< 12 September	14 September >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was keep. The album was released, and the album written, quite some time after this AfD was created.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 32 (U.S. series)[edit]

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

I believe that album has not been released yet. It will be released in November. Until then it sets to the AfD. That's why I set a redirect to Discography of Now That's What I Call Music! Because the album has not be released yet. When it's October the AfD Notice will removed Ricky3374 (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how AFDs work. It was already set as a redirect, so there was no need to change it. --Wolfer68 (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spatial Fusion Server[edit]

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

The creaor contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medium delete No significant sources except the creator's website (CARIS). It look more like an advertisement, a promotion. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 00:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N as there isn't enough discussion in reliable sources to generate an encyclopedic article on the topic. Them From Space 01:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find many press releases. However, indpendent coverage about this product is hard to come by. There is the material in a book but I don't believe that this alone establishes notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 00:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Burrola[edit]

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

Article does not meet criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. He has twice been a sacrificial lamb candidate (which the page pretty much admits). Page also cites few sources. Even the few sources cited are minor incidents that are not notable. Only one page links to him - the United States House of Representatives elections, 2002 page, which shows his 71%-26% loss. OCNative (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting that a major party nominee for the federal legislature would recieve hardly any coverage, but it appears that he never stood a chance of winning. Doesn't meet WP:N, which is what WP:POLITICIAN defaults to for unelected candidates. Them From Space 01:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN, and doesn't meet the GNG --Saalstin (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:POLITICIAN, as a minor functionary in a major party. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of Half-Life universe characters. A merge has been performed. Tone 20:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Kleiner[edit]

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

No assertion of notability for this NPC. Article offers mostly plot regurgitation from the games, and is entirely unreferenced. Half of the background development notes are original research, and all of them are trivial. --EEMIV (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Half-Life universe characters. The arguments that the nominator mentioned are valid. Ideally some real-world material should be brought in and the original research taken out during the merge. Them From Space 01:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting quick close It's already in the process of being merged. The Half-Life task force had meant to do this for some time but just lapsed. See the AfD on Talk:Judith Mossman for more info.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kung Fu Man. A merge has been on the to-do for a while; however, the people working on this series have been more focused on the works themselves than on the fictional stuff as of late. -- Sabre (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of Stuckist artists. JForget 23:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arfius Arf[edit]

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

lack of references. Google search found only blogs, user sites, and sources insufficient to meet wikpedia notability guidelines. Sargentprivate (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The official website doesn't even seem to be live. Pburka (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ... or redirect is fine, too. Pburka (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Sargentprivate (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Insufficient evidence of notability. Them From Space 01:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to redirect per Tyrenius. Them From Space 23:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Stuckist artists, where his inclusion is verifiable.[1] There are not sources to validate a stand-alone article. Ty 09:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Stuckist artists, per Ty. Johnbod (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. no one other then the nom suggest deletion JForget 00:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jef Van Campen[edit]

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

Delete - Appears to fail WP:ARTIST ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Solo exhibitions and awards means he meets WP:ARTIST. Most coverage seems to be in Dutch. Pburka (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some of those secondary sources (even in Dutch?) please? I can't find anything that seems like a major reliable outlet mentioning his name. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. [2][3][4]. Pburka (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But the references don't appear to be major ones. They are made in passing only. For instance the Nieuwsblad article just mentions in passing that Jef Van Campen gave away one of his paintings in a raffle. I still don't see any significant coverage meeting WP:ARTIST. Do you have anything more substantial? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, is there anything that shows he is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique? Or that he is widely cited by his peers or successors? Or that he is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique? Or that he has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews? Or that his work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here is one: [A book about his life, supported by various people out of the Belgian artworld], another one: he was one of the artists invited to provide artwork for the famous Elephant Parade in Antwerp 2008 [[5]]and [[6]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.225.24.201 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But that appears to be an autobiography according to this link: [7]. That doesn't sound like an independent book. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And before I go to sleep, a few more : from one of his appearances for RWE in Brussels : [[8]], Rotterdam: [[9]], UK: [[10]]. He sometimes also teaches his art : [[11]], [[12]] and [[13]]. I suggest you engage with an admin who understands dutch, or/and art and the region before final judging the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.225.24.201 (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sources given in this discussion make a case for notability, and more are likely to be found due to the language barrier between us and his target audience. Them From Space 01:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but thoroughly rewrite to make it more realistic: the list of "solo exhibitions" is very long, but most of these are not "solo exhibitions" at all. E.g. Lineart is an art fair, other ones include regional salons and many company art exhibitions. Exhibitions in galerie Van Campen are not really noteworthy either, assuming that the gallery is run by the daughter of the artist. Considering that none of the awards he has received are of any note, and that he has apparently not had any museum exhibitions yet, this is a weak keep, thanks mainly to the book (unless it can be shown that BAI does publishing-on-demand as well, which is not clear from their website). But the current article is truly promotional, not neutral, so a rewrite is necessary. Fram (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My next door neighbor happens to be Dutch so I asked him to translate some of the Dutch sources, and this painter

certainly seems notable from what I read. 68.45.109.136 (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This is a notable and highly regarded painter in Belgium. JoJan (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 00:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Lyme[edit]

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

WP:N Non-notable fictional character

WP:BOP No sources at all, let alone any establishing notability

WP:O Orphan article Yamara ✉ 23:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. I did my own search...16 google news archive hits, but 10 of them actually reference the character by the same name in "The Third Man". Similar results for google scholar. None of the sources cover the character in detail or do anything to even come close to establishing notability. Cazort (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete third man character is more deserving of article, though he too is probably not a notable character.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, although WP:O is irrelevant to a deletion discussion. Rlendog (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. clear consensus JForget 00:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of panels making life or death decisions[edit]

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

Original article is a rambling Essay, and POV pushing. Has some good references which could be included in other related articles, but this just does not stand up as an encyclopedia article. Leuko (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: regarding article re-write - basically a republication of the single original article from which it is sourced. This version is no more encyclopedic. Leuko (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was notified about this, but it isn't "my" article. If you look at the history, 209.6.238.201 added the content. I made a paltry redirect to Death panel, after the IP accidentally made the redirect request at WP:AFC, and not WP:AFC/R. My !vote is for it to redirect to Political positions of Sarah Palin#Health care, per Death panel. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Political positions of Sarah Palin#Health care, per Leo. Regards, Javért ^☆ 23:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (Change to Abstain, see 2nd comment below), possibly rename. Although I originally attempted to expand the Death panel redirect, I was shouted down for daring to do so for what seemed like WP:OWNership issues. However, the main source of the article makes clear that there actually are panels which do make life or death decisions about people's lives, in both medicinal and criminal matters, and other sources I've added back up this theme. Whatever the best title might be, the topic is thoroughly sourced, so I fail to see what makes it an AFD concern. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, I want to point out that the article neither endorses nor opposes these panels or their work in anyway, despite all the NPOV claims to the contrary being throw around here. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In light of the WP:POINTy re-write and re-organization of the article[14] by User:Hauskalainen, who strongly supports its deletion[15] and which he claims he did in order to ensure "clarity" so it would get deleted[16], I'm withdrawing my support for keeping the article. I'm almost tempted to vote Delete after reading User:Hauskalainen's version, but in any case, I have enough additional sources now that I can write a new article on a related topic without the WP:SYNTH concerns which grew out of the combination of medial and criminal subject in the article's first source. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sarah Palin or Delete as the criteria for inclusion is too vague. Is a refugee review board included? What about the EPA? FDA? Pburka (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those might indeed be good inclusions. Feel free to add your sourced content regarding how such panel decisions led directly to the death of the individuals involved to the article. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The title is overly general. If the content warrants an article, it would appropriately be call "Death panel". However, the content is not cohesive and borders on synth. While "death panel" currently directs to Political positions of Sarah Palin#Health care, I'm not sure "List of panels making life or death decisions" is a likely search term for the content found there. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, the WP:OWNership of Death panel is very unfortunate. I expect this will blow over in six months or so. Meanwhile, the current title is roughly OK per WP:TIND. I am not synthesizing anything, but have presented a reliable English source which connects the dots between various worldwide death panels. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with No redirect This seems like original research, a thinly-veiled POV political statement, and a potential magnet for nasty controversy. I do not see any compelling reason that the collection of "panels" captured by this list is a topic notable in and of itself...I would need multiple reliable sources to justify this before I would recommend a keep. I see no compelling reason to redirect to Palin--it's a long search term that no one is going to type in anyway. Cazort (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like WP:OR how? It is reliably sourced. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk)

Having individually-cited facts in reliable sources doesn't mean something isn't original research. The term "Death panel" is a WP:Neologism that has a very narrow use in a particular ideology of American politics, and has only started being used recently. This page's title references a broad, inclusive topic that is much broader than the way in which people are using the term "death panel". The juxtaposition of the death-penalty issue (which shows absolutely no sourceable connection to the topic in hand...for example this source is cited: [17] and seems totally off-topic with many of the others, or this source: [18] discusses an agency's lack of approval for drugs...) Original Research is often in the juxtaposition and synthesis of material--which is why I'm objecting here. Cazort (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete pure original research, esp. combining medical end of life issues with death penalty issues. Until a major reliable secondary source points to articles about this topic, called by this name, with as wide ranging a subject matter as this article, its not for us to say. no redirect needed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment its been pointed out that the Foreign Policy article sourced does cover this subject in this general a manner. having noted that, i still think our article is OR. the FP article has a very different tone to it than our article. but, this reference should stand somewhere, perhaps the sarah palin policy section, to show the public debate around the idea. my thanks to who pointed this out below, and a mea culpa for not checking the references first! i hope that doesnt show me as having undue bias. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how a topic can be covered by a WP:RS and be WP:OR at the same time. "Tone" issues are not a matter for an AFD; if you have issues with my gloss please take it up at Talk:List of panels making life or death decisions. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR often isn't so much about sourcing of individual facts. In this case, it's about collecting sourced or sourceable material into one place in a way that is particularly unnatural and is not backed up by sources. So, the pieces may be sourceable, but the whole is not. For example, as I pointed out above, there is a lack of sources justifying the comparison between the theoretical "death panels" and the death penalty, or between "death panels" and the material cited about the drug approval process (which doesn't refer to the main topic of this article at all). Cazort (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry if you didn't bother to read the references. Here you go! Nangia, Aditi (2009-09-09). "Real Life Death Panels: As Sarah Palin continues to spread misinformation about Barack Obama's health-care plan, FP looks at where the real "death panels" are". Foreign Policy. ((cite web)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, Foreign Policy magazine has been in print for 39 years, and is certainly "a major reliable secondary source" as far as I can tell. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, just to be even more clear, the story in Foreign Policy doesn't say what you'd like to pretend it says. See Talk:Death panel#Non-neutral point of view, soapbox content for details. JamesMLane t c 02:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon, but it certainly does. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a POV attempt at a political statement. I can't imagine how this could be built up without original research or contentious definitions of life and death. Them From Space 01:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV isn't a proper argument for AFD. The article contains no original research, and I fail to understand what POV this supposedly reflects. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with No redirect – This unstructured "list" relies very heavily on a single source and is not written from a neutral point of view. By the way, as shown in its history, "death panel" redirected to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009#Reimbursement for counseling about living wills for about a month until today when it was moved to the Sarah Palin political positions article amid a great flurry of edits. —ADavidB 02:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It relies on nearly a dozen sources. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reason for a redirect for a term no one will search for. One article in one magazine took Palin's "death panel" charge as the springboard for thinking about groups of people making life-or-death decisions. That story itself referred only to "something akin to death panels", but, even if it had been more in keeping with anon IP 209's desires, one such story wouldn't mean that we need to have a separate Wikipedia article about it. JamesMLane t c 02:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, simply not true, the article, entitled "Real Life Death Panels" explores the whole spectrum of death panels worldwide, including what it calls "literal death panels." The Reuters source also discusses actual death panels in California.[19] -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well-written article, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't much of an AFD reason either -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say I didn't like it? I said it's a well-written article; it just doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines. And it appears you just don't understand the difference between an encyclopedia article and an essay (the latter is where WP:OR comes in, even though it's sourced; it's all about the presentation). By the way, your stance might be taken a little more seriously if you registered a username. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 06:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, everything is sourced with reliable sources, so your WP:OR charge is plainly ludicrous. Whether you like the topic or not, would be nice if you could come up some actual reasoning acceptable per the deletion policy before simply adding your !Vote here. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem? It seems like you're throwing a tantrum because no one agrees with you. We have all pointed out why we feel the article should be deleted, but you're just ignoring it and taking an "I'm right; end of story" attitude. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete huge WP:POV problem essay and masses of WP:OR, as well as being a troll magnet. Shouldn't be a redirect as it is a highly unlikely term. WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TRUTH issues. Article has no encyclopaedic value. Verbal chat 07:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? It's not an advertisement for these panels, nor does it quote any of them nor any of their members, so I don't see how it fall under WP:SOAP. Nor does the article support or oppose such groups, so where is the alleged POV? Theres absolutely no original research whatsoever, and I haven't seen any trolling in the dozen hours of the page's existence. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would answer, but WP:DNFTT disallows further elaboration. Verbal chat 13:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for NPOV, soapboxing, and WP:OR. Everything that a WP article should not be!

Of course the irony is that the advanced care directives that Palin was so against funding would have removed the need for many thousands of death panels. These panels being the formal and informal meetings of doctors and relatives and sometimes lawyers and judges, that have no choice but to get together to decide the fate of people who have NOT made their preferences regarding treatment at the end of life known and who are not able to make their preferences known. Having the patient think in advance what could happen and give clear guidance to their doctors for their future treatment is surely the best way to avoid these unhappy panels being formed in the first place.Hauskalainen (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is a mere WP:COATRACK for POV-pushing, and incapable of being made WP:NPOV. -- The Anome (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note This editor was either unwilling or unable to back up these claims when asked for an explanation. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I enlarged upon my reasons for my opinions above on my talk page; I'm sorry you didn't like them. -- The Anome (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Concur this artile is a WP:COATRACK and NPoVSimonm223 (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all the above reasons. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a classic example of WP:COATRACK. I see no need for a redirect, as this title is too long and complex to ever be a valid search term. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the above reasons; poorly-thought-out coatrackery. What is a "life or death decision"? The FAA and NTSB make "life or death decisions". Every decision to raise or lower the speed limit, or to require seatbelts or helmets, is a "life or death decision" on some level. Decisions about food labeling may be "life or death". The decision by a mining company to violate the Clean Water Act could be a "life or death decision" for people drawing water from nearby aquifers. This is a can of worms best re-sealed and shipped back to the partisan blogosphere where it originated. MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gee, I never thought of the United States Supreme Court as a "death panel". Still, this article doesn't live up to the title, since it's not a list. I suspect that the article creator set out to find examples of a government body similar to a state parole board, and then had to fall back to things that are kind of like a death panel. Mandsford (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion, as violating almost all of our core values. I can't ever recall advocating deletion of anything per WP:NPOV, but there is always a first time, and folks, this is it. This article synthesizes a whole bunch of somewhat related topics and shoves them kicking and screaming into one random list. I can not figure out how to even start to rescue this one. Please, someone, put this out of its misery. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very VERY bad idea. Ripe for POV abuse. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete POV pushing partisan crap. ► RATEL ◄ 01:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's really just a random collection of facts and assertions that don't have very much to do with each other. And the use of the word "panels" (as opposed committees or organizations) seems solely designed to stoke current controversies over the phrase "death panels." --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian among others. For the life of me, I can't figure out how this can be shaped into a suitable article. Overbroad, shoehorning disparate elements into a category, WP:SYN and WP:OR. Just fails on several fronts. Pigman☿/talk 04:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article as written was a shambles, neither reflecting the main thrust of its main source or presenting a neutral POV. I have re-written it to represent more or less what the main article said because it was aggregiously POV in the way it had been assembed. This at least addresses one convern,(POV) thought I still think it right that the article should be deleted notwithstanding my removal of POV. Its content is not notable even though it referenced.--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The rewrite is a big improvement, but the article is basically just a summary of a non-notable magazine article. Pburka (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found it informative, however disturbing. It does put a cold, bureaucratic face on government policies that should probably be altered or eliminated. Controversy needs light to resolve itself. -MBHiii (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why it should be removed. It's an article for a journal or newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Verbal chat 05:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't object to the inclusion of the material; I object to the fact that it was collected under an unnatural topic / name for the article, and that it had a juxtaposition of unrelated topics (political discussion of "death panels" side-by-side with discussion of the death penalty, and drug-approval processes), with no reliable sources linking these topics together into a unified whole--and thus was WP:OR, and that the organization of material represented a narrow POV. I agree with Mbhiii's comments about controversy...and the controversy here is well-sourceable and belongs on wikipedia--just not in the form that this article took. Cazort (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect should be necessary (I can't imagine anyone typing that into the search box). It relies to heavily on the FP article, and might have copyright issues. That's apart from the obvious WP:SOAPBOX issues. Lampman (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially a summary of a single journal article - while not particularly POV, its claims have not been tested and for the claims it proposes it is in essence therefore a primary source. (The previous version, despite my general agreement with its political position, was unsalvageable.) A single reference to this article and a one- or two- line summary of its findings would be appropriate in another article. Orderinchaos 16:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but the information should be merged to some places, it's interesting and encyclopædic. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:Coatrack, verges on copyvio. Abductive (reasoning) 11:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Disturbing but informative and important. I believe those who recommend a redirect misinterpret it as a political article because of mention of Sara Palin's tangential association (derivation of title). Recommend rename. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 00:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Endowment for Alzheimer's Research[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/National Endowment for Alzheimer's Research

