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. Tone 19:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texas's 22nd congressional district election, 2008[edit]

Texas's 22nd congressional district election, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No reason for this election to have its own article; the remaining 434 House races do not. This material could all easily go back where it belongs under the district and candidates' articles. This is recentism at its silliest (and US-centric thinking as well). Orange Mike | Talk 23:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nomination rests on a misconception; there are quite a few other articles for individual district elections. See the relevant category [1]. This was Tom DeLay's district, so special attention and much more extensive coverage is unsurprising. The article needs a good deal of work, though. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If all of the races do not have articles, they should. There is always good RS coverage. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a nationally important race. Plenty of source out there.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there have been literally tens of thousands of Congressional races in US history, not to mention races in individual districts in the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, Zimbabwe, etc. While it's to be expected these will garner attention at the local (and occasionally national) level, there's no good reason to presume notability for them generally. Only the sum of the parts - ie, the election nationwide - is definitely notable. Perhaps merge a brief summary at United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2008. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Without commenting on whether or not all individual US HoR elections deserve a page, this one seems to have the sources to show that it is notable for the swing of DeLay's old seat back into GOP hands. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to [[[United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2008]]. As with Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006, this appears to have been a "daily news" type article that kept track of developments in the primaries and the campaign and the general election, and most of this would fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Normally, the link from the Texas elections article would be to websites that have information for people who wish to check results. I suppose one could say that all elections for a national legislature are "nationally important", but the precedent for a description of any race in any legislative district in the world for Congress, the British House of Commons, the Japanese Diet, the German Bundestag, the Israeli Knesset, etc., is alarming. Would anyone want to keep this article if it had been about a race for a rural district of Uruguay? Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because the subject received national news coverage. In general, I think these articles on individual legislative races should not exist, but that is because they primarily have only very local sources. Karanacs (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In general, I have no problem with articles on competitive campaigns for the US Congress, and this one was competitive. (Most are not.) This race was especially important because of its link to Tom Delay. Gruntler (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient coverage to keep. Can be improved. Pmlineditor^Talk 11:13, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I am not leaving a redirect because there are multiple options and maybe it is even better not to have a redirect after all. But this can be decided outside AfD. Tone 19:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the result of the concurrent RfD, I am creating a redirect to Transsexualism#Alternative terminology. --Tone 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Benjamin's Syndrome[edit]

Harry Benjamin's Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-existent disease. Not recognized in any book of official diagnoses. Article recreated by same editors to circumvent delete/redirect decision of Harry Benjamin Syndrome. See previous delete/redirect consensus. This term is non-notable; the only reliable source that uses the term currently included at the article says "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" is synonymous with transsexualism: “the transsexual disorder known as Harry Benjamin Syndrome.” Previously deleted article averaged 2 visits a day. This obscure term should be a redirect that reflects how Harry Benjamin Syndrome is handled. Jokestress (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. That one article that calls HBS a type of transsexualism is non-credible and lying. We coined the term and didn't authorize them to speak on behalf of the word we coined. It was published by a person with an agenda. Delete BOTH articles without ANY redirection as per Wikipedia policy. Since we coined the term and Wikipedia is not a soapbox, either delete both without redirects or let us keep just one and come up with credible sources. There ARE credible sources in Spanish and Italian which more than prove that HBS is not a type of TSism, and the OTRS team has verified this on the Spanish page.--74.124.187.76 (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and comment per nominator. Also, I'm not sure what 74.124.187.76 is trying to say with regards to coining this term. Care to clarify a bit more than vaguely stating "we coined it"? Xenocide^{Talk|Contributions} 23:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. User Jokestress, Andrea James, an open Harry Benjamin's Syndrome (HBS) phobic person who is strongly against this patient advocacy movement, she has not a voice to speak for the HBS community as has been pointed out by another user on the discussion page of the HBS article, and her comments, arguments, etc, they should not be considered neutral nor objective here because her clear and open hate to this patient advocacy movement, a movement widely documented in the HBS article, and a terminology in fact officially used by prominent doctors specialized in this field and even the Health Department of Spain's government as it is been proven on the article which contains more than enough reliable sources. An article about HBS Phobia will be created soon with all the accumulated proof of hatred against this patient advocacy movement from people like Andrea James. --CharlotteGoiar (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. More sources showing that the terms are synonymous, supporting a redirect: "Other people with less spectacular transgender conditions such as Harry Benjamin's Syndrome (transsexuality)..." [2] "Transsexualism is sometimes known as Harry Benjamin's syndrome (HBS)." [3] "Harry Benjamin discovered the syndrome we call Transsexualism." [4] The article on Transsexualism already discusses the term, so a redirect should be done per consensus on Harry Benjamin Syndrome. Jokestress (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The article should remain because it reflects the reality of a precise term used by doctors today and it reflects the reality of a patient advocacy movement emerging from a few years ago. --CharlotteGoiar (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment while i am very curious about this articles subject, and cannot quite grasp its connection to the phenomenon of transexualism, i can say this: its very telling that the main site for advocacy for this syndrome has an entire page devoted to an exegesis of intersex as related to the bible [5]. NO medically oriented site trying to document a medical condition would dream of including such material. regardless of the sites support for intersex people being included in "gods plan" (at least i think they are supportive of this, not that its directly relevant), this means that this site is absolutely not useful as an objective, medically sound source of information on transsexualism of any sort. If this site/subject has a lot of attention, then it is possible to rewrite this article as being about the social movement represented by HBS sites like this. any critiques they have of other modalities, particularly medical/psychiatric, for exploring transexualism must be seen as social, not medical critiques. any legitimate medical research quoted by HBS must be separated out from HBS and considered in the light of medical peer review, etc. If there are not enough references to be found for HBS being a social movement, then the article must be deleted for nonnotability. and ok, these ARE just my thoughts, so i could be wrong, but i dont think so. as i said at first, this is hard for a relative newcomer to these issues to grasp, so i dont have a firm view of whether we SHOULD delete or rewrite. This article would benefit from expert opinion. I dont know how to advocate for that ethically, so maybe someone else knows how to draw in other editors