the balloon boy's parents, and their notoriety stretches back months before this one incident. However, the page covering the incident should probably go away. // Internet Esquire (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say they are at least as notable as the Balloon boy parents. However, those people do not have Wikipedia pages; the Balloon boy hoax itself does. By your own logic, it would be better to merge/redirect Tareq and Michaele's pages to the incident article, rather than keep the two individuals. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2009 White House gatecrash incident. We can revisit deleting the gatecrash itself once the notability of the consequences have become clear. This person is otherwise non-notable.Cmholm (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge or redirect most of the information is located in 2009 White House gatecrash incident. If something more becomes notable about him and possibly his wife (ie: legal case, TV show, etc) then maybe the article will show notability. Then maybe the article title should include his wife instead of the two articles that now appear. More notability needs to be shown or it becomes one event. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After watching the article and reading opinions here I have changed my mind and think it's best to not have the article. Comments made by others here esp. BLP1 are convincing to me. The news about this has conflicting info now also which comes into my change. I have stricked my previous comments. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. He's only known for gatecrashing a dinner. All the press coverage of him as a polo player or vintner was either in passing or local (Washington Post), failing to show any real notability. People known only for one event generally don't get articles written about them. Fences&Windows 16:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• MERGE with the wife's article. There would seem to be enough reliable sources documenting their notoriety prior to this brouhaha.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2009 White House gatecrash incident as a WP:BLP1E. His winery might possibly be notable, but I don't see any evidence that he is beyond this one event. Robofish (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2009 White House gatecrash incident.--PinkBull 00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - merge into 2009 White House gatecrash incident.--Blargh29 (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2009 White House gatecrash incident. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability should be easy to prove by now, in tons of sources. (Like it or not) Nigel Barristoat (talk) 16:52, 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]
• Merge as the last two to say Merge said.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not news and this person will likely not be notable for more than 15 minutes. (Failing that, merge.) Jonathunder (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge Yet another recent news event from non-notable attention-seekers. Reywas92^Talk 00:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this article with Michaele Salahi. This is a major new story. I am Zeus, king of the gods (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong keep. This is not the only known time the couple crashed an Obama party. What really makes him notable is that neither of the events were crashes....there was an inside white house connection. The fact that he is a lobbyist for an extreme Palestinian group is what makes this person truly notable...not to mention the cover-up involving in [website] scrubbing his identity from the board membership of the Palestinian group. Cdcdoc (talk) 03:44, 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→ 03:53, 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]
• Redirect. Definitely a completely non-notable couple. Only warrants an entry in the Gate-crashing article. Doesn't warrant his own article, as it shall encourage notoriety as opposed to notability on Wikipedia as well as in public conduct. It would also mean all moderately successful businessmen will get entry into Wikipedia, thus wasting voluntary donations; while all of them can very well afford their own sites to promote them and their businesses. Mandot —Preceding undated comment added 10:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Redirect to 2009 White House gatecrash incident . This is a non-notable couple except for this single incident . Marokwitz (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : I wanted to know about this man , and Wikipedia gave me that information. It is very useful to know this man is half Palestinian and is involved politically with that issue. Thank you, and KEEP this article! 69.60.33.69 16:16, 1 December 2009

• 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 he'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 or Merge into article about incident; this man and the couple's legal woes are not noteworthy. 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. If he later proves to be some kind of extremist insider/collaborator (the idea of which right now I attribute to some baseless prejudice), then he'll be noteworthy. —Godheval^{T C H} 18:27, 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 19:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't think his wife is as an individual, but he seems to be notable enough outside of the recent gate-crashing incident. Just because you didn't know of him before this week doesn't means others didn't, or that he's not notable. I understand the need to limit single incidents from creating articles about non-notable people who catch a few minutes of fame, but this is not a blue-collar nobody who just pulled a one-off publicity stunt. Those calling BLP1E and Recentism are jumping the gun out of paranoia, which is understandable given how much those two policies have to be enforced, but I do not find those applicable here. Now there are certainly some bloated details here - it's not necessary for Wikipedia to include the number of bridesmaids or groomsmen the couple had - but that's not what we're talking about in this vote... - Slow Graffiti (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. —69.155.128.110 (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2009