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

Non-notable organization, self-written spam piece, contested prod. No media coverage noted in Google News - only a listed in a couple of obits. Leuko (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an experienced medical researcher, I object to deleting this article. The deletion criteria state: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator or notifying an associated wikiproject, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." The article has had some recent content added, but the gene therapy field itself is in a nascent state and further edits will proceed as the field progresses. Rather than deleting the article, it can be improved. Also, the definition "non-notable" is not subject to strict or absolute criteria. Moreover, the "spam piece" designation is pejorative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorjanson (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC) — Doctorjanson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing this organization; I would have thought that a notable organization would have hits in Google Scholar, but the only mention I found was incidental, in the post-article bio of one Dr. Christopher Janson. Of course, I could be wrong, and if independent sources have indeed discussed this organization in depth, I'd be glad to see the evidence and change my nonvote. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Delete per FisherQueen. I would have expected an organisation of this nature to return far more Google hits. I would also be happy to change my opinion if notability could be established.-gadfium 23:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No press coverage (other than death notices request donations), only one reference on Google scholar. The Saskatchewan Alzheimer's Society has more presence on Google scholar, and that only represents one lightly populated Canadian province. Also, the organization's own website fails to note any press coverage or research they've supported. Pburka (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also found very few sources. 5 google news hits, all obituaries requesting solicitations to the organization. It can be dangerous when an organization has an official-sounding name to assume that it's legit. It is quite possible this is actually a scam! At any rate, it is at the very best, a totally non-notable charity. Cazort (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Delete per FisherQueen and gadfium. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. JForget 23:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikon D3000[edit]

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

Just another camera, nothing special about it, thus fails WP:N. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does NOT fail the general notability guideline. Raysonho (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We've got articles about most other camera models. There's clearly plenty of press coverage. Pburka (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Bundles of articles/reviews for this product on Gsearch. Does not fail WP:N in any sense as far as I can tell. Metty (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Probably a Headbomb damaged his head. THINK. Wispanow (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a rationale focusing on the article itself; criticizing the nominator does little good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please no personal attacks - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I am also disappointed because someone did not read WP:N carefully YET used it as the reason for article deletion. It really causes extra work for other editors. Raysonho (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Does not fail WP:N at all Admrboltz (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't fail notability, then it should be easy to add sources. Right now this is nothing more than vanity page. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics}

If you now say that it is unreferenced, then you have used the wrong template and used the wrong reasoning for nominating the article for deletion. A simple google search will give you lots of hits for D3000. So much for the Barnstars. Raysonho (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Headbomb made a mistake.Ret.Prof (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful page about a new product without much available information on the web.scott.medling (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: More sources will become available as time goes on, as this is a relatively new camera. Besides, there are articles for many other cameras. Black Sabre (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of counties in New York. JForget 00:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York county name etymologies[edit]

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

Redundant and unsourced version of List of counties in New York, which also lists the etymology of each county (and the article is sourced, and featured, so...). upstate NYer 20:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Included ((Lists of U.S. county name etymologies)) in List of counties in New York. If this article is deleted, I'll update that template to link to List of counties in New York instead. upstate NYer 20:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect No unique information, totally redundant. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like a lot of the states on that template have the same or similar problems. Many of them already redirect to their counterpart "List of counties" article, but many of them don't, and contain redundant information. I propose merging every article in the template ((Lists of U.S. county name etymologies)) into their corresponding article in ((U.S. Counties)). If consensus is gained, I would be up for the task. JUJUTACULAR 22:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, but only since I won't have to do it. :) upstate NYer 22:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I already redirected about eight of them. Just do a quick run-though that the information is the same and redirect it to the main county list. Give a good edit summary and you should be fine. The navbox should also be deleted. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked over a bunch more, merged, and redirected. There are now 14 left. Note: those that already redirected have been italicized on the ((Lists of U.S. county name etymologies)) template. JUJUTACULAR 04:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Finished merging/redirecting all of the articles in ((Lists of U.S. county name etymologies)). I'll be nominating that template for deletion pending the outcome of this AfD. JUJUTACULAR 18:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there weren't already a section of etymology on the table in List of counties in New York, I'd say keep, but this is one of those cases where it's been done. The author may have information here that needs to be added there. I understand there was probably some hard work involved, of course, and it's kind of like Scott finding Amundsen's flag at the South Pole to learn that most of it has been for naught. It happens. Mandsford (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect Thank you for your efforts Jujutackular. Let me know when the template goes up for deletion and I'll be happy to weigh in. upstate NYer 21:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this has been redirected, which I agree with, why not close out this discussion? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 00:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Rey Games Hernandez[edit]

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

Non-notable Leuko (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a better case for notability can be made, with proper sources. Hairhorn (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ten Google hits, all Wikipedia or mirrors. Fails WP:ATHLETE and possibly WP:AUTO, as it was created by User:Agames (yes, that's a stretch, but...) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 02:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. If it could be verified with a reliable source, the claim of being the 1962 weightlifting champion in Cuba would be a notable achievement. I've tried removing various parts of the name to aid in the search, and I did find this interesting blog post by someone claiming to be his son that "Alberto Rey Games" was '62 champion. I would guess that he, rather than his 71-year-old father, is the article's creator. Location (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V and various other guidelines. Although the article's creator appears to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy (see WP:DONTBITE), he has been aware that we need something more substantive. Location (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PATIENCE WITH ME? IT'S OBVIOUS WHY YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THIS ARTICLE, YOU (talk) NEVER HAD A FATHER OR HE WOULD HAVE TAUGHT YOU THAT YOU SHOULD NEVER, EVER SPEAK TRASH BEHIND ANOTHER MAN'S BACK...'IT'S VERY SISSY!' THIS APPLIES TO YOUR WIKI BUDDY THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL, WHO BY HIS OWN ADMISSION NEVER HAD A FATHER. I MEAN NO OFFENSE BY THIS STATEMENT, SO DON'T SITE ME.AGAMES 18 SEPT 2009

We never had fathers? Don't site you? What are you even talking about any more? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that nobody challenges the words in sergio oliva claims that he was Cuba's best weightlifter with WP:V. I have already requested published information on ALBERTO R. GAMES HERNANDEZ winning Cuba's National Championship from Cuba, since a Letter of Authority is not sufficient. It seems that everyone is WK:GAME AND WP:DONTBITE since I'm a new to Wikipedia. I'm certain that there are other examples of WP:V issues but this has more to do with the "Subject Matter" than violating Rules. Let me remind WP that ALBERTO R. GAMES HERNANDEZ is not only a UNITED STATES CITIZEN but also SHED BLOOD building NAVY VESSELS for the Country. I believe an Exception should apply and this page allowed to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agames (talk • contribs)

DO NOT DELETE This article is written by me, Alberto Rey Games, Jr., son of Alberto Rey Games Hernandez. My father is Cuba's National Weightlifting Champion in the 198lb. Division in 1962, as stated in a letter from Mr. Rafael Guerrero, trainer and coach of the Cuban Weightlifting Team which I can submit to Wikipedia for verification. As to the "industrial accident", I can submit court evidence supporting that it was two tons of sheet metal which fell on my father while working on a Sea Service Tanker for the USN. Please do not delete this article since the Cuban Revolution affected every aspect of life in Cuba and his title is significant because it was essentially the first title in weightlifting after the Cuban Revolution of 1959. Unfortunately, Cuban Athletes when they leave Cuba are deemed "Deserters", such as my father's case. There is a source on the web, http://www.monografias.com/trabajos65/historia-levantamiento-pesas/historia-levantamiento-pesas.shtml, which is in Spanish which details the history of weighlifting in the city of Gtmo. I contacted the author and he sent me pictures of my father when he won various competitions. Agames (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2009
- Everything you said after "the Cuban Revolution affected every aspect of life in Cuban" comes off as your opinion, which in turn constitutes original research, and that is discouraged in Wikipedia. Also, since you admitted you are related to the subject (which I suspected), I think I should inform you that you're not supposed to write about your family members. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 06:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't mean to be argumentative, but I think the "Cuban Revolution", is as what the word implies- a general change in direction. The Country went for a market-based economy/open society to a planned economy/closed society, which in turn affected every aspect of society. I think this "point of view", as you call it, can be substantiated with scholarly materials, hence it's hardly "an opinion" and or "original research." In fact, my father is considered a DESERTER for leaving the country as is SERGIO OLIVA and many others whom have left. lastly, what part gave away that I was related...was it the agames username or my admitting to this fact? I believe this rule in intended to discourage people from arbitrarily writing articles about "family members" in general. However, I make no apologies for the fact that I wrote this article in the third person. However, I hope that I don't have to contact someone else to submit this article, since this would be dumb. Now, on the matter of NOTABILITY, I hope that there is no argument in that his achievement is a NOTEWORTHY event; which can be proven.Agames 10:50, 15 September 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.170.217.137 (talk)
    - What part of WP:AUTO do you not understand? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - THIS IS NOT AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY; LOOK UP THE DEF. OF AUTO BIO'S: IT IS A BIO THOUGH!
A letter signed by a coach probably doesn't meet the standard of verifiability for something as significant as "national champion", no matter how legitimate the letter is. And there is no point submitting evidence of a non-notable industrial accident. Hairhorn (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I AGREE. HOWEVER, I'M ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN SOURCE INFO WHICH MAY HAVE ALREADY BEEN PUBLISHED IN CUBA 1962, (NEWSPAPER ARTICLES, PUBLICATIONS, ETC.) AND A COPY OF THE "OFFICIAL RECORD" KEPT IN CUBA. BUT, IT'S A "CLOSED SOCIETY" AND IT VERY DIFFICULT.
  - On the "NON-NOTABLE" INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECIDES THIS CASE, SINCE IT'S PENDING FOR VIOLATIONS OF 1) 1954 CONV. TO STATUS OF REFUGEES 2) ARTICLE 22 OF THE UN CONVENTION 3) U.S.C. TITLE 18, TITLE 42, TITLE 8, TITLE 20, BILL OF RIGHT ARTICLE 6,7,8, 14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS. (THAT ALL). SO, WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT. OH, IN CASE YOUR INTERESTED THE CASE IS: ADDA N. GAMES, ET AL. V. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agames (talk • contribs) 05:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe you should read WP:COI. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WOW! What is your problem with this page? Seem like you're attempting to throw everything including the kitchen sink. I cannot see where WP:COI applies since this page is not done with the authors personal interest rather than Wikipedia's Neutral point of view. FACTS are FACTS, and they are only being reported in a NEUTRAL manner. If you're implying that this page is done with the purpose of expressing a personal opinion, or point of view, which is in a Conflict of Interest with Wikipedia's Mission, YOU COULDN'T BE WRONGER!(LOL) The page only expresses FACTUAL INFORMATION and is authored in the third person and NEUTRAL point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agames (talk • contribs) 15:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me see if I can spell it out for you. A conflict of interest means someone close to the subject is creating an article about that subject, and you full-on admitted that you are the son of the person the article is about. That kind of behavior is discouraged on Wikipedia. I don't know how I can be any more clear. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Taking what you've said into account, I went back and re-read WP:COI and I was unable to find a def. which stipulates "someone close to the subject is creating an article about that subject". In fact, what it does say is

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." Just because I'm related by blood does NOT place me in conflict with this rule. I'm certain that there are contibutors, related to or not, which contribute to Wikipedia.

However, if there is one person IN VIOLATION of Wikipedia's behavioral rules it is you. Please read WP:GAME Unfortunately, most people that could write about Mr. Alberto R. Games Hernandez, Cuba's 1962 National Champion, probably are not within the capacity to write about him in Wikipedia. So, I'll leave it up to you; instead of fighting me so violently on this, lend me a hand and see how this Hero can be honored. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agames (talk • contribs)

I'm not fighting you violently, or even fighting you at all; in fact, the only person getting all riled up is you. And as far as not finding a definition that stipulates "someone close to the subject is creating an article about that subject", um...did you not read the section on close relationships?

But you know what? I'm tired of continually explaining this to you. You don't get it because you don't want to get it. So let's just see what other users have to say. (By the way, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm gaming the system.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOOK METROSEXUAL, first, COI is not a reason for DELETING an article. Second, the rules state that "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." INTERESTINGLY, you are the ONLY ONE attacking me on WP:COI, when this is something that can be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agames (talk • contribs)

Then include me, though I don't plan on "attacking" you either. The COI guidelines suggest that you shouldn't be involved with an article about your father. This conflict of interest you have also colors any comments you make in this deletion discussion. While we might trust that an uninvolved editor might wish the article to remain in the encyclopedia because it is notable enough to merit inclusion, it is reasonable to assume that you want the article to remain because you want to promote your father. That's a reasonable thing to do, noble in fact, but unfortunately it is not compatible with the aims of Wikipedia. Your aggressive behavior only undermines your arguments in this deletion discussion. I suggest that you base your arguments on policy and common sense rather than attacking editors who disagree with you. -- Atama頭 09:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly unverified original research. -- Atama頭 09:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources indicating notability can be found. Edward321 (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. --A3RO (mailbox) 19:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davfs2[edit]

(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) 01:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. Worthwhile though this software may be it does not seem to have enough coverage. It gets mentions in various books and articles but always as a minor component of something bigger. This might be enough for verification but not notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, though notability may be an issue. --Mokhov (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is an issue. What's your reason for wanting to keep it when notability hasn't been shown? Is it because you think that it's useful? If it is, that is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Joe Chill (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My basic reason here is that most file systems are notable in some way to exist (leaving aside my personal attachment to them). And also I am more of an inclusionist :-) Perhaps not the most compelling reasons to keep the article from some editors here, but nonetheless the said reasons prompted me to cast the vote. If the general consensus will tend to deletion, I would recommend perhaps merging it into some place referenced in File system or at least documenting some of it in Comparison of file systems. --Mokhov (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not notable in the Wikipedia sense. Keep and delete !votes in AFD that don't reference at least one guideline are discounted by the closing admin. Joe Chill (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. I am not wedded to it; if I were I would look up a couple, but won't expend any more effort regarding this article for now to see what others have to say. --Mokhov (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: from the Department of Second Thoughts: if the consensus is to delete please move it to my user's space; I'll try to salvage and nurture it to an acceptable level, including notability proofs, for re-inclusion into the main article space, when I have time. That is if you guys practice such things for non-creators. --Mokhov (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's allowed. Joe Chill (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brandon (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... Joe Chill, what's the quality of O'Reily and other couple of books as well as some Google scholar refs in your opinion WRT the coverage of davfs2? I think they are acceptable 3rd party sources, at least some. I have [to] go now, but I can definitively convert some of these into inline refs for sure. --Mokhov (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I think that it is enough for free software, but I can't withdraw it because of the weak delete. Joe Chill (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep - The article exists already, covers a valid topic and is structured properly. Granted, it is not an exhaustive article, but it serves the purpose of being a simple reference for this tool. --AStanhope (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG, something that the keep voters are yet to deal with. Ironholds (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG is not applicable here. There are a number of independent academic and non-academic publications covering the topic over a span of years at least between 2004-2008 published by IEEE, ACM, and USENIX, and O'Reilly of works that use and/or reference davfs2. I've added 7 of them to the article as examples, and now I am laying my case to rest. --Mokhov (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I don't believe the subject of this article fails the notability guideline. I think the article should be expanded and while it could certainly use some citations, it provides enough information to easily meet the stub guideline. I found coverage of this software in a number of published books such as Version Control with Subversion ISBN 0-596-51033-0 and others so the authors of these books and the WebDAV community at least consider this project to be important enough to give coverage to. The software is also included with many major Linux distributions such as Debian Linux [20] which has often been used as a metric to establish notability for articles about open source software. While I think there is enough information to work with to expand this article, if it is to remain a stub, merging or expanding this article into a larger article about WebDAV is another option as I can find plenty of coverage for mod_dav and mod_dav_fs with Google Books [21] [22] and other searches. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But does the coverage add up to significant? I've only been able to find brief mentions which include almost nothing but the name. Ironholds (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said above, I found enough material via Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books where I feel the subject of the article meets the notability guideline. As I also mentioned above, the software is included with major Linux distributions so the larger open source software community clearly considers it important and thinks it receives enough usage to warrant inclusion and distribution with major Linux distributions. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Ironholds -- it certainly does. Subversion is a notable and widely used version control system today. Plus see other refs. I added for example. --Mokhov (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Tothwolf -- the references have been found earlier. I suggest to also add them to article when you mention them here, just like I just did. It would help the article tremendously, or, if not tremendously, it may improve it to an acceptable keep level. I added 7 of them to the article. You can add other noteworthy ones as well as help expanding the article. Thanks :-) --Mokhov (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, sources given establish that it exists, not that it is notable. Minor mentions do not establish notability. Miami33139 (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Subversion mention in the books is far from "minor". Some contain entire sections on how to install and configure it for Apache and why. --Mokhov (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Miami33139 showed up here as part of their wikistalking me after I added the WP:COMP ((WikiProject Computing)) banner template to a number of articles that Miami33139 prodded as part of a mass-prod of software articles. They have gone on to prod, AfD, and revert all sorts of my edits. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into WebDAV (or even into a new article about WebDAV-based filesystems).

The general topic of WebDAV-based file systems is important enough that Wikipedia should cover them, but articles about the individual file systems would be short and repetitive. So we should create a section of WebDAV (or even a new article) that discusses WebDAV-based filesystems, both the one built in to Mac OS X and those for Linux: davfs2 (the most important, AFAICT), fusedav, and wdfs. (We would keep davfs2 as a redirect, of course.) I'm afraid I'm too busy to do this myself; any volunteers? CWC 04:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to merge. This sounds good to me. There is enough coverage to justify brief inclusion of this product as part of another, more generic, article. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete - G7. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syed ziaur rahman[edit]

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

This article is an autobiography written by the person itself (see the creator's username). The notability is questionable. The article is written more like to promote his own works, "achievements" and his life. Goes against in a certain way WP:YOURSELF Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Notability is questionable, but still there. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator mentioned that his article maybe a copyright violation, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2166779/Biography-of-Dr Ikip (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly promotional - can't we speedy it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Author blanked, which isn't really permitted during an AfD, but it also means it can be speedied as G7. So nominated.Hairhorn (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted this per G7. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 00:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer.im[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB from what I can tell. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am having difficulty finding any third-party reliable sources about the site. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I commend the site's purpose, the only Ghits I found were wikis, Facebook and Answers.com. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also having trouble finding reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also can't seem to find reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sadly, but yes, can not find any RS... Admrboltz (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and relevant information but needs to add some more references marygillwiki (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as a recreation of an article deleted following a deletion discussion, that failed to address reasons for deletion. Skomorokh 23:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bradden Inman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails notability at WP:ATH and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not give it a few months? I know technically he dosn't qualify, but even if he dasn't played any league games yet the odds are he soon will do. RicoRichmond (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:CRYSTAL. If he hasn't played yet, it's too early to have this article, and you can't necessaily prove when he might play. Delete. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content, no more notable than last time this article was deleted. Deletion w/o prejudice to recreation if and when he makes a first-team appearance. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete agree with Bencherlite's comments. It seems highly likely that he will become notable but he's not there yet and we can't jump the gun. Cazort (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This guy fails WP:ATHLETE by a mile, and even in NUFC's threadbare state he is not likely to get a game this season barring a major swine flu outbreak, even in the Carling Cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete under WP:CSD G4. Nothing has changed since the last AfD to make the subject of the article notable. --Jimbo^[online] 22:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above Spiderone 12:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 00:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven McLachlan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven McLachlan. Article was recreated with no improvements on the issues raised in that AFD, so I tagged as G4 here. G4 tag was removed by an IP with no explanation here. Right now, I'm assuming that the IP and the article's creator are not the same user, which is why I'm bringing it here. MuZemike 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking at the search results, there are a lot of false positives, and I don't think any of the gNews results match this specific person. I also was unable to find anything about this person charting still as with the last AFD. I also get discogs and directory entries in a regular search, but nothing of which I can find with provides significant coverage or reliable (As usual, I may have overlooked something.) MuZemike 18:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: No WP:RS to demonstrate WP:N. Eusebeus (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find MuZemike's analysis to be right-on...lots of other people by the same name...this actual guy has very little coverage and is nowhere near notability. Cazort (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability at this time. Robofish (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. JForget 00:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Webb (historian)[edit]

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

Not notable. Two references on page are a dead link and a book printed on a "personal imprint" - effectively Self-Published. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be a direct copy of http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/James_Webb_%28historian%29 Omegastar (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that site is one of the myriad sites which mirror wikipedia content. Ikip (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is. http://www.bookrags.com/Harrow_School Ikip (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. Well in that case, keep as per Ikip Omegastar (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~If a copyvio, delete, otherwise~~ keep, well referenced individual on google books. Referenced by several authors. Ikip (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notable. Article could use expansion.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. JForget 00:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Wheel Weiser Conari[edit]

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

Non-notable publishing house. Only two references are for writer's desk references and would confirm only existence of magazine and publishing guidelines, no second-party commentary. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. samuel weiser is a major metaphysical publishing house, and conari is notable as well. i dont think the article name is accurate, though. looking up samuel weiser should get many solid hits. ill try to fix shortly.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Page has six active redirects pointing to it, and a total of 67 Articles linking to it. It needs clean up and references, not deletion. Here's a Publishers Weekly article to start with, and here's their old entry in Jeff Herman's Guide to Book Publishers via Google Books. Probably took less time to do that research than it took to create the AfD, and that's aside from the 27 pages found with the News Sources link in the AfD itself. Also, according to their web site the company name is still "Red Wheel/Weiser, LLC" despite the Conari acquisition, so I agree with Mercurywoodrose that the name is inaccurate, and it should probably be moved. Geoff Capp (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i had to truncate my response above, as i have a life outside WP, with sudden interruptions. there are approx. 80 references to samuel weiser on WP, mostly in the reference section of metaphysical articles. nuff said, except i should have remembered to say "rename"Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no problem finding sources. Most of it is in Publishers Weekly. One of the companies making it up goes back to 1957 according to the company website. I agree with the move; it seems to be referred to mainly as "Red Wheel/Weiser". Cazort (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily reverted to disambiguation page. As the page has now been reverted to a disambiguation page and nobody presented any evidence that the band merits an article, there isn't anything left to discuss here. If anyone wants to show the band are actually notable, I suggest starting a new article at a different title. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rise[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability guideline WP:MUSIC Ph4zon (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Lads, come back when you've got somewhere. Like having a complete line-up, having recordings on the market (not self-issued CDs with hand-written labels), and being referred to in outside reliable sources. Till then, good luck with your degrees. Peridon (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make mine Revert following the revelations below... Peridon (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously. Possibly a speedy candidate since it seems to be mostly stuff made up in school. Eusebeus (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy revert to this version, which was a disambiguation page. Unknown bands (as per all above) don't get to usurp disambiguation pages. Even if this band were notable, they would have to have a qualifier after their name to distinguish them from The Rise (band), an unrelated band. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy revert per Metropolitan90. Replacing the info wasn't a good idea. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've performed the said speedy revert, which was an excellent idea.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodsucking Zombies From Outer Space[edit]

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

Non-notable band, with no little to no coverage in reliable sources. Unable to find any mentions or reviews, only coverage appears to be in social networking sites and last.fm type sites. TN X Man 16:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, and the reference listed as "New York Times" is actually just an about.com guide's review, which not only fails WP:RS but seems to be an attempt to mislead readers about the band's lack of mainstream press coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's your rights, but try to explain (for yourselves at least) why other psychobilly band's pages are still here? A LOT of pages without any references. With less "notable". But they are here. The rules have been changed? Look at this genre band's list and kill all other psychobilly pages, without any references and non-notable. It's the genre of not so popular (as Madonna) bands. So what? --Notabene1 (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other pages that need attention, they can be dealt with individually. However, the state of other articles has no effect on this article. TN X Man 19:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just try to explain. Try to listen. Most bands of this genre are not so popular to ALL world. But they are famous to this group of interested people.

By the way ALL psychobilly genre has few thousand fans only of ALL world. If there is page about genre - it can be examples of the bands. Most of bands are "non-notable" to other world. Let's stay page about genre without examples of bands? This band is popular into this genre. They crowd the consert halls - speaking about __this__genre and __their__fans. You know the rules of Wiki better and it's your decision, i just would like to be sure you're really understand what are you doing now. Small'fans'genre has small'popular (to all world) bands. Before writing i read many pages about other bands of this genre. And it's wrong: to stay the articles about really non-notable bands. --Notabene1 (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Fails WP:BAND. Eusebeus (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. Bluecanary99 (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. With three albums on a fairly significant label that has released dozens of albums since 2003, there must surely be enough coverage around, although the best I found was this.--Michig (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Evacuate the Dancefloor (album). \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous (Cascada song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable single per WP:NSONGS, and almost no information (actually, only written information is about the music video). All previous Cascada singles have charted, and are consequently notable, but this one has not. Article has been prodded before (and the tag was removed by the creator a while ago), and even though there's a "major edit" template on it, I don't believe we should take it into consideration, because last time it was placed on top of the article, no "major edits" were made. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 15:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Protected Redirect to Album. The whole reason the article exists is because some believe it will be the next single based on the fact that there is a music video and that Natalie Horler supposedly said so at a concert. Whether it is or not, there is no information about it. It's not released yet, there's no date announced that we should expect it, and all there really is to say is that it could be the next single and there is a video. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, WP:CRYSTAL is also requesting it to be deleted. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 15:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evacuate the Dancefloor (album). WP:CRYSTAL. Probably protected, too, because of the last AFD & subsequent recreation. Just because a music video is released for a song does not mean it's a single. Fails WP:NSONGS; no charts. talking birds 16:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep next UK single, release date 28th September Mister sparky (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That does not appear to be a reliable source. talking birds 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete......again as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS.
~~Keep~~ another uk release source and this one is definitely reliable Mister sparky (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please only vote once in an Articles for deletion discussion. Even if this is a planned single, it does not pass WP:NSONGS for lack of third-party coverage. talking birds 01:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well as it is a confirmed release it will do when it charts in just over a weeks time, so its pointless deleting the article just for it to be recreated after a week. Mister sparky (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite correct, but just imagine what would become of Wikipedia if people start creating articles based on a future notability... Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 19:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added links from other sources including the CD single on Amazon. I believe they are waiting for the record company to finalize release date before making it available for pre-order. 77.100.60.38 (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The release date is now on Amazon and the single is available for pre-order. Surely there is now enough information and sources to stop this being deleted. 77.100.60.38 (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evacuate the Dancefloor (album) per WP:CRYSTAL. Once it is released or once adequate reliable sources are added it can be restored. Rlendog (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the title seems appropriate under WP:DAB, even for a redirect. Rlendog (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 00:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viancey[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Seemingly not notable enough for an article. If the thing he is most famous for is appearing in a single advert then this is not enough. His IMDB entry has almost nothing about his activities, only a bio that was submitted by himself or an agent. The other references are the sort of promotional details you would expect from the agents of an aspiring act. They do not demonstrate any notability. As a musician he has yet to release a record. DanielRigal (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hasn't done anything yet that would satisfy WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't understand why he has an IMDb page given that there is no filmography there. He may be a recording artist but he will need to release something and satisfy one of the WP:MUSIC criteria before I could support him having an article based on that. If he gets more media coverage, he will be able to have a Wikipedia article at some time in the future, but not now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can pay to create your page on imdb[23], which is clearly the case here. And I have a feeling either Viancey himself or his publicist wrote this Wikipedia page--Coasttocoast (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leuko (talk • contribs)
Delete doesn't meet WP: BAND or WP: ENT Sargentprivate (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reading this article, I can't even tell what the alleged notability is supposed to be for. Modeling? Acting? Singing? As a result, there's nothing per WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c
Delete Except his commercial appearences, there is nothing more... which is not enough. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 22:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Consensus is clearly in favour of the view that the mentions of this website in reliable sources are just that - mentions - as opposed to any in-depth coverage (or the sources are themselves not good enough for RS status). There were also a number of WP:ITSNOTABLE Keep votes which were discarded. When reference to policy was made, a clear community decision to delete was indicated. There is the possibility that some reference could be made to the one incident in 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies, but this would have to be better sourced and in my opinion there is not enough here even for a merge at the moment. Black Kite 13:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zombietime[edit]

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

Article about a blogger with no notability for an article of its own. Sole claims to fame are being one of 11 blogs blocked by a government for posting images of Muhammed, and expressing an opinion on a memorial design and asserting that a news story was a hoax despite all evidence to the contrary. The mentions in conservative blogs and so forth are trivial, and generally aren't mentions of zombietime itself but the general controversy "zombie" was a part of. Article also previously made claims that trivial mentions in conservative-slanted books (where hundreds if not thousands of such mentions are made) and getting one trivial "award" by a group that's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article was the proof of notability. I've done extensive pruning of article to try to lessen the severe POV of the article, but earlier minor such edits were reverted en masse. This page seems to be merely a place where people with a political axe to grind promote a minor axe-grinder who shares their views. DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- Zombietime isn't notable as an individual, nor for expressing opinions in the usual blogger way, but on the other hand, he/she is reasonably famous among some circles for going to left-wing events in the Bay Area and snapping photos, and a number of the photos have generated a fair amount of controversy. Would support a rename to "Zombietime photos", since it's true that Zombietime's activities other than the photos are not very notable... AnonMoos (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—article is about a notable blog, not a blogger. It has been covered in a number of 3rd party reliable sources, in accordance with all notability guidelines. Argument that "Sole claims to fame are being one of 11 blogs blocked by a government for posting images of Muhammed" is blatantly incorrect, as likely the most notable incident that Zombietime is known for is the ambulance controversy exposé. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I will also note that the nominator is largely responsible for removing about half of the article, and from an initial read-through it's not clear to me whether he removed any reliable 3rd party sources, but it's worth a look. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not that your claims that my statement was "blatantly incorrect"' only works if you cut off most of the sentence that I actually said, as you did. It appears you either didn't bother reading my comments or are misrepresenting them. But if you agree that that's what he/she is most notable for, then you must admit he/she's not notable enough for a separate Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delete the claims to fame are tenuous at best, the sources on the page fall well short of the bar. There is no analysis, just passing mentions. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the site is regarded as an important source by RS third parties. That makes an article about it in Wikipedia valuable. If there are third parties critising it, but all means include that so people can make up their own mind... but removing an article on a notable source of information would damage and not advance the project. Oboler (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I'll make several points, basically going through DreamGuy's message of "15:03, 13 September 2009" point by point. See also my recent comments at Talk:Zombietime.

The article is not about a blog, nor about a blogger. It is about a website carrying photojournalism which (1) made a big impact amongst conservative (and libertarian?) bloggers and their readers, and (2) had a notable impact outside the blogosphere. (The blog/website distinction is not obvious, and the fact that 'zombie' now has a blog hosted at that website further blurs that distinction. But 'zomblog' did not start until April 2008, well after 'zombietime' became notable.)
What makes zombietime an essential part of any good encyclopedic coverage of blogs (there's that tricky distinction again) is the impact the site had on and through conservative blogs starting in 2004. At that time, coverage of blogs and related websites in newspapers and other WP:RSes was quite scant; AFAIK, there are no first-class secondary sources describing zombietime's impact. So we can only list instances of zombietime having an impact outside the blogosphere. (OK, we could list instances of conservative bloggers saying how important the website was, but I say that would not be encyclopedic.)
And zombietime did have an impact outside blogs.

The controversy which forced a redesign of the Flight 93 memorial basically started at zombietime. (Once again, we have no RSes demonstrating zombietime's role in the dispute. Like others who have edited the article, I am aware of zombietime's impact here because I followed the dispute at the time. (It struck me as an interesting early case of bloggers affecting 'real-world' politics.)
A 'zombietime' photoessay forced the San Francisco Chronicle to (try to) defend itself against charges of bias.
Another 'zombietime' photoessay arguing that Human Rights Watch propagated a hoax about Israel attacking an ambulance helped create a furor that forced HRW to (try to) defend its reporting

The Weblog Awards are the only awards that create any significant 'buzz' amongst political and science bloggers and their readers. Again, AFAIK they get little if any mainstream media coverage, but anyone who follows those blogs will know about them. (We should have an article about the 'webbies'. I for one would have created it if I knew of any usable RSes about them.) Winning a 'webbie' is a non-trivial accomplishment especially for a website that is not a blog.
I'm not claiming "that trivial mentions in conservative-slanted books" is "proof of notability" (these quotes are from DreamGuy, above). AFAIK, no-one has made that claim. I'd say that any such claim is wrong, and that the use of zombietime's photos in Unhinged is not worth mentioning in the article. (OTOH, I am claiming that winning a webbie is not "trivial", even if we don't yet have an article about those awards.)
It was I who "reverted en masse" DreamGuy's "earlier minor such edits". I did so because IMO they were (1) far from "minor", (2) violated our rules and (3) damaged the article.
I'm here to improve our coverage of zombietime, not promote it.
I'm sorry for using the word "blogosphere" here. It's ugly, but convenient. Cheers, CWC 04:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of "improving" the article so far has been to include clearly promotional language and slanted information, and your concept of what our rules say is entirely different from what are poloicies actually are. DreamGuy (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction: Hmm. I say that WP:BLP forbids labeling someone as "far-right" with no evidence of any kind; DreamGuy disagrees. I say that WP:EL allows links to YouTube channels which do not carry copyright-infringing videos; DreamGuy disagrees. I think my understanding of the project's rules is fairly good (within limits: image licensing is not one of my strengths), and I'm open to advice, corrections and trout-slaps.

I do not think I've "include[d] clearly promotional language and slanted information" in this article; I make an effort to not do that. If(when?) I slip up, I welcome rewrites ... but not blind reverts, please. CWC 02:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP protects people, not necessarily websites. As I said on AN/I, the fact that this somewhat obviously right wing website lacks any sources which characterize it as such should send WP:N alarm bells ringing. Protonk (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear oh dear. Unless zombie is an AI (in which case zombietime is really notable!), BLP protects him or her.

And here's a source calling zombietime "right wing".