• Delete. Because the man has done some things to a certain level, including only running the winery, not owning it, does note make him 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 his notability really has been stretched. Some of the sources in the article defy the concept of reliability: poptower.com, gossiprocks.com, askmissa.com, webofdeception.com? Eek. If this results in keep or merge for some reason, someone needs to consult WP:BLP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to 2009 White House gatecrash incident the lead says it all, she's notable only for this, so send it there. BLP1E--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep to control for libel (multiple notability). He was in the (2007 and November 2008) Washington Post about the Oasis Winery lawsuit, plus polo news. We must guard the article against posting rumors, so having his name "Tareq Salahi" as the article title helps to attract all libel where it can be more easily reverted (or protected against). Because he is in multiple major-source events (NOT WP:BLP1E), he does have WP notability. However, his wannabe-cheerleader wife should likely should not be merged to his article (as a redirect), since she has been reported in separate major events or scandals. I have created disambiguation page "Salahi" to list them both, along with famous Arabic translator/columnist Adil Salahi. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, exclusion exactly to prevent discussions as above. That being said, the section about the family business should be likewise cut from the gate-crashing article as out of context. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2009 White House gatecrash incident.VR _talk 19:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge per WP:BLP1E --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:40, 3 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]
• 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) 02:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? The fact that you don't approve of his notability doesn't make him non-notable. Binarybits (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reading the page and knowing about them I'm pretty sure that they are using the wiki platform as another means of their propaganda. 74.193.239.32 05:32, 3 December 2009
• Delete Please, let's not make Wikipedia a 'Hello' kind of magazine for gossiping. If we go on like this, 99% of English Wikipedia will be about some silly person trying to call attention to herself.

--Periergeia (talk) 20:12, 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]
• Merge into an article that discusses security breaches in governmental buildings or even incidents involving the the United States Secret Service in protecting the POTUS and family. This couple is notable for one incident. WP is not a tabloid and, as another writer has already mentioned, the couple has no long term notability other than seeking social climbing for status, of which this incident is part of the MO of this couple. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 23:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The opinion of many in this deletion discussion is that Tareq Salahi is notable for only one event. As I said in my "keep" opinion above: "Tareq Salahi was notable before the White House event. As the owner of Oasis Winery, he has received a decent amount of coverage prior to November 2009. See Breaking Away to Virginia and Maryland Wineries (2002) and The Middleburg Mystique: A Peek Inside the Gates of Middleburg, Virginia (2002). Both of these books provide significant coverage about Tareq Salahi and the work he has done as the owner of Oasis Winery." Those who rely on WP:BLP1E to delete this article should have less weight accorded to their arguments. Likewise, those arguments that believe that Tareq Salahi doesn't deserve to be notable should also be suitably weighed. Cunard (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Mr. Salahi has of course become notable. For goodness sakes, the U.S. Congress might be investigating this guy! -- Evans1982 (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination —70.134.70.195 (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2009
• Merge it all to one place. Not sure which place, maybe an article about the state dinner. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of 4 December 2009, there are now (at least) 4 separate, major-source events concerning Tareq Salahi, so that passes WP notability (no longer WP:BLP1E):

• 2009 White House gatecrashing incident
• 2009 investigation of America's Polo Cup (major source: Washington Post, 2009-12-03, "Virginia begins inquiry into Salahis' America's Polo Cup", webpage: WashPost-879).
• 2008 sale of Oasis Winery (major source: Washington Post, 2008-11-04, "Tangles in the Vine", webpage: WashPost-492).
• 2001 operation of Oasis Winery (major source: Google Books; see book-searches: Breaking Away to Virginia and Maryland Wineries (2002) and The Middleburg Mystique: A Peek Inside the Gates of Middleburg, Virginia (2002) in Google).

Consequently, Wikipedia cannot reject the article as a non-notable person, because of those events, separated by 1 and 7 years (covered by major reliable sources).

Note to closing admin: This 7-year evidence refutes the AfD claim of "Completely non-notable man" and so the AfD must be rejected. -Wikid77 12:31, 4 December 2009

• Comment. All popular singers or daily crimes don't get separate articles. However, if a musician is in major news sources during 3 separate years of events, that passes as WP individual notability. Events pass one-time notability for major impact, such with the fall of the Berlin Wall or with the "2009 White House gatecrash incident" spawning U.S. Congressional hearings, plus immediate reassignment of 3 White House security personnel. The article "Tareq Salahi" is justified for multi-event, individual notability, even if the man is unpopular with many readers. -Wikid77 12:33, 4 December 2009

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