Cheers, CWC 08:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP protects people, not works. I have a much lower threshold for referring to a book as right wing than I do the author. Assuming that BLP extends from the author to the creation is both wrong and dangerous, because BLP is a powerful tool to suppress criticism. Protonk (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per all the reasons above. Clearly a notable blog cited in third-party reliable sources.ShamWow (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:notability- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep The blog has been in the news repeatedly for different events. Seems to pass WP:WEB. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any proof of REAL news coverage, or do you just mean other far right sources tried to use the site to advance their editorial cause? Please cite actual news stories from reliable mainstream news sources separate from political posturing if you make that claim. DreamGuy (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies#Ambulance controversy. If you look closely at reliable third-party coverage of this fairly minor blog, it has only received significant coverage for one episode - its commentary on the incident linked above. All of the other coverage consists, as others have already said, only of passing mentions. There simply is not enough coverage to make this blog notable for anything more than its 15 minutes of fame in 2006. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no non-trivial references outside of a far-right-wing walled garden. I would have no objection to a brief mention in 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies#Ambulance controversy as suggested by ChrisO above. *** Crotalus *** 13:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A "walled garden ... do[es] not have any links to or from anything outside the group" but this article has several links to articles outside the group. Also: saying that zombie and associated bloggers are conspiracy-minded racists (the effective meaning of "far right") violates WP:BLP; please don't do that. CWC 05:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Croatalus' defence, I have to say that you're misinterpreting his comments: the "walled garden" he speaks of refers to the external references, not Wikipedia articles, and "far right" does not automatically equate "conspiracy-minded racists", as our far right article makes clear. Zombietime is certainly conspiracy-minded, though, as its coverage of the Lebanon ambulance issue showed. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Croatalus wrote nothing about links. 2. Our article on the far right strongly implies that they are conspiracy-minded racists ... which it should, because they are. 3. Zombie explictly states that "no 'conspiracy' is necessary to explain" the Ambulance reports. CWC 08:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zombietime is not really famous for expressing far right opinions, anyway -- Zombietime is famous for the photos snapped at left-wing events held at the Bay Area... AnonMoos (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Zombietime is not "famous" at all. *** Crotalus *** 14:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zombietime is not a broad celebrity like Lindsay Lohan or whatever, but within Zombietime's chosen field of endeavor, Zombietime is reasonbly well-known (similar to tens of thousands of other people with biographies on Wikipedia), as I explained in my previous message of 15:16, 13 September 2009 above. AnonMoos (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be easy to show plenty of reliable sources that cover the subject in significant detail (rather than some controversy where the subject was only minimally involved). Protonk (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of apparent existance of substantial reliable sources. Sources that discuss this website either only mention it in passing, or are themselves not up to the muster at WP:RS, many only marginally above the "blog" level of reliability. If actual, mainstream, reliable sources could be shown to discuss this website in depth (not just in passing) then I could be persueded that the article could be kept. But I don't see anything right now that looks promising. --Jayron32 21:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial reliable independent sources which are actually about the subject, rather than just mentioning it in passing. A redirect or smerge would be equally acceptable, but we really don't have enough for an article about this website. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jayron32, couldn't put it any better. ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minimally sourced. The sourcing which refers to the subject does so in passing. The article focuses heavily enough on the site so as to be inherently promotional. Protonk (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per CWC. Another zombietime issue that received a good deal of press coverage related to the Google/Memorial Day issue (when it was noted that Google had never changed its logo on Memorial Day, as it had done for many other holidays). That was covered by CBS News [24], and several different Tribune Company newspapers (here is the Hartford Courant story with a byline from a Los Angeles Times staff writer - [25]). There is also a mention of his coverage of the Tookie Williams vigil in John Leo's blog at US News and World Report ([26]) with a link to his photo essay. This website isn't Daily Kos, but it's also not your Aunt Mildred's cat blog. Horologium (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jayron32. Casual passing mentions do not a reference make, whether they be in reliable sources or not. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All the claims to notability in this AfD are that the site was "mentioned" in various publications. Simply being mentioned does not satisfy WP:N, coverage must be significant to be considered evidence of notability. -- Atama頭 00:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found two columns (one from the San Francisco Chronicle reader's representative and one from The Guardian reader's representative) that focus extensively on two separate zombietime photoessays. The one from the Chronicle which is linked above by CWC) discusses the photo taken by the Chronicle at an anti-war rally, and zombie's challenge to the context missing from the photo. ([27]) The Guardian column is a response to zombie's ambulance photoessay and the Guardian's coverage of the issue. ([28]) Both of these columns alone justify retention of the article, as they cover two separate events, and they offer significant discussion of the subject in mainstream, reliable sources. Horologium (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those cover the photo controversy and not the site. Protonk (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies (note the plural), and both issues are specific to issues raised by zombie, on zombietime. Without the photoessays, there would have been no controversies, and that doesn't address the impact of zombie's coverage of the Flight 93 dispute. Horologium (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source of those controversies is largely immaterial. The fact remains that the coverage of the subject is minimal and tangential. Protonk (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the controversies is the subject. You can't separate them, because without the subject, there would have been no controversies. It's not tangential at all. Horologium (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also covering the same material covered in a reliable source does not mean that reliable sources actually cover the WEBSITE. Replace the website name with a person's name. If it said "John Doe found out that..." or "John Doe reported that..." and then it makes no effort to explain who John Doe is, or why he is important, and makes no further comment on John Doe, then there isn't anything there to build an article around. The coverage still is not about the website, its about something the website reported about. Again, lets find something where the website itself is the subject of the article, NOT where the website is mentioned a single time in passing somewhere in the article. --Jayron32 01:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At this point there has been enough coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Here are some additional sources: 16 in books, 46 in news, 15 in scholar. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In a quick scan of a half dozen of the articles in Google News, I notice that none of them is really about the website itself. Again, 46 single sentance mentions of the website does not necessarily equal any depth. Substantial coverage, as noted at WP:GNG, would imply that the website itself was covered by the sources, not merely mentioned. Having the name dropped a few dozen times doesn't really make it notable. --Jayron32 01:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I went through the Google Scholar hits, and found only 1 I'd accept as a RS, the Cooper 2007 paper we now use. I didn't find anything useful in the Google Books hits. CWC 00:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jayron. Ironholds (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --John (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-arbitrary section break[edit]

Delete - Despite the number of sources, the most I've lookedat don't seem to give any detailed or significant information about the website, and it would therefore seem to be non-notable. Skinny87 (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All but the last two of the preceding !votes were made before I found a scholarly paper (and added it to the article)

Stephen D. Cooper. A Concise History of the Fauxtography Blogstorm in the 2006 Lebanon War, American Communication Journal, Vol 9, Issue 2, Summer 2007

As the title suggests, it's primarily about the controversy about coverage of the 2006 Lebanon War. The next biggest topic is an analysis of two of zombies essays. (BTW, I wouldn't call that paper "concise".)

In terms of WP:GNG, this is "more than a trivial mention" (first bullet point), reliable (second point), a secondary source but only one (third point), and independent of the subject (fourth point). I contend that this paper, in addition to playing a role in 2 widely-reported controversies and winning the blogosphere's equivalent of an Oscar, establishes notability.

(I also found this criticism of the coverage of the Mactel kerfuffle. Tilt.)

Does anyone want to change their !vote? CWC 08:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment on your source - the professor at Marshall specializes in blogs and web media, which is the topic of his book. He discusses several blogs in his book, because that's what he studies. I don't know that that makes any of the blogs he discusses particularly more noteworthy than any of the others.

I'm also not convinced that this blog played more than a very minor role in the two "widely-reported controversies" you mentioned. The zombietime article lists three controversies: The Flight 93 National Memorial, The Mohammed Image Archive, and the 2006 Lebanon War/Red Cross ambulance incident. The description of the first of these controversies states that "similar claims were made by a variety of blogs and news outlets". The description of the second states that "zombietime was one of 11 blogs listed on a Muslim hacker forum". Neither of these strikes me as being particularly unique or noteworthy, or any reason to single out this blog above any of the other blogs or bloggers that complained about the memorial or posted the Mohammed images online (or both). The only true "claim to fame" that I can seem to find for this blog is related to the 2006 Lebanon War and the controversies therein. Given that, I'd rather see it merged into the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies article as ChrisO suggested earlier, or deleted (as the topical material is pretty redundant between the two). ← George^[talk] 09:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think the list of pages that link to this one is pretty telling. (Spoiler alert! Only one article links to this one - the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies article) ← George^[talk] 09:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the blog posts which led to the F93 memorial redesign, so I happen to know that zombie started that ball rolling. But sourcing this would require citing lots of third-party blog posts (ugh) and that would unbalance the article (bigger ugh). And yet the memorial is an interesting early example of New Media affecting a government project. Architectural Record's (rather good, IMO) report was quite right to single out zombietime, but I say a claim based on z being singled out would be WP:OR.

Flight 93 National Memorial should cite that Arch. Rec. item and link to zombietime. It now does both.. CWC 00:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's a good source, and thanks for updating that other article. I'm just not sure that the coverage of zombie related to the memorial (one paragraph in one source) is sufficient to warrant the article. For what it's worth, I think you've changed my mind from delete to weak delete. I wouldn't personally be opposed to keeping the article and trying to clean it up, though I'm still not convinced that it should be kept either. ← George^[talk] 00:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Regarding the scholarly paper cited above, its reliability is high, but the mentions are still kind of trivial. The paper itself amounts to 43 pages of computer screen text (on my computer) and the entirety of the coverage of the Zombietime Website in that paper amounts to two paragraphs of original text, and a quote of another paragraph's worth of material from the Zombietime's website itself. This is certainly better than anything else presented so far, but I still don't see this as enough. --Jayron32 12:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I count eight paragraphs of original text focused on zombietime, plus another eight (depending how you count bulleted lists) or so of quotes from zombie. Clearly, while the focus of the paper is the "Blogstorm" (Cooper's word, AFAIK), zombies essays are the next biggest 'topic'. Unless WP:GNG has changed since I last read it, this is a perfectly good source ... but only one. CWC 00:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was looking for refs of the website not the author. Re-looking at it with the name "Zombie" as a search term does turn up more coverage. Still, it's coverage of Zombie's coverage of another incident Again, better than anything else we have so far, and I am getting closer to changing my vote, but I would need to see more stuff like this... --Jayron32 01:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; with an eye to merging the good tidbits in 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies. — Coren ^(talk) 10:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jayron32's reasons. Potentially, a slew of RS mentions could push it up and over the WP:N notability wall, but they haven't, or the article would have a fuller, well-rounded account of the subject. It doesn't and it can't until better sourcing is written up. Even if we had reason to think that enough usable sourcing exists, I'd support keeping, but we don't. It might actually be nice to have a wiki where articles like this would have a place, because it could benefit political discussions, but this isn't that encyclopedia. -- Noroton (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Keep the bits and pieces related to the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies, ditch the rest as above. — ℳℴℯ ε 14:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jayron32. Consider salting.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CWC and Cirt. 15 cites in Google scholar does it alone. --tickle me 16:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I think you misunderstand what notability requires. I could probably find 15 cites, mentions or quotes of my own comments or works in reliable sources. That would not make me notable, though. Mentions or citations are not enough to establish notability - we need material that actually covers the article subject in non-trivial detail, but unfortunately we have very little of that here. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. A quick check of news.google.com shows multiple instances of non-trivial press coverage. THF (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples? Convince me. -- Noroton (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are at least four on this page—I cited two and CWC found that journal article, plus the Architectural Record article on the Flight 93 memorial, and there are several more already in the article. The two reader's representative columns I cited cover two different events (one is a US paper discussing coverage of an anti-war rally in San Francisco, the other a British paper covering the ambulance issue, and there are at least three articles dedicated to the ambulance issue from Australia (already cited in the article). That's three different continents, and three separate events. Not to mention that the site was singled out as an "enemy of Islam" for hosting the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, and blocked by the Pakistani government. Horologium (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As has been pointed out above, what we need is coverage of Zombietime, not mentions of what Zombietime said about another issue. Where is the coverage that goes into some detail about the history of the site and what changes it may have undergone, or provides some description of how it's valued or criticized by others? We need coverage more detailed than what we get from the sources you mention. That's what the mentions of "substantial" and "trivial" coverage are about at WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Perhaps this article should be reproduced in some form over at Conservapedia so it won't be lost to the Web, because it just doesn't meet our criteria here. -- Noroton (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Have at it. You'll not see me contributing to Conservapedia, and from what I understand, they don't use the same license we use, which means that it can't be ported over there. FWIW, the bar that is being set here is going to result in carnage among our blog coverage, because there are very few blogs that have coverage of the blog itself in reliable sources. I suspect that fewer than a dozen blogs have substantial coverage of the blog's history in multiple reliable sources. I plan to nominate Americablog for deletion for the same reason used to delete this article. There is little to no coverage of Americablog itself, only reactions to the Jeff Gannon photos and Wesley Clark's cell phone records issues. Horologium (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If proper sources can't be found for that one, I'd vote to delete. Please let me know if you nominate it. And about porting it over there: I think that if you write something, you get to port what you've written, so if you've contributed a lot to this article, I think you're free to do that (and rewrite whatever isn't your own work). -- Noroton (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What you're asking for is pretty much what Zombietime has been intentionally trying to avoid -- Zombietime prefers to remain strictly anonymous as an individual, and Zombietime has rather little interest in bulking up the web hits of the Zombietime site as a goal in itself, or making the Zombietime website itself the main focus of a story. What Zombietime is actually interested in is influencing people's opinions by providing photographic documentation, or calling attention to photographic documentation, which throws light on various controversies and disputed issues (and Zombietime is more interested in influencing people's opinions directly or indirectly than in promoting the Zombietime site as such). Zombietime has in fact been reasonably successful at this goal of achieving influence, which is why an article on the Zombietime site deserves serious consideration for inclusion in Wikipedia. It seems to me that the Zombietime site should be judged on the basis of how far it succeeds in what it has set out to do, rather than on whether it jumps through a set of quasi-arbitrary hoops or generic criteria which were devised for different types of websites than Zombitime's, and have little usefulness in truly meaningfully evaluating the Zombietime site's notability... AnonMoos (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, what we're concerned about here is whether the site is notable enough to be included, not whether the site met its own goals. The "generic criteria" are Wikipedia's criteria for Wikipedia's purposes, and we have them in order to keep Wikipedia roughly fair in how it decides what to include or not include, because it helps us to base a decision on some kind of objective proof. One way that we can be roughly fair with whether or not to keep, say, Americablog, is to use the same standard we use here, and vice versa. Otherwise we'll have simple I LIKE IT/I DON'T LIKE IT political fights, or at least a lot more of them. (By having generic criteria, the LIKE/DON'T LIKE voices are [supposed to be] ignored, or they have to jump through extra hoops, working to disguise their goals -- we want to make that hard and make it easy to focus on nonpartisan ways of measuring importance.) As far as this decision is concerned, Zombietime's own purposes are irrelevant. -- Noroton (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That's nice. All I'm asking is that the site be evaluated for what it actually is, instead of being evaluated as something which it never was claimed to be or intended to be, just because it's a little atypical, and can't be conveniently slotted into preconceived inflexible rigid bureaucratic categories... AnonMoos (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        What it actually is is a site that doesn't get enough reliable sources that give us substantial, not trivial amounts of information on it. That's what it is, as far as WP:N is concerned, and therefore it lacks something necessary to be a subject of a Wikipedia article. I personally wish it were otherwise. But it's not otherwise. So it's gotta go. -- Noroton (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge) per ChrisO above. Only a single page links to this article, even though it has been around for almost three years. Fails to meet notability beyond one event per WP:SINGLEEVENT. ← George^[talk] 07:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable blog; lacks significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. One possibility would be to redirect to 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies#Ambulance controversy, the WP:ONEEVENT where it was briefly newsworthy. Robofish (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is marginal. The references are either to the blogger's site, or to brief mentions in mainstream media. --John Nagle (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets notability criteria 1 and 3 of WP:WEB, even if many simply don't like its content. Noon (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually I like it but still advocate deletion. Clearly does not meet criteria one, I'm guessing you missed where it says that it must be the subject of published works. That doesn't include being mentioned in passing. I really don't understand your criteria 3 claim, who is redistributing content of the web site? Sure, some news sources quote Zombietime but that's a far cry from saying that what they're published is being redistributed. -- Atama頭 18:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I really don't understand the criteria 3 claim - it's completely inapplicable to this case. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(to Atama, after E/C with ChrisO) Actually, it does meet criteria 1 for WP:WEB. Its content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial discussions (both of the reader's representative columns discuss its content to a substantial extent; the one from the San Francisco Chronicle focuses on zombietime and their own photograph, and the one from the Guardian focuses on zombietime, with references to the dispute kicked up in Australia over the issue. Zombietime's photoessays are content which has been covered in a non-trivial fashion by multiple independent sources. (Note that the requirement does not discuss the quality or accuracy of the content; it only requires that the content has been discussed by multiple sources.) The Human Rights Watch report linked in the piece specifically identifies zombietime as the source from which all of those who disagree with their report received their information; quoting the report: "The hoax theorists based their conclusions on the analysis of Zombietime..." Apparently there was enough coverage to warrant a full report from HRW disputing zombietime's assertions. I disagree with the claims made here that this site fails WP:WEB, because it is blindingly obvious that it is in fact notable. WP:WEB does not require discussions of the site's history or stucture; only the content, which is what all of the fuss is about. And for what it's worth, I have no stake in this article; not a single word of it was written by me, and I have no connection to zombie. Horologium (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If no independent, reliable source has given us more than a trivial amount of information about the site, as opposed to giving us information about what the site commented on at particular points, how are we supposed to ever have an adequate article that fully describes the subject? We can't seem to get information enough for an encyclopedia article because it doesn't seem to be out there. We're an encyclopedia, not a directory. -- Noroton (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The San Francisco Chronicle article was an editorial piece about a picture that the Chronicle had posted. Zombietime itself wasn't the subject of the article, the Chronicle itself was. The same can be said for the Guardian editorial. The fact is, neither was about Zombietime itself, so criteria 1 of WP:WEB doesn't apply. And for what it's worth, I've never heard of Zombietime before this AfD. -- Atama頭 22:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm not sure that websites/blogs are a proper topic for an encyclopedia. I also get a WP:COATRACK vibe here, that the article is being promoted as a vehicle for the viewpoints expressed on the website. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much doubt that it was originally created to promote the website. An editor called User:Zombiefan created the first version, which was nominated for speedy deletion as blatant promotion in January 2007 [29]. He (I think) subsequently removed the speedy deletion tag and was responsible for writing much of the content. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. Alexf^(talk) 21:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last rodeo (Brooks & Dunn album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The last rodeo (Brooks & Dunn album)

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

no sources, possible hoax Caldorwards4 (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:HOAX. WP:CRYSTAL as well. The tour they're on is called The Last Rodeo...doesn't mean there's going to be a compilation of the same name. talking birds 16:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:HOAX. It's going to be released August 3, 2010? (*rolling eyes*) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this user has a history of creating hoax articles about country albums, so I'm taking it to WP:AIV. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment—this article doesn't have any sources so its accuracy is highly dubious, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so I'm supporting a deletion. However, I will also comment that quite a few people have been misinterpreting the blatant hoax clause of CSD. This article does not fit into that category. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the clause says "blatant" rather than "misrepresentation". The latter would be accidental while the former would be intentional -- and given this article creator's history, "blatant" would be accurate. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. per WP:CSD#A7. I see no significant assertion of any type of notability so I really don't see a reason to keep it open especially as the user has re-created the article at least 3 times. I've left them a note about that, also. Rjd0060 (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead air Show[edit]

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

This article has been created (and deleted) 3 times, under the name Nick and Rob. Unless more reliable sources can be provided, this would not seem to meet notability guidelines. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 13:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete and salt. Let this run through though so any recreations can be g4'd.--Terrillja _talk 13:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton (band)[edit]

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

This appears to be a not notable band, as no notable sources are provided. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 12:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the New York Times. --Rikkyc (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to withdraw the nomination, as the article was introduced into Mainspace lacking reliable sources, but has since been improved. Cheers! --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 12:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 00:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balcony nightclub[edit]

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

New notable sources are slow in being added, after a NPP CSD was traded for an AfD to give the editor time to provide additional sources. There is a reference to an additional Lonely Planet article, but it is not available online for easy verification. Since the nightclub is no longer in business, I'm not sure this one source will be sufficient. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 12:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No hyperlink to a source for "easy verification" is not grounds to delete an article. Many sources are from books, periodicals and government sources that were published long before Al Gore invented the internet. Besides, the Lonely Planet piece is available online. As a matter of fact, the nominator linked to at above in this AfD in the "books" link.[30]--Oakshade (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To earn the right to lecture me, you should take a stand with a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down." We're supposed to assume good faith, which in this case, might mean checking the edit history of the article to see what led to this discussion. Believe it or not, I'm completely aware of the value of books, since I'm actually a book editor. The Lonely Planet piece, as displayed online, is a paid travel listing, as are virtually all of the sources provided. I was attempting to give the editor the benefit of the doubt, by explaining that I was willing to concede that there might be a full article about this nightclub in Lonely Planet, which apparently there is not. These discussions would be a lot smoother, and more people might participate, if every venture onto these boards did not end up with a half-cocked lecture, mostly irrelevant to the article at hand.--OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 03:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After that lecture, my comment stands. Don't know how I feel about this article so no "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" at the moment. That's perfectly allowed. --Oakshade (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's better if people don't vote to keep but only question your nomination. I think you should be given a chance to formulate your arguments more clearly, since this nightclub is a marginal case. I for one remain unconvinced that it is notable. Abductive (reasoning) 04:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely incorrect. This is what the guidelines for AfD say, exactly: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy."

Nothing in the AfD guidelines mentions lectures to nominators. It asks us to make recommendations, sustained by arguments. It also asks how each individual article meets or doesn't meet a policy. It mentions nowhere that the AfD is a chance for editors to sit on the sidelines and take pot shots at other editors who have actually contributed to the artice in question. In regards to more fully explaining my rationale, that would be more easily accomplished by simply asking: "Would you mind providng more information for the nomination?"--OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not voting yet, and we aren't lecturing. I'm asking for more information while at the same time informing other readers of this AfD what is available in terms of sourcing. What we don't want is people voting keep because of these weak-ass sources that were not discounted by the nominator. Abductive (reasoning) 05:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where you "asked" for anything? Anyway, if you have any more "feedback" for me, how about you leave it on my talk page. If you have any questions for me, feel free to post them here. Otherwise, I "vote" to let this debate procede, with someone actually weighing in on the notability. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are news sources and other book sources. Being closed is irrelevant. AfD is not to push for the addition of sources, that is better left to tags like ((onesource)). Abductive (reasoning) 18:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After investigating the "sources"... the nom still stands. The "sources" are still all paid entries to travel magazines, and none of them can be counted on to confer notability to a closed nightclub, whose main claim to fame seems to have been serving six shots of alcohol to a barfly in front of security. There are more than one "Balcony nightclubs" in the world, and checking the sources, reveals that the "Balcony nightclub" for which most of the non-superficial sources have an entry, refer to a nightclub in Wellington for drag queens in the 70's, not this particular "Balcony nightclub," which was opened in the 90s. There are no entries of famous musical acts which performed, no indication that this was anything more than a local hangout. None of the "famous people" mentioned... seem to actually be all that famous. One athlete appears to have gotten into a barfight once, with some local media attention [31]. Is this enough to confer notability? I am still not convinced. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 02:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, and exactly what they say about the nightclub:

1)[32]: "There’s other great night spots too – Baja, a lounge bar, the Calypso Tavern and The Balcony nightclub at the Coolangatta hotel."

2) [33]: "The Balcony nightclub at the hotel is a party hotspot, as is the two-storey Calypso Tavern on Griffith Street, and lounge bar Baja."

3) (Lonely Planet) "Balcony+nightclub"+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=%22Balcony%20nightclub%22%20-inpublisher%3Aicon&f=false "...and the Balcony nightclub attracts some of the biggest acts in the music industry."

Delete Lacks the kind of in-depth references needed to establish notability per WP:N. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlikely to have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. You would anticipate promotional material either in print or online articles, but these are not independent of the subject. Bleakcomb (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of the sources rise to the level of notability. This club was rather ordinary. Abductive (reasoning) 22:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just another local bar/club that is popular with the locals and not notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne Kernohan[edit]

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

Non-notable actress who has only had a few minor roles, nothing of any significance. magnius (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, tedder (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing enough sources to write anything of significance about Roxanne Kernohan.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 11:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ENT. Eusebeus (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep but can you please add some information to the article because it is borderline speedy for lack of content. JForget 22:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seithigal[edit]

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

Subject that the article has not meet the requirements of notability, it fails WP:CORP. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 11:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable TV channel presumably watched by millions of people, given India's population. Pburka (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 00:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's even covered by the BBC in addition to other Indian news outlets. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 00:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty Wan (Card Game)[edit]

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

Not notable, potential spoof article based on misheard name Twenty One, incomplete article, maybe a very localised variant of a game welsh (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, tedder (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 11:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should get merged into Card game and the stuff about making tea and spinning a web removed. Originated in Northside of Dublin? Really? apparently The game was first documented in the 90's but no documents are provided. As far as I know 21 is just a card game played all over the world with a variety of rules. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete. I don't think it should be merged because I can't find any sources of its existence (othen than a game-related wiki), so I have to conclude it was made up. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a shedding game variant and should be merged. The suggested merge would basically mean adding italic text

"In a shedding game, players start with a hand of cards, and the object of the game is to be the first player to discard all cards from one's hand. Games of this type exist across the world with various names.
and a re-direct from twenty wan and any other pages of a similar type.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the proof of this is where?

I also just realized this article was created by User:Twentywan, so it also violates WP:SOAP and WP:COI. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 02:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Libyan Second Division 2008/2009. Nothing is referenced, so the article ought to just be redirected. NW (Talk) 00:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Second Division 2008-09 Fixtures & Results[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Libyan Second Division 2008-09 Fixtures & Results

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

Per WP:NOTSTATS. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. TerriersFan (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant info to Libyan Second Division 2008-09. Giant Snowman 16:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per GiantSnowman, even more so than with the Libyan Premier Spiderone 17:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. – Pee Jay 08:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 00:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly's and testimonials sufc/swfc[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Friendly's and testimonials sufc/swfc

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

Not notable. Any significant friendly derby matches (an oxymoron, surely?) should be detailed at Steel City derby. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, any and all notable matches will be covered in the existing article. Giant Snowman 18:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as mentioned all the relevant info is in Steel City derby article, pointless fork. --Jimbo^[online] 19:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notable matches are already covered elsewhere, and the title is not even remotely encyclopedically formed and fairly incomprehensible even to football fans -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prod endorser. – Pee Jay 08:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 15:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom (and that title reminds me of my last AfD). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some of the responses are saying the text should be merged into existing pages. Assuming Delete is the decision for this AfD will the nominator or someone else do that, or will the info be lost just as if no one had suggested merging might be good? Eldumpo (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I !voted delete rather than merge because exhibition games are generally not noteworthy. --Jimbo^[online] 16:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't see anyone who's saying the info should be merged, although several people have noted that all matches between the two clubs worth mentioning were already mentioned at Steel City derby long before this article was created...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy redirect to E70 in Serbia. Per WP:SK #1 and suggestion of S Marshall. I'm invoking WP:IAR to the extent necessary to effect this close. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autoput 1 (Serbia)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: I removed a ((db)) tag as it was not in WP:CSD. A WP:CSD G4 nomination was previously declined by User:DGG, apparently because he was not able to find the previous AfD discussion. As I know zero about the topic, PROD seemed inappropriate. CSD tagger's concern was: there is no A-numeration of highways in Serbia. E-numeration is used instead. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is only a stub, buit we have articles on much less important roads in other countries. I think the E-numbering is a Europe-wide one. Several counties use this in conjunction to a national system for non-Euroroutes. MY only query is whether this article should not be merged with E70 in Serbia, of which the present stub states that it is part. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peterkingiron Admrboltz (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel that the original tagger's concern, and that of the previous AfD discussion, is not WP:N but WP:V. In particular, whether this designation is actually used in Serbia. The Gsearch results do not give me confidence. I've invited the tagger to comment here. Perhaps that could help focus the discussion a bit. Tim Song (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 10:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't WP:SK ground 1 apply here? We have an AfD in which, for the past week, nobody has actually asserted that this material should be deleted.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm personally not inclined to SK it due to concerns raised in the previous AfD. See also the article's talk page. The CSD tagger thinks it's OR but for some reason never commented here. Tim Song (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm. He agrees that Autoput is the Serbian for Motorway. I think it's entirely possible that this road is not usually called "Autoput 1" in Serbia, but what that establishes is the case for a redirect, not the case for deletion.
    "Delete" would make sense if this wasn't a plausible search term, but actually I should think it is plausible, for a searcher familiar with the normal patterns of road-naming on Wikipedia.
    With regard to the previous AfD discussion from 2007, I believe the consensus has changed.
    I'm going to go with redirect to E70 in Serbia. I'll go a bit further too, and say this should probably be done speedily per WP:SK ground 1, on the basis that the discussion has been open for more than the seven days, nobody has argued for "delete", and AfD is quite busy enough without extended discussions on eastern European roads after a consensus has already formed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 00:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dion Betts[edit]

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

Notability has not been established. What has this person done to be notable? He published books. So what? What is notable about them and about him? This has been waiting for 12 months for an answer and that's more than long enough. Get Dumb 10:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem understand what notability means on Wikipedia. It means there are enough sources to write about most aspects of the subject, not that the subject is famous.--Patton123 (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't understand the nomination obviously. Be constructive thank you. The challenge I put is all about providing sources to prove notability. Get Dumb 13:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although he has written the books, there is no indication of the books' notability:
- A Scholar search shows that "Asperger syndrome in the inclusive classroom: advice and strategies for teachers" has been cited twice (see citations) - none of the other books have been cited anywhere according to Google.
- A Book search shows only "Asperger Syndrome in the Inclusive Classroom: Advice and Strategies for Teachers" and "Homespun Remedies: Strategies in the Home and Community for Children with Autism Spectrum and Other Disorders" and only the latter has a review (at ask.com).
- A News search shows a couple of minor references, no significant coverage.
Although all 4 books are listed on Amazon (with sales rankings ranging from 66 thousand to 250 thousand - no where near the best-sellers list) I could find no reviews (other than 1 customer review on Amazon, and the ask.com review), no coverage of this author/books to show that they are notable. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Phantom. Joe Chill (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reliable source. This is only a passing mention for WP:N purposes, but it establishes that Betts is a lecturer and speaker (i.e. an acknowledged authority in the autism community). This is essentially about Nancy Patrick, but it verifies Bett's professional status. This establishes the same thing.
I think it would be possible to make a case that Betts is not notable, but actual deletion would fall foul of WP:PRESERVE, and what we actually need to do is locate a suitable merge target.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm going to nit-pick here (sorry!), as I had come across these references when I was looking for sources! Here are my comments:

The ask.com review is the one I was referring to above.
With regard to the autism-society references, the impression I got when I saw it was that this was the a-soc printing up a press release that they had received from Betts.
With regard to the therapeuticreources.com and papsa-web.org mentions, it verifies that he is "is Assistant to the Superintendent for Instructional Support at South Western School District in Hanover, PA." - Although it shows his qualification and job, I don't think that it demonstrates that the contribution he has made is necessarily notable enough to be included in an article (I don't mean his own article - I mean an associated one that the details could be merged into)

- Overall, I am not sure that even if we could find a suitable article to merge the information with, that his contribution to the field would be notable enough for inclusion in that - there is no indication that his position or books are significant to the fields of Asperger's or Autism in general. With regard to WP:PRESERVE, I am not convinced that "move sourced and encyclopedic content to another article" would be met here, as the content is not sourced or particularly encyclopedic. The only source given is the external link, which leads to his own website, for which the only purpose of existence seems to be to sell his books. In the interests of ensuring that those who have knowledge in this area have the opportunity to make a contribution, I am leaving messages at autism-related talk pages, as below -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A message about this AfD has been left at Talk:Autism -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A message about this AfD has been left at Talk:Autism spectrum -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A message about this AfD has been left at Talk:Asperger's syndrome -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as an author. His notability as "an acknowledged authority in the autism community", as suggested above, is stretching things somewhat. Giving a talk at one's local chapter of an autism charity doesn't establish that any more than John the paramedic giving a talk on first aid to his son's school. Suggesting we "need" to "locate a suitable merge target" implies the article must have had more content when S Marshall read it. The article's current contents do not extend beyond the topic, which is itself not notable. Recent SPAM linking to the article rather suggests it is a vanity page. Colin°^Talk 19:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that Betts is notable as an author. Betts's press releases don't count. The books aren't notable either (as shown by searches above), but a book were notable, then there should be an article about the book not the author. Eubulides (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was already speedily deleted for no substantive content. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by percentage of population over 65 years of age[edit]

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

Listcruft. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You neglected to mention the "list" is empty. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Since the article was created today, I would normally give the creator time to improve it, but its very title suggests listcruft. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 00:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kitami Woome[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable individual - only sources I can find are here and facebook. Please also consider

House of Woome
Woome

Cameron Scott (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references found on this individual. Ikip (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:V. The author and an IP have repeatedly removed "unreferenced" tags. After the first AfD the main article was userfied to give the author time to improve and reference it, but he simply put it straight back in. At this point AGF gives up. Author's other article Abua should probably stay, as it appears that there is such a village, though too small to be actually marked on this map (click the "map" tab). Closing admin: if the result is "delete", consider whether (to save an additional MfD) User:Infinant/Kitami Woome should go too. JohnCD (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with JohnCD. I tried really hard to give the creator a huge benefit of the doubt, but it seems like he is unwilling to provide references to this article, and I have never been able to find any. Ikip (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am User Infianant. I have to say there are many kingdoms in the continent of Africa that are within the countries that were made as a result to European Imperialism. Most of these kingdoms are very small, some not with even 1,000,000 subjects. They are kingdoms though nonetheless. I am speaking on behalf of the Royal House of Woome, ruling family of the Village of Abua in Rivers State, Nigeria. His Excellency Prince Kitami Woome is indeed the Crown Prince of Abua which is populated of approximately 1,000,000 inhabitants. There are no electronic sources available anywhere to prove that he is however, the same as many others kingdoms in the continent of Africa. Abua, and many of the others Kingdoms in Africa have practiced centuries or oral documentation. Unless European colonialist made written documentation of any Kingdom there will be no reference of them. European colonialist made written documents of only very few of the hundreds of kingdoms already in the continent of Africa before there arrival. I can only state that Abua is a village in Rivers State, Nigeria. The Royal House of Woome is the ruling family of this village, and His Excellency Prince Kitami Woome is the Crown Prince of Abua. It is no possible for me to post refrences becuase there are simply no written refference of this, much less electronic reference. The people of our village, Abua Every thing I am saying to be true. The articles I put up on belaf of the Royal House of Woome are small and will not disrupt this mega website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinant (talk • contribs) 11:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with these articles is that one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies is Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." JohnCD (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all 3 nominated articles, unless additional sources can be provided. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 14:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and other noted articles, lack of verifiable references. I doubt even with 419 attempts this Nigerian kingdom could be proven. -- Drappel (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as unverifiable. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Infinant once again, my articles are NOT a scam at all. I am simply bringing light to the village of Abua in Rivers State Nigeria; The Royal House of Woome, ruling family of this village; and His Excellency Prince Kitami Woome. I have already stated that there are NO written, or electronic refrences that prove this. Our tradition in Abua, as in many other African Kingdoms have been oral documentation for centuries. If any of you that want to delete my articles want, you can fly to Rivers State Nigeria go to the city of Port Harcourt, and from there go to Abua, which is about 10 miles away. The people of the village are very friendly and welcoming. When there you will find that the articles I put up are all true to every word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.20.4 (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We understand why you cannot give reliable sources for what you say, but that means that there cannot be a Wikipedia article about it. I repeat Wikipedia's fundamental policy of verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Your articles may be true, but they cannot be verified, so they do not pass that threshold. "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There is no more to discuss. JohnCD (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial credit reporting[edit]

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

Contested prod (although not by the creator) over a non-notable essay about a subject with questionable notability to begin with. I would userfy it, but more than one editor worked on it. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep One simply has to click on the google books link above to see the great notability of this topic. The nomination thus fails our deletion policy. The fact that the prod was contested should have been a good clue that the topic required further work and discussion before bringing it here. The nominator has not engaged in discussion on the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't required. In addition, Colonel, when a prod tag is removed, all that really means is one user doesn't agree with the deletion. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I didn't just remove the prod, I added a citation to a substantial article in the LA Times. I also started a discussion page with links to the numerous sources about this topic. You failed to engage with these improvements in any way. Instead, you have started this discussion but you now see that there is no consensus for the proposal that the article be deleted. Please withdraw. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your history, Colonel, and with all due respect, people aren't always going to do whatever you want. I have no problem with the article being userfied, but I don't feel it belongs in the mainspace (not in it's current form, anyway). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. The article needs sources, cleanup and wikifying but it seems like a notable topic. I'm not sure if it should be merged with Credit bureau but they do seem to cover the same topic (although I am no expert). The article seems to contain some useful information but I'm not sure if it should be merged with credit report, Credit score (United States) or credit bureau (again, not an expert)) – sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 08:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge/redirect/ or userfy notable article, which has a lot of WP:POTENTIAL, but it appears to be in its early stages. Ikip (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If userfying is being considered, as was suggested above by User:Ikip, I submit that it might be better to move this article to WP:INCUBATOR, a new project that is essentially the same as the userfy option, except it's in a central area, in the project namespace. The advantages of incubation over userfication are that more eyes will see the article, and that it won't sit there indefinitely out of sight if no improvement occurs.
Thanks for your consideration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's name is a reasonable search term and statistics tell us that the article was read 165 times in August. By moving the article elsewhere, we might reduce the number of potential editors for the article. If the incubator project wishes to work upon fresh articles then it would best do so via links to mainspace. In this way we can be sure that the number of potential editors is increased rather than replaced. It is our clear editing policy to work upon weak articles in mainspace and 99% of our articles are of less than good quality. This AFD is not the place to change our fundamental way of working. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why I'm only suggesting it as an alternative to userfying. If it can remain in the mainspace, that's obviously preferable. Only if userfying or deletion is to be its fate do I suggest incubation. The incubator is not a place to move articles that can possibly stay in the mainspace. Perhaps I was insufficiently clear on that point?
    I don't know why you think I'm trying to "change our fundamental way of working". I'm just pointing out that there's something slightly better than userfication, if userfication or deletion are the only options. Obviously improving it in the mainspace is the best option. Should I be clearer about that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Colonel, what does how many times the article was read have to do with anything? For all we now, "random article" clicks could be included in that count. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On average, we might expect 23 of those 165 readers to have reached the article via the random link. This is fine as this feature is often used by editors trawling the project for articles to work upon. How did you come to the article? Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody is discussing if the article should be kept or deleted. Whether or not its userfied or "incubated" or whatever is not the point. I would get back to the nominator's concerns about the subject and the article being notable enough. I think something should be done with this information, either merged into an appropriate article or worked on so it meets WP:MoS. It also desperately needs sources. – sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 13:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 00:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultras White Knights[edit]

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

Non-notable organization with no reliable sourcing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is hard to determine notability because this is a Arab organization. But existing web sources and article appear to make this article notable. Ikip (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability may be more difficult to determine, but that doesn't mean this unsourced and chatty article has any legs to stand on (and I removed a lot of the real problematic stuff already before the Gentleman came to the article). The references you suggested, Ikip, may not be so legible to me, but their sources are: blogs. Not a single newspaper hit that I saw. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of independent, reliable sources to justify notability of the subject Spiderone 12:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nominator agreed to redirect to NBL Australia. Ikip (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NBL Hall of Fame[edit]

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

Not sure if significant, also written very, very poorly. Only sources are broken links to the NBL Homepage Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D Kamlo[edit]

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

This rapper had an unfortunate fate, but he just doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, especially since all the Ghits I found link to the same YouTube video. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 06:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nominator agreed to userfy . Ikip (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kitami Woome[edit]

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

I doubt the authenticity of this entry. There are no mention of this person in any of the usual sources. The only mention I can find is a Facebook page. Tags constantly removed without explanation or improvement. Wperdue (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. per withdrawn nomination - well not that speedy since it lasted the seven-day period.JForget 22:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse[edit]

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

Sources have been added and cited, article has been changed to reflect this. - o0pandora0o (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I can find no RS for the statements in this article, it appears to lack notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw: congrats to Cirt for excellent rewrite and sourcing. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nominator.Off2riorob (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. per nom. Even if it is kept (which it should not be) the article needs to be stubbed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. I have proposed a new edit with RS on the discussion page. Sources are older newspaper articles that are archived on perhaps a non-RS, but articles themselves are genuine. This has been discussed at [34], where user Blueboar suggested: You can cite the newspaper article directly without linking to rickross.com. I can change Sources to not link to Rick Ross' site, if this is acceptable.

edited to add: If it is deleted, it might actually be fine, because at least then I won't have to worry about current church members coming in and engaging in editing wars, deleting all relevant information and replacing with bland, benign statements. - o0pandora0o (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for the moment. The main problem has been verifying that RS newspaper reports not available online except as archives at possibly non-RS sources are actually genuine. There have been a couple of breakthroughs already, verifying a few as accurate (thus Jezhotwell's concerns about no RS sources has been answered, at least in part). If all the sources alleged are accurate (and "alleged" here means not yet confirmed, but with no established reason to doubt other than that the archiving sources are anti-cult), there are at least seven RS sources available. Deletion is premature because verifying sources cannot be done by sitting at a computer alone, but by going to find physical copies.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment. This is clearly a poorly cited attack article with notibility issues and is in need of stubbing as a BLP protection. There is only one editor addding anything to the article and they have a declared conflict of interest in the story. There have been no breakthroughs as Vsevolodkrolikov claims and there are no wikipedia reliable sources at all. I recommend deletion at the earliest possible convenience. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People should go to the talkpage to find out the truth of rob's suggestion that no RS sources have been established. An editor has scanned in copies of the newspaper to show its authenticity.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The scans, yes please have a look at them, imo they are very poor as regards a reliable source, especially as they are from a person with a declared conflict of interest. Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, scanners can be affected by the user's point of view.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even read the story, never mind add comments from the scans. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you had told me that. I will scan another article and at a larger resolution so you can see it better. - o0pandora0o (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have scanned another article for you. This one is waay shorter. :) But still accurate. From "A Follower's Confession" on Rick Ross, I give you A nice large clear scan of the article. If you can't read that, please use This site to help you use Windows Magnifier to enlarge it enough to see. - o0pandora0o (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click at the top of the page here and find sources for this article, nothing! and find books, nothing! and find scholar..nothing! Whatever happened at this church, it was not widely reported and it has not continued to be reported, as such the article is not notable. There seem to have been reports in very limited sources for a limited period of time but the coverage has not continued. Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE. Archived articles can be seen at [35] and a few additionally cited at [36] - these are from WP:RS sources and can be verified independently of those archives, in accordance with WP:V. Cirt (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way this article satisfies notability...

Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2]

"Sources,"[3] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4]Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is quite simply a poorly cited attack article. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rob is presuming that in the ongoing confirmation of sources that nothing can be found. Given that he insists that nothing has been found despite the evidence so far provided doesn't (I'm sorry to have to say this) suggest a co-operative attitude. That an editor cannot be bothered to cross reference scans and the archived material is not an issue for wikipedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you overly personal remarks, I won't demean myself by replying to them. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will however state my points one more time.. This article is an attack piece written by editors with a clear declared conflict of interest. It is weakly cited, even with a few scans. It is weakly notable, those are my opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the other editors with a COI? (pandora has been very open, and has accepted all consensus).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am in the process of doing a full rewrite. Cirt (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some preliminary work (please see this version for a start) - will be back to do some more work on the article later. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More work done: (see this version). Cirt (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Oustanding base built by Cirt. Clearly there is enough there to be an article. - Sinneed (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is interesting. British MP Alan Meale called for the group to be placed on a register of controversial religious groups and cults [37]. Cirt (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no actual facts in this article - I live in Mansfield Woodhouse & have attended Bethel Church for over 28 years. I know the ministers and the church extremely well. Point 1 .The church was not founded by either John Hibbert or Jean Spademan. The church was here long before the before mentioned even lived in the area. Point 2. The Section on Founders therefore has no foundation to even be in the article. Jean Spademan who is deceased has never "ruled" the church & neither has John Hibbert or neither does he. The article & newspapers articles are written by people who have never put a foot into Bethel church & in a "press like way" have destorted & fabricated stories. In fact most of the people commenting on this article seem to be at the other side of the atlantic ocean and probably would not know where Mansfield Woodhouse is. Point 3. Section on England - no actual facts here again - all church members do not give 10% of their earnings, church members are not pressured into giving anything and all offerings are free will and private as in most churches Point 4. Section on Connecticut - not actual facts here again Point 5. Section on British M.P. and Analysis both are generalising on articles they have read, once again no facts

If there can't be a non-biased section on Bethel Church Mansfield Woodhouse, for example on the village history, history of the church building, what Bethel Church goers actually believe, community projects, outreaches (currently to children in Zambia) then the whole article should be deleted. Any doubters please come and see for yourself, all are welcome. [member of the church] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.31.240 (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@82.2.31.240 (talk · contribs) - Please read WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Additional citations added serve to establish subject's notability. John Carter (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notice of this debate given at talk pages of WP:RELI, WP:CONN, WP:WPENG, and WP:NOTTM. Cirt (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per pretty convincing argument and edits by User:Cirt. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per clean-up and Additional citations. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- but it needs to be split into two articles - one about each church. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 10:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apisosism[edit]

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

Name of a putative form of agnosticism, but unfortunately the claimed Greek etymology is completely bogus, and the Google search "apisosism -wikipedia -wikimedia" turns up exactly one hit. I gave User:Muffinz525 a month to tie up the loose ends, and he failed to even attempt to do so. AnonMoos (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as vandalism. Abductive (reasoning) 03:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Ten Ghits, all of them Wikipedia or Wikipedia-like sites. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without predjudice since the article creator was given an ample amount of time to improve the article. ArcAngel (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yoninah (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Rectory , Chidham[edit]

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

No refs, no indencations of notability, and an internet search comes up with nothing Abce2|This isnot a test 03:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came up with the following links [38], [39], [40]. Not many, but perhaps enough to establish notability? ArcAngel (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I looked everywhere for refs. Thanks for finding some.Abce2|This isnot a test 06:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, but if it's any consolation, I used Google to find them. :) ArcAngel (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The building is listed, but only Grade II. Might be worth asking at WP:HSITES re the notability of such buildings. I believe Grade I and Grade II* listed building have sufficient notability to sustain an article, but I'm not completely sure about Grade II listed buildings. Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Man, all this over two sentences. I wish we would have originally redirected this to the Chidham talk page or userfied it to a sub page of the creator. We are spending ten times more on this article than the creator did. Ikip (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could still be userfied, I believe. ArcAngel (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see any scope to expand this beyond a stub. Might be worth mentioning in Chidham though. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge with Chidham, deleting the resultant redirect. This will probably merely involve adding the photo to that article, with the present content used in the caption. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed after having merged it as I had suggested, essentially by adding the photo. With 418000 grade II listed buildings we cannot have articles on all of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Grade II listed buildings are notable per se (this has been applied many times re articles about primary schools in listed buildings). It would be easy to add a few more words from the ref I've just added. Occuli (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Maybe Grade II listed status makes it notable but the article only has two sentences. Unless it is likely that an article can be created that is more than a stub it should probably be redirected. snigbrook (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chidham; where a mention of it exists. Setting a theoretical notability bar that "Grade II listed buildings and above are notable" is a little silly, in my view - the building clearly exists and clearly is Grade II, but there seems to be almost nothing else worth saying about it. In the situation where a building has notable characteristics but insufficient material to create a worthwhile separate article, the logical result is to discuss it in the context of a wider area. ~ mazca ^talk 10:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Tone 10:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix fire apparatus[edit]

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

A complete list of the fire equipment used in Phoenix? Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE by a long way. Ironholds (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The creator tried the same content under Phoenix fire dept and it was speedily deleted. Clubmarx (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate the word "indiscriminate", but that's the policy buzzword.—Kww(talk) 02:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice If an article is to exist on this subject then then a blank slate would be better than attempting to modify this version. Some patient soul may find the time to teach this person what is expected and perhaps we can have a good article later. Chillum 05:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. The creator has also created several other articles pertaining to the Phoenix Fire Department (all of which have been speedily deleted), so I reported him/her at WP:UAA. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not an article. The creator of this article has been told this four times now. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not an indriscriminate list of things – sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 07:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep per SK reason 2.3. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LG15: The Last[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A web-series that won a web-series competition called "The show is yours" related competition. The competition got some third-party coverage on digital blog sources, but after the competition was over, it only managed a to get coverage in one digital blog, from thereafter there was no further coverage. So the show that won the competition only managed a one line mention in ref 6. Note refs 1, 3, 4, and 5 are the only independent 3rd party sources about the competition (don't mention the article name) suggesting it could be merged elsewhere. Ref 6 is the only one that mentions the article name.

The show ran it's 10 week course from Jan 2009-March 2009 but never got any additional 3rd part coverage apart from one mention in ref 6. The very few 3rd party sources were all published between 5th Jan 2009 - 28th Jan 2009 making it an obvious one off event.

In summary, the competition to the run up of the show got a little coverage, but the result of the competition itself never got anymore interest (note 1 source). Seeing as the winning show finished 2 months ago, any new additional coverage seems very unlikely. So delete for being a one off event and failing our general notability and web notability guidelines.--Otterathome (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - article is currently being edited, to see which references the nomination is referring to, please check the history before the new edits were made.--Otterathome (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NOTAGAIN, which states "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep or merge. Qualifies as frivolous renomination as described in WP:NOTAGAIN, given that not only was the last AfD just a month ago, but he actually tried to merge the page away afterwards and the decision to keep the page as-is was made just two weeks ago, and therefore falls under the disruption clause of speedy keep applicability.
In addition, there is a proposed merging structure in last month's AfD which already had support from other community members, so a deletion is not necessary in any case.
As usual, this is just another iteration of Otter being unable to WP:GETOVERIT and WP:LETGO, and everything I said last time in support still applies. I'll copy it over if somebody insists, but something tells me we'll all see each other again next month anyway.
~ Renegade - 213.39.173.221 (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or in the alternative, redirect to lonelygirl15 Ikip (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The show is actually still in progress so the person suggesting deletion has failed to do their research. Typically with shows like this their creators are under an NDA which limits what they can say to the press. A more in depth discussion of the importance of this series to the web series genre might be useful since it is a canon show yet created largely independent of the original creators of the LG15 franchise. What is mostly disturbing about this nomination is the flagrant abuse of the wikipedia process by one individual who seems to be conducting their own personal vendetta against the LG15 franchise. One has to seriously question their motives at best and their extreme lack of judgement at worst.--Modelmotion (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The show ran for ten weeks, followed by a twelve-video finale called "Quietus," which ended on July 28, 2009" so the article is wrong?--Otterathome (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All we know is that the show is still running. One could argue whether "Quietus" is over or not but if you had any knowledge of the subject matter you would know that the show itself is still running.--Modelmotion (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The article is well-sourced and notable. Also, this (and the previous) nomination leads me to the conclusion that this was a bad faith nomination, not to mention WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:POINT. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone actually going to address the reasons why it was nominated or just assume bad faith? Here is some reading material for everyone before editing this AFD again - Wikipedia:Before commenting in a deletion discussion + Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions + Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--Otterathome (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some reading material before editing this AfD again, Otter.
Feel free to address why everything we said in support last month was suddenly invalidated while we were tied up in your other frivolous nominations.
In addition, as usual, your entire representation of the matter is skewed, full of omissions and unexplained decisions on your part:

- - You decided Tubefilter is not an independent 3rd party source of information; given that tubefilter is one of the leading news sources for this kind of content, I would like a detailed explanation for your personal opinion that Tubefilter is irrelevant as a reference.
  - You have decided that certain references do not count. To have done that, you must have checked all references. If you checked all references, you know full well that the winner of TSIY was only announced on January 26th, and that The Last was only determined as the actual executing contestant on February 2nd. As such, including in the nomination that only reference 6 includes the article name, implying that it shows the lack of prominence of the show, while several other references could not possibly have included the show's name because they were written before a winner was determined, is a clear attempt to spin the facts and manipulate the community - or, to put it in Wikipedia terms: Another sign of Bad Faith.
  - Reference 1: "EQAL launched a contest to integrate a fan series into canon, which produced LG15: The Last."
    Reference 3: "LG15: The Last (episodes 1-33)", "LG15: The Last takes the concept of the LG15 series ..." and countless others.
    The claim that "Ref 6 is the only one that mentions the article name." is a blatant lie and should not be tolerated.
  - In addition, given that the follow-up competition, The Show Is Yours 2, starts its submission period in two weeks, your assertion that it is unlikely there is any more press to come is bogus at the least. Any outlet reporting on TSIY2 will certainly look back at how TSIY1 turned out, and thus automatically report on The Last.
  - To address your question above: It was pretended the show was over for effect by its creators, but there is currently another episode in the works. Nobody got around to updating the page because you keep tying up everyone in frivolous deletion discussions. I'll fix it in a moment if no one has yet.

So, let's summarize:

Claim that only 1 source mentions the article name: Blatant lie.

Implication that all sources could have mentioned the article name: Bogus, several sources were written before the winner was determined.

Claim that only 4 sources are independent 3rd party sources: Unexplained personal opinion.

Claim that no additional coverage is to be expected: Bogus, EQAL's projects frequently appear on web show news sites, TSIY appeared there, so there's a high probability TSIY2 will be picked up by news, which, in turn, will lead to further coverage of TSIY and The Last.

Claim the show is over: False.

I guess just the facts didn't cut it. Oh well. We're used to the spin by now. Add to that that, once more, he is trying to discredit a participant's contribution by brushing him off and implying that what he says doesn't matter because Otter decided it was off topic, and the attempt to keep people off the discussion by trying to impose mandatory reading on them, and you can see that this is just a re-run of countless other Otter-AfDs we've had in the last month.

Nomination is false and deliberately misleading on multiple accounts, nominator is not neutral, nomination is frivolous, nominator is the only one arguing for deletion.

Can I have a speedy keep already?

~ Renegade - 80.171.53.32 (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you didn't notice User:Zoeydahling added a wiki as reference and added another minor mention in a newteevee article. So yeah, that has changed all ref numbers, so of course it's wrong now. If you didn't assume bad faith to begin with, then you probably would have noticed this. Feel free to hide the above using ((Collapse top|comment))((collapsebottom)) and commenting again using the same revision I was using.--Otterathome (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing to keep revision X from Y days ago. We are discussing whether to keep the current revision, so I will argue from the current revision. If you are unable to argue for deletion now that the page was updated, feel free to retract your nomination. Otherwise, I suggest you update your nomination, clarify what references you were really talking about, remove outdated information and re-write it from a neutral point of view.

Besides, why would I hide my comment if you made the mistake of writing a nomination lamenting the quality of sources that would break once more sources are added? It is not my duty to ensure your argument stays coherent.

~ Renegade - 80.171.53.32 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already noted the added references added were a wiki and another trivial mention, so it still fails all the guidelines/policies originally mentioned. Editors can easily see what references I was referring to via the history of the article so there is no need to update it. I suggested you hide your comment because you failed to notice the ref numbers had changed. So you ended up responding to my comments on the original revision with the new revision where the ref numbers that I was referring to were changed.--Otterathome (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So link the revision? Why are you so scared about being open and up front about what revision your nomination is based on? Even in your new note at the top you kept it ambiguous.

Also, if the current page "still fails all the guidelines/policies originally mentioned", then you should have no problem updating and phrasing your argumentation in a way that is revision-independent.

In addition, your own note shows clearly the major flaw in this nomination: The reason given for why the nomination makes no sense anymore is "article is currently being edited". This is Wikipedia. The article in question is nominated for deletion. What did you expect? That people stopped touching the page and happily waited until you're done with this week's AfD? If your nomination relies so heavily on a particular set of references that the fact that people edit Wikipedia breaks it, that's a clear sign it doesn't apply to the general case.

We are not here to debate whether the page should have been deleted 5, 10, 15 or 20 revisions ago. We are here to discuss whether the page or topic in itself fails the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. So if your nomination only applies to one particular, outdated revision, it's time to retract it.

~ Renegade - 80.171.53.32 (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing an article which is nominated for deletion doesn't invalidate the nomination. And I already said, the two new references, 1 is a wiki and the other is another one off mention. So the nomination still applies. Are you ever going to deal with issue at hand or just question my motives and how perfect the nomination is?--Otterathome (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have "dealt" with the issue at hand - I have already shown that your nomination is grossly inaccurate, based on unverifiable conclusions drawn from personal opinions, far from reality, asking physically impossible things and does not apply to the page in general, but only a singular, outdated revision.

I have nothing to do here. You are the one who has to prove that anything you said in your nomination is a) actually true and b) applies to the page in general, and not just a random revision from sometime yesterday morning.

You keep insisting that what you say applies anyway. So go ahead. Prove it. Show it. Write down how. I am a participant in a deletion discussion. I am formally asking you, the nominator, to clarify how your nomination applies to the page in general, rather than just a single, outdated revision.

Are you going to give me a clear answer or not?

~ Renegade - 80.171.97.160 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find help at Help:Page history, as you seem to be unable, or unwilling to use the page history feature.--Otterathome (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try to insult me all you want, the fact stands: If I have to use the page history to find the page your nomination applies to, it doesn't apply to the page being discussed.

As such, it's invalid.

In addition, even going back and looking at the outdated, irrelevant set of references would not remove all your personal opinions about PR future, your demands for the sources to break the laws of physics, or your false characterization of the state of the series from the nomination. Even if your references were correct (which they aren't), your nomination would stay blatantly false and inapplicable to the page as it is.

You yourself admitted your nomination as it stands is wrong. Just do the right thing and retract it already.

~ Renegade - 80.171.97.160 (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you don't want to use the page history feature, then you won't be able to participate in this discussion.--Otterathome (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otter, please stop. You're in enough trouble as it is. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and recommend that nominator Otterathome be banned from editing lonelygirl15 related articles: This was just up for AFD a few weeks ago, and result was KEEP. Nominator apparently dislikes anything related to lonelygirl15 and keeps nominating related articles for deletion, despite just being warned not to do that again for Jackson Davis, where he did the same exact thing. There was also an ANI recently discussing the nominator where at least one editor recommended a topic ban for him/her. --Milowent (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't oppose a topic ban either. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just jumping in here before Otter pastes his boilerplate WP:NOTAGAIN remark: WP:NOTAGAIN directly, clearly and unambiguously states "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute [...] when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination". As such, despite claims to the contrary, the fact that Otter just recently tried to both delete and merge away this exact page is indeed a valid argumentation against this nomination.

~ Renegade - 80.171.97.160 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Just for clarification, I'm not unduly personifying the opposition, just living in reality - Otter is the only one arguing for deletion, so if anyone would post bogus WP:NOTAGAIN links, it would be him.

(*sigh*)...looks like Otter is at it again. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem very relevant to this nomination.--Otterathome (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 00:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Wilderness[edit]

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

PROD removed by creator. No reliable sources to indicate the article meets the guidelines for inclusion. A google news search didn't turn up much. tedder (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state, Delete. The duration of this AfD is plenty long enough to allow the creator to dig for good references and make me change my mind. A request for such a break is, as a matter of fact, what saved this article from speedy deletion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no showing of notability Racepacket (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Blanchardb. However, if article is improved to the point where notability is established, then I will change my !vote accordingly. ArcAngel (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This organization is only a few months old, and already it has a Wikipedia page? Seems like it should accomplish something before it attains notability. On the other hand, I'm surprised at how quickly (3 days) this article has traveled from start-up to deletion. Most articles are put up with far less information, and are expanded as more editors log in. Yoninah (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't cite any coverage in reliable sources to satisfy notability, and I can't find any. Hut 8.5 15:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. lack of consensus on WP:N/WP:ORG JForget 22:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable charity with no reliable sources listed and none found outside of press releases and social networking sites. TN X Man 15:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was previously deleted for being written like an advertisement and I recreated it with less of an advertising spin and included information on their lobbying practices. It is a notable charity within a niche community but I think that with the recent attempts to add it to mesothelioma, something odd is going on. I'll remain neutral on this. Boston2austin (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- it is a notable charity, per comment above, (or it has been, but this is orthogonal to what's happening to the meso article) --Mokhov (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches on any of its identities, nicknames or key people fail to provide any significant coverage or basic verification of this organization as notable. Even "niche" charities have to meet WP:N, and this one does not. Flowanda | Talk

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mesothelioma. Racepacket (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This charity passes WP:ORG. See Conquering Cancer: Progress in 2003 by Noel L. Griese, as well as Asbestos : still lethal/still legal by DIANE Publishing. There are more sources, such as this article from the Star Tribune (see here for proof that this abstract is about this foundation) and 100 Questions & Answers About Mesothelioma by Harvey I. Pass. Notability is fully established, so this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Edit to article. Google book pages or anything with an ISBN aren't automatic keepers; they have to meet the same standards as any other reliable source. The above links provide little more than a paragraph of coverage of this subject, hardly the stuff of "significant coverage", but if they are going to be considered as reliable sources or evidence of notability, then the content they contain should definitely should be included as I did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mesothelioma_Applied_Research_Foundation&diff=313523093&oldid=311097860. 07:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Conquering Cancer: Progress in 2003 covers Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation (abbreviated MARF) in significant detail. It is not solely a paragraph long. This article from the Star Tribune (see here for proof that this abstract is about this foundation) is much longer than a pargraph, so it means that the organization has received "significant coverage". Cunard (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Flowanda on this one -- Cunard, it's better next time to add the said references directly into the article by yourself. I have added the other two after Flowanda from your list and added some meta info at as well. --Mokhov (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda and Mokhov, thanks for adding the sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: flagged the article for rescue. --Mokhov (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete all. This was relisted recently, but it seems to me that consensus has been pretty clearly established. Sourcing is insufficient for an article here at this time. GlassCobra 01:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aggtown[edit]

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

Not notable group. WP:MUSIC I cannot find any reliable sources. There are lots of links on the page, but they are all to sites where anyone can post music. Some songs are 'charted' but it is from SoundClick a site for self-promotion, not a national/significant chart. Clubmarx (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as these are Aggtown albums/song articles all created by the same person, today:

I agree with your nomination for these...perhaps they should be merged instead?

Clubmarx, how can Aggtown's OFFICIAL website be unreliable? To verify biographical information, I checked out all profiles claimed to be Aggtown's as well as emailing the webmaster of the official website. I've checked all the links as well and see nothing unreliable about this the Aggtown Wiki claims. Every song and album, as well as chart listings, is 100% accurate. User above claims that SoundClick is not a national/significant chart, yet several significant artists who have been signed by distribution labels are listed on SoundClick. Also, TuneCore, Inc., the label of Aggtown, also distributes music for Jay-Z, Nine Inch Nails and Ziggy Marley. Techno_Expert (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.211.15 (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Reliable for what I mean by reliable. Soundclick is not a major chart that establishes notability; here are some accepted charts for notability WP:CHARTS. TuneCore may have major names on it, but being on TuneCore does not make a band notable. TuneCore is not a record label anyway. Clubmarx (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:MUSIC, #5 declares that the label (in this case, TuneCore & UMGD) are notable. Major names = notable.

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. All their "chart success" is on non-notable charts. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Clubmarx (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fulfills #5 of WP:MUSIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.114.188 (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC) — 76.255.114.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP, meets and succeeds notability per WP:MUSIC. Although Aggtown does not have chart success on the charts listed on WP:CHARTS, this is NOT a requirement per WP:MUSIC. Besides that, SoundClick is not listed as a non-notable chart on WP:CHARTS. This artist DOES meet requirement #5, which is satisfied by the artist's current label(s). TuneCore is a partner of Universal Music Group Distribution^[1], both of which have a list of notable artists (mentioned above and on the Wiki). TuneCore also awards music certifications^[2]-- one of the primary purposes of a record label; therefore, the validity is proven. Additionally, TuneCore releases more albums/singles in single day than any other label distributes in a full year^[3]. I find this very notable. Please note that TuneCore also MUST approve all music distributed...it isn't just a self-serve distributor. Aggtown can be found on iTunes and any other major music merchant, and if you examine the artist details, you will see that the record label is indeed listed (on all sites, and where not listed you can contact the site to retrieve the label's name). Here is an example: http://www.lala.com/#album/2306124484406495274. Aggtown has also released two or more albums.

Only ONE criterion must be met. See WP:MUSIC. Aggtown fulfills #5 of this requirement.

Quick question for everyone...why do people keep ignoring the fact that only ONE criteria must be met? Failure to notice leads to confusion. It is obvious that #5 of WP:MUSIC has clearly been met-- if you don't think so, by all means look up Aggtown on ANY major music merchant and you will see. It doesn't matter if they don't have a chart notability....#5 of WP:MUSIC has been fulfilled and one and only one criterion must be met. Aggtown is a valid entry. It appears that some users are ignoring #5 and focusing on the WP:CHARTS argument. I would like to inform everyone that not every artist appears on those charts...especially independent artists (which I think is unfair to exclude). Techno Expert (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as third-party, reliable sources, I do believe iTunes, eMusic, DJTUNES, etc qualifies. It may be advised to send these companies queries to determine the exact label for Aggtown.

- Recommendation: Aggtown biographical information be removed or downsized due to lack of third-party biographical sources; however, the Discography has been verified via iTunes etc along with the SoundClick charts (which are independent and non-notable but not listed on non-notable of WP:CHARTS). I find the music group very notable concerning #5 WP:MUSIC, despite having no rankings on WP:CHARTS-- it is obvious that Aggtown has released two or more albums on an independent label. This label may need verification however. See comments below.

- Comment: It seems this band was never signed to any label; distributing music on a music upload site is not a record label. Clubmarx (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: TuneCore is not a music upload site. It is a distribution service that has partnered with Universal Music Group Distribution to deliver music. Also, I believe that in one of the reference articles it was discussed that TuneCore would soon be managing licensing etc....essentially the functions of a label. I may need clarification on the definitions of a music label. Are you aware that according to DJTUNES and various other stores, Aggtown uses a label by the name Aggtown Records (NOT TuneCore) in addition to TuneCore's services? To determine if DJTUNES was another distributor like TuneCore, I tried to register as my "own" label but was told that all labels undergo review and must receive approval from the DJTUNES administrators prior to selling releases for their artists. Obviously, Aggtown Records received approval because they are listed as the record label (not TuneCore). I've noticed that in some stores, TuneCore/Aggtown Records is listed as the label but in others it's just Aggtown Records. I believe that this means that Aggtown Records is the label and TuneCore is the distributor. I tried to find information about the Aggtown Records label but could find very little, so I'm not sure if they're a certified label or not. But as I mentioned about DJTUNES, I was told that ALL labels undergo critical review and must receive approval; thus, I believe Aggtown is signed to a label by the name Aggtown Records. I will be contacting the music group to determine if their label is certified or not. Techno Expert (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Although TuneCore is a music distribution service, would it not be considered a major netlabel? This is where it falls into gray area, because if it could be considered a major netlabel then that would mean it is a notable independent label, especially with its list of notable clients. If TuneCore does not qualify, then the argument shifts to Aggtown Records. This may well possibly be a independent label but I am anaware of any prominent clients aside from Aggtown. Techno Expert (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CONCLUDED: I have left all comments and debates above intact to avoid vandalism claims. After spending the majority of today researching Aggtown and Aggtown Records and all this mess I've been dragging out, I've come to an agreement with the comments and claims of Clubmarx and Esradekan. Sorry guys, I was just trying to get facts so that Wiki didn't delete without reason. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and do not know all the laws of the land here. Apparently, after much digging, it appears that Aggtown Records IS a netlabel-- however it is disqualified from #5 of WP:MUSIC because the independent label does not have any other artists besides Aggtown. Therefore, its notability is not enough to sustain for Aggtown. Yes, officially Aggtown HAS released two or more albums (two albums and one single, according to their label), but because the group is only signed with a non-notable label, my previous argument is invalid. I was a little confused into thinking that TuneCore was actually a label because they do distribution, music certifications, and Billboard chart entries. Plus, they are partners with Universal Music Group Distribution (a very notable label), and TuneCore also has many notable artists. This was my argument behind #5 of WP:MUSIC; however, because TuneCore is apparently not a label my claim is invalid. I would like to point out that if TuneCore was a label or if it did merge with UMGD then my claim WOULD be valid. I was quite frustrated that Wiki members were recommending deletion solely based on the fact that Aggtown was not listed on a notable chart from WP:CHARTS. This is NOT a requirement for notability, so I hope everyone remembers that for future deletions of other bands. And there are some gray-area criteria of WP:MUSIC that I think Wikipedia should review and improve. From my recent communications with Aggtown's manager, it appears that they will be terminating music production by the end of this year so that their lead DJ can start a solo career. This indicates that future Aggtown inclusion to Wikipedia will be unlikely. I will continue to monitor Aggtown to determine if a future Wiki entry would be valid; however, for now it is invalid and should be removed from Wikipedia. I must say that this process has been an adventure, although I am a little disappointed that all my hard work and research for the Wiki article has gone to waste. I want to thank Clubmarx and Esradekan for your feedback and contributions to this debate.

Recommendation: DELETE

Techno Expert (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, including #5, as all releases are on minor/vanity-ish labels. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Techno Expert (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I have relisted this AfD to solicit more opinions. Aside from the nominator, only two experienced editors have commented in this debate. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You relisted it? How does that work? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 00:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Believer (Common album)[edit]

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

Now, I'm a big fan of Common, but this article pretty much violates WP:CRYSTAL. Although the external link does state an album like this coming out soon (as do several other Google hits I found), none of them really say anything more than that: no track listing, no indication of when "soon" is. It's just too early to have this article. (The article even states 2010 as the recording date, which is a crystal violation in itself.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I, too, love me some Testify (Common song), but this album fails WP:CRYSTAL pretty badly. It's not even being recorded yet. talking birds 16:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Those "voting" delete bring up valid points that the article does not meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG, as there are not significant, in-depth reliable sources about this individual. Those arguments are more well reasoned than those of the keep side, and so consensus falls towards deleting the article. NW (Talk) 00:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golan Yosef[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT, mainly passing mentions in third party coverage. [41]. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice as curently failing notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ per references.. which point out notability, references is always an indication on atleast a minimum of notability needed to establish an article. so its a keeper.--Judo112 (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact also pointed out by a source that he is currently doing a new film is also enough for establishing his article.--Judo112 (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been unable to uncover any significant, in-depth reliable sources about this individual. The results on Google News Archive are all passing mentions. Furthermore, if MichaelQSchmidt believes that Golan Yosef fails the notability guidelines and thus WP:ENT, then without a doubt, Yosef is non-notable. Cunard (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per my earlier statments has not changed my mind.--Judo112 (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a no consensus article afd..--Judo112 (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Kaiser[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability criteria Paul1337 (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only mentioned in passing in reliable sources (three Google news hits[42], but e.g. the Wired article is only a passing mention. Of the few thousand Google hits, the vast, vast majority are postings in newsgroups and so on, not sources about him. I could not find reliable, independent sources with a significant amount of info on him. Fram (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This individual fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Jonah Hex#Recurring villains and supporting cast. Tone 20:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tallulah Black[edit]

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

fails WP:N. Sources are one that merely mention the character, one that only mentions the character as part of a review of a comic containing her and things like DCU Guide and Comicbookdb, which mention all DC universe people in some way and aren't really indicative of notability. Ironholds (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's why its just a stub right now. Up until now I wouldn't have created this article However she's been recurring character within the current Jonah Hex series for a number of years now. In the Six Gun War, the story arc the series is in the middle of, Johan Hex and Tallulah Black are have become lovers, making it pretty clear that she's going to have many more appearances in the future. She's a main supporting character on a series published by a major comic book company. There's more than enough justification for her to have at least a stub and that's why I started it. Stephen Day (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails W:N. $TheWeak$ $Willed$ (T * G) 22:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, I have added a reference link to an interview with the character's creator Jimmy Palmiotti in which its mentioned that Tallulah Black is Jonah Hex's main love interest in the current Jonah Hex ongoing series. Like I said, she's a main supporting character of a series published by DC Comics, a major comic book publishing company. Stephen Day (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just Merge it with Jonah Hex until there is better information. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would be acceptable to me. :) Stephen Day (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done, except for changing Tallulah Black into a redirect to Jonah Hex. I wsn't sure I was supposed to do that until after the AfD is done. Stephen Day (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Jonah Hex#Recurring villains and supporting cast per the compromise reached by Stephen Day and Sharksaredangerous. Cunard (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 21:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per the discussion above. (Emperor (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The result was procedural close. Discussion about the Hebrew century articles has been centralized to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). Cunard (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

34th century (Hebrew)[edit]

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

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

33rd century (Hebrew)[edit]

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

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

32nd century (Hebrew)[edit]

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

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

31st century (Hebrew)[edit]

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

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. There are so many different issues here, so many differening votes and courses of action to take. Some want the empty ones deleted, others want them all merged; it's too difficult to actually judge what the consensus is because there are too many differing opinions. Clearly there needs to be some policy discussion surrounding the general notability of these articles, but it would be reckless to act on a half-baked consensus to delete so many articles. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

30th century (Hebrew)[edit]

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

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider:

31st century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
32nd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
33rd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
34th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
35th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
36th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
38th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
39th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment: I have closed the individual AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/31st century (Hebrew), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/32nd century (Hebrew), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/33rd century (Hebrew), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/34th century (Hebrew), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/35th century (Hebrew), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/36th century (Hebrew), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/38th century (Hebrew), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/39th century (Hebrew)) and have centralized them to this debate so that these articles can be discussed together. Cunard (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have notified all the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew). Cunard (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and the previous discussion. The discussion pertains all of the XXth century (Hebrew) articles, so please also consider:

1st century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2nd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3rd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
4th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
5th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
6th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
7th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
8th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
9th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
10th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
11th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
12th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
13th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
14th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
15th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
16th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
17th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
18th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
19th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
20th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
21st century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
22nd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
23rd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
24th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
25th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
26th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
27th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
28th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
29th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
30th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
41st century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
42nd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
43rd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
44th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
45th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
46th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
47th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
48th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
49th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
50th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
51st century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
52nd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
53rd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
54th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
55th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
56th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
57th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
58th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
59th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
60th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Template:Hebrew centuries (edit | [[Talk:Template:Hebrew centuries|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--RDBury (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one article. I see the beginings of a great article here, no need to cut it off at the knees. Ikip (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note, I would be willing to merge these article, a huge task in and of itself. Another option is that we merge all the articles to a sub page on the creator, (WP:userfication) deleting all existence of these pages afterwards, including the redirects. Ikip (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous discussion I mentioned the possibility of doing an article along the lines of "Outline of Jewish history". But it seems like most of what would go in these articles would recapitulate events in the Bible and there is already a Timeline of the Bible article.--RDBury (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one great article per Ikip. Yoninah (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Delete~~' Vote altered - see below-- As I commented on the 37th century CFD, I do not think that any one is seriously using this dating system. Jews who do not want to acknowledge the existence of Christ use CE and BCE for AD and BC. In any event, I am far from clear that this is other than a 2nd millenium AD construct. If it were, I would have expected to find soemthing other than regnal years in the Bible. However, I am not an expert here, and may need to be corrected. I would not oppose having a single article on the Hebrew dating system, probably with a table for converting Hebrew dates to those of other systems, but I must oppose any category system based upon Hebrew centuries. I fear that we also need to delete a lot of articles on Hebrew years, having just sampled one that consisted of a comaparative calendar according to the Hebrew and standard (Gregorian) dating systems. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course we have an article on the Hebrew year system. We also have articles for each Hebrew year from 5600 (1839/1840 CE) on. I just checked by hitting random article in the Hebrew Wikipedia; they use the Gregorian system there. Abductive (reasoning) 05:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the suggestion of mass deletion of the entire series, should I place AfD templates on those, directing here? Jezhotwells (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I thought the previous discussion was supposed to be about all of the articles but here we are again.--RDBury (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. LOL. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These articles don't say anything, but if they began to list events that happened by Herbew dates, that would be duplicative of the listings by Gregorian calendar. Abductive (reasoning) 19:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I originally queried one of the similarly named articles. My reasoning is basically that this would be effectively a duplication of the current Gregorian calendar pages. I originally left a message at WikiProject Judaism (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Archive_23#Hebrew_Centuries_and_Hebrew_Years), but apart from the page's creator, no one else commented. I feel that any content that would be placed on these pages which do not exist in the Gregorian Calendar pages should be incorporated (e.g. in the 1st century (Hebrew), it mentions September 25, 3760 BC — First day of the Hebrew calendar (the creation) - yet this is not included in the September 25 article. I feel they should be put into the main calendar pages, with the relevant Anno Mundi date appended. Also, most of these articles have no, or little, content - and a lot of the events present aren't connected with Judaism, but with the Near East (e.g. 2nd century (Hebrew)). A look through the 58 articles currently existing show a total of 22 events (excluding non-Judaism-connected ones), 51 births/deaths. (incidently, I ignore Pharoah Djoser in 12th century, as his article shows no Judiac connection, but including Christianity beginning in 38thC) - 29 articles have no content at all (6thC, 22nd-36thC, 41st-53rdC) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all articles with content and delete the empty ones (i.e., turn empty blue links into redlinks). To the extent that there is content, I don't see any reason that an article should be deleted. Articles like 1st century in Roman Britain are an acceptable project because they encourage research on a particular aspect of a world history. I suppose that these could be renamed "3rd century BCE in Jewish history" or "16th century in Judaism", but does it really matter if the one-hundred year period described is from 200-299 AD or 240-339 AD? I understand the argument that, for the sake of consistency, we should go by the "common era" (what the hell, I call it BC and AD and don't worry about PC). One of the great things about Wikipedia, however, is that we don't worry about consistency (such as in a method of citing an article) as much as we do about gathering accurate information and encouraging others to do so as well. Wikipedia doesn't pretend to be a primary source (though it's generally the first place people will check to get the most uptodate info), and it isn't very strict on a uniform system. My view is that if someone is making a project out of the history of the Jewish people, or if someone is consulting that project because they have an interest in that subject, the format, including name, is the least of my worries. It could be 30th century Hebrew or "10th century BC in Jewish history", see also "9th century BC". I'd leave it to the persons working on the article. Mandsford (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a whole lot of content on most of the articles so I think putting/merging it as a single article or articles per group of 10 centuries would do the trick. Hopefully more events would be added. Maybe each century article could be left as a redirect if necessary - 37th century would be restored and put as a redirect as well with the history contributions restored as well. I just don't see all the centuries kept individually unless many events are added which can be quite a research task. JForget 19:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, some of the articles have content, but it all exists elsewhere where people are more likely to find it. As I said earlier, there might be some value is some kind of summary article, but this isn't the way to organize it.--RDBury (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all articles with content and delete the empty ones. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the ones with content, and redirect the rest to whatever. May want some of this later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep and add content for the ones possible. There will certainly be something for everything since at least the 9th century BCE- it should be pretty easier to do. Even for the earlier ones, there were more events in each of them in the OT than are listed here. its just an incomplete group of articles and the solution is to complete it. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical issue -- Many of the articles do not bear an AFD tag and so cannot be dealt with in this AFD process. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -- None of the articles above about 20th century, have any substantive content. Those that do merely list dates of birth and death of patriarchs and ante-diluvians, gving the authority as "according to Vulgate", i.e. the Latin Bible. If we need to have some dating of this kind at all, I would suggest that we use something like Bishop Ussher's compilation, despite its deviation from what Jewish dating, but I see little merit in the use of any of this for persons from David onwards, for whom there is robust historical dating, as a result of biblical regnal dates being correlated with the conclusions of secular history. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the question of how to get these articles rolled into a single AfD at the help desk but have gotten no response. We've already had this debate with the 37th century article and to have it a third time would be silly. I really don't see the point of continuing with this AfD if it's only going to deal with some of the articles.--RDBury (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked above - should I put AfD notices on all of the other articles? I will do so tomorrow if others agree that this would be appropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine with me, but I have no idea if it's considered proper etiquette or whether it will be binding at this stage or even if this kind of thing has come up before.--RDBury (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to reply to this earlier, and forgot! Wikipedia:Afd#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion says that you nominate the first one, and then add a note on the AfD discussion page (i.e. here) to list the others to be considered. - It should be done at the start or near the start of the debate, before most of the discussion, which in this case was done - so, no you don't need to put an AfD notice on the other pages, only on the first one. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this because the issue of untagged articles comes up periodically on CFD. No doubt the closing Admin will note this discussion, and act accordingly, relisting any items he (or she) considers inadequately disucssed. It sounds as if I was wrong anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rest can always be nominated when this AfD is closed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all items above about 25th century. Keep lower numbered ones (up to the period of Jacob and Joseph). Delete all refernece to decade in the template. -- For period of the Biblical patriarchs and before, we are not really talking about "Hebrew" dating but Biblical dating from its (apparent) creation date in 4004 BC (according to Bishop Ussher), or perhaps a slightly different one according to Jewish scholars: perhaps 1st to (about) 25th centuries should be renamed as 10th century (Bible) etc. Even if different scholars may disagree as to the Biblical date of creation in terms of BC (or BCE), they will probably agree on dates from creation, as they will all be using Genesis. The retained articles need to be much more focused on Biblical history (possibly Hebrew history - not "Jewish history", as in the present 21st century article and above). All references to the Vulgate, Septuagint, Masoretic text, etc should be deleted, since I do not think they disagree substantially. The source in all cases will be some one's working based on the Bible, so that the Bible is the ultimate source. Note: I am a Christian, and believe that God created the world, but do not accept that it was in 4004 BC (or any similar date). I take the view that I do not understand the significance of the dates in the early chapters of Genesis, but I also accept that some people take them literally, so that articles based on them are potentially encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, I can't see there's any useful content here that's not dealt with in the regular chronological articles. We need to stick to one date system. Lampman (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are other wikis on the web, and anyone who thinks that Hebrew dating is important is welcome to build as many articles or lists or whatever as they want elsewhere, linking to Wikipedia articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am unsure, but like the idea of this sort of categorization. What I was thinking of was that there were numerous Hebrew-year articles out there, so I wanted a better way of organizing them - the main point of the century articles to begin with. Of course, Hebrew year articles need not be produced, just as Hebrew century articles need not be produced. However, merging Hebrew century articles into one great chronology is a good idea, as are the following: listing Hebrew years covered by Gregorian centuries in Gregorian century articles, putting Hebrew century articles on another wiki, merging into Hebrew millennium articles, etc. The main reason why I dealt with events in the ancient Near East in general at all was because the Hebrew calender has several centuries prior to the emergence of Judaism itself, even though the calendar was apparently invented several centuries after Judaism emerged. (In other words, the dates are sometimes retroactive, just as Dionysius Exiguus used retroactive dates of events more than 500 centuries before his time for his own calendar.) So, if you're going to do something with Hebrew centuries, why not do the same with Hebrew years? — Rickyrab | Talk 03:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the best idea is to put equivalent dates in other calendars in Gregorian century, decade, etc. articles, so people know what you're talking about in those calendars. Would anyone agree? — Rickyrab | Talk 03:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, some of the editors appear to prefer keeping and adding material to the Hebrew century articles, which is also cool. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 1st century article discusses the Julian calendar century in terms of cultures that do not share that calendar (Han dynasty, Buddhism reaches China, etc). This is suitable for speaking of a period of time, throughout the world. The only question is, and I offer no opinion either way, is the Hebrew calendar a notable distinction from the Julian? I suggest (at the risk of adding details to the AfD that more properly belong on Talk pages) that if the answer is yes, that it is also suitable that the Hebrew articles keep a summary of the events detailed in the Julian, and prominent links to the Julian, and as much of a Hebrew perspective (details that would be undue weight in Julian) as possible. 1st century (Hebrew) and other of the existing articles do this already, but I suspect there is much more information that can be added. Anarchangel (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No disrespect intended, but if its for historical value it should be listed under a commonly accepted date, and if it is for information on Judaism specifically it should go into a more appropriate article. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As mentioned above, there are numerous Hebrew year articles as well, for example 5606 (Hebrew year). These seem to have about the same issues as the articles in the current discussion and perhaps they should be the subject of another AfD review, but after this one has run it's course.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RDBury (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

39th century (Hebrew)[edit]

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

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

38th century (Hebrew)[edit]

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

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

36th century (Hebrew)[edit]

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

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nominator agreed to userfy the article . Ikip (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eie-manager[edit]

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

An article about unremarkable web based file manager software for which I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources in a Google search, a Google news search and Google books search. Please note an objection (dated last April) to deleting the article on the talk page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

35th century (Hebrew)[edit]

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

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Move to Gypsum concrete. — Jake Wartenberg 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gyp-Crete[edit]

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

Product advertisement Sandcherry (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is hardly an advertisement. In addition, Gyp-Crete is an industry standard and unique construction material, of which there is no commonly used generic alternative term. "Gyp-Crete" is the term used. --Gebl Gebl Gebl (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gyp-Crete has become an industry term for any gypsum concrete, not just the trademarked product. Industry professionals search for the term "gyp-crete" when they are looking for information on gypsum concrete. Content was added to the article to note this information. Nlghills (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. Gyp-Crete is the accepted, and honestly the only, term for this product type ... no matter what the actual manufacturer is. To be clear, nobody in the construction industry ever uses the term 'gypsum concrete'. --Gebl Gebl Gebl (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Nlghills's revison makes this less of a product advertisement for Maxxon's Gyp-Crete and more of a generic article about gyp-crete (gypsum concete). Removing the sentence "Gyp-Crete is installed only by companies approved by Maxxon Corporation" is suggested as gyp-crete is installed by others.Sandcherry (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: This AfD was malformed and never properly listed. Even though the nomination is withdrawn and the AfD technically closable per WP:SK, I feel that a few days of proper discussion before closing may be beneficial, hence the relist. Please consider this the first week of discussion for relisting purposes. Tim Song (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per the lack of reliable sources. While the editors above have determined that they can purge the article of promotion, they have been unable to prove its notability. I have done several searches for sources but have been unable to uncover anything to establish this product's notability. The company that created this product, Maxxon Corporation, does not have a Wikipedia article; the company does not appear to be notable: the articles on Google News Archive are either press releases or passing mentions. Thus, a merge cannot be performed, so this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got experience working in the construction industry going back more than 20 years and I can tell you that it is more than "notable". This type of product is frequently used in multi-story multiple family dwellings. I have no connection whatsoever to the manufacturer of this product and have no particular axe to grind but deleting this article makes about as much sense as deleting the articles on caulk or duct tape. --Gebl Gebl Gebl (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide reliable sources for Gyp-Crete, I will withdraw my delete vote. My searches above have not returned any significant results. Cunard (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did a couple of google news searches. Is google really the arbiter of all things "notable?" Please. --Gebl Gebl Gebl (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not, but it is a good indicator of what is notable. This topic is not an obscure one or a non-English one, so there should be sources if it is notable. Cunard (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep and rename to gypsum concrete per the multiple, nontrivial sources found by Whpq. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either as an industry term or a trademarked product, the lack of reliable sources is evident. Rirunmot (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has become an industry term. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to gypsum concrete and describe the material independent of the product/brand. Articles such as [43] and [44] refer to it by material name rather than by a brand name. As well, building codes all refer to the material in that way. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those sources! Cunard (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this approach makes more sense to me, I change my vote from Keep to Rename to gypsum concrete. However, I see nothing wrong with adding a statement like "Gypcrete is an industry term for gypsum concrete and also a trademark (Gyp-Crete TM) of Maxxon Corporation" provided a reliable source documenting gypcrete as an industry term is cited.Sandcherry (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 23:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charmaine Chen[edit]

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

Notability is asserted by the award she won, so A7 does not apply.

However, I have been unable to find any reliable sources about this topic. The sole reference in the article is a press release from Monash University, which the subject attended. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't understand the deletion rationale. If the award involved is notable, as the nominator indicates, and is given by the university, then the university's announcement of the award is a reliable source. Institutional statements regarding their own activities are generaly acceptable sources so long as they're not supporting self-serving claims. Walden College announcing the name of its valedictorian is an acceptable source. Walden College announcing that its incoming freshman class has a higher percentage of high school valedictorians than any other college is not an acceptable source. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An award from a university does not establish notability. However, it asserts notability, so A7 does not apply. See Protonk (talk · contribs)'s explanation to me at a current AfD.
Institutional sources verify information, but they do not count as reliable sources that establishes notability. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It seems to me that the article should be titled Snapshots of Auckland, not Charmaine Chen. And the article begs the question: Who is the other co-founder? Yoninah (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely no indication of notability -- no significant coverage (much less mentions) in anything WP:RS. Award is minor. Flowanda | Talk 10:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting that there are only 6 ghits for the 'online magazine' (so far as I can see). One is here, one appears to be her Facebook page, and another is irrelevant (referring to 1899!). The 'online magazine' appears to be hosted on blogspot (one ghit) and the remaining ghits are blogtoplist. The article in question here appears to me to be a puff for this blog, as the subject doesn't seem to have done anything else particularly worthy of note, if this blog is - which I can't see. (I include the CoolCampus Award in this - an internal university award with a not very impressive title.) Peridon (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Could we add redirect page Charmaine Chen We Lin to this deletion please? Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence that her blog is notable or even controversial, and the award won does not appear to be significant.-gadfium 01:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 10:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Xtra[edit]

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

I cannot confirm the existence of CBS Xtra after doing a Google News Archive search and a Google search. This is not a blatant hoax, so ((db-vandalism)) does not apply. Cunard (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The only reference is one misused from ABC's Live Well HD Network. As CBS's policy is to maintain one full 1080i signal on their O&O's this seems to actually meet blatant vandalism in my eyes. Nate • (chatter) 01:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how this is pure vandalism, but the misused reference appears to indicate that the editor either inserted the wrong link or was trying to perpetrate a hoax. Anyhow, if the consensus is to speedy delete, I wouldn't object to it. Cunard (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally put the db hoax tag on it after not finding any ghits for the CBS Xtra. That seems rather unlikely for a CBS business. Clubmarx (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find sources. Racepacket (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I reinstated the ((db-hoax)) tag because I feel it is blatant. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Sidner[edit]

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

No sources for this BLP. Not wikified. Willking1979 (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this article from rightpundits.com a reliable source? Cunard (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article appears neutral to me. Willking1979 (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article in The Hindu apparently appeared just today. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:RElisted for final time. --JForget 00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is notable about Sara Sidner? That she left CNN? The article doesn't meet WP:Notability. Yoninah (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. SNOW Tone 10:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H1Z1 zombism hoax[edit]

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

Completely nonnotable web hoax without the required independent, reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage demonstrating why this is significant enough to have an article. Was prodded, but deprodded by article creator, who tries to justify article's lack of sources for saying some guy in Mexico put the site up but took it down again. Hoping we can snow delete this. DreamGuy (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Delete. Seems to me that somebody with too much time on their hands made this stuff up. No WP:RS coverage, just NN blogs. And I thought September was too early for snow.... :/ TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Previously nommed and deleted here. No improvement in article at all. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My initial search only found blog/forum posts and "lark" sites. It may be a notable internet meme one day but it's not there yet. Someone should check out the version deleted as a result of this AFD to see if this is a G4 candidate. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article lacks an AfD tag, it doesn't ever seem to have been put there. Hairhorn (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the original hoax page doesn't even mention "H1Z1". Hairhorn (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 23:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gadhavi boarding[edit]

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

It's often difficult with places in the subcontinent to show notability through Google, but I can't find much that indicates any notability for this hostel. Unless it's pretty special as far as boarding places go, it's almost certainly not going to reach notability standards. "Gadhavi boarding" +Bhavnagar returns virtually no ghits, and ""Shri Krishnakumarsinhji Charan Chatralaya"" only returns the nominated article. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 12:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - without context, I can't tell if this is a boarding school or a Hindu temple. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely lacking in context. How does the nominator even know it is a a hostel versus a furniture store? -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question. I'd not even considered other meanings of the word "boarding". Could even be a home renovation store. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Thank to recent improvements in the article JForget 22:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Cox[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Fair Deal (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find significant coverage. Clubmarx (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but do it as slowly as possible since someone's allergic to speedy deletion. Simply being on a semi-notable label isn't really an assertation, nor is saying that someone is "well known" without a source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You may believe that Skomorokh is "allergic to speedy deletion", but Skomorokh is correct in declining the speedy deletion. It is fortunate that he declined the speedy and it is fortunate that JForget relisted this debate because Doug Cox passes WP:BIO. See this article from The Star, this article from the Times-Colonist, this article from The Hindu. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- in this case, being allergic to speedy deletion is a good thing. Sources provided by the above establish notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources found are adequate for demonstrating notability. --Michig (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JForget 13:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama Comedy[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. No indications from any reliable sources of this upcoming (2011) television series. Prod denied. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Joe Chill Admrboltz (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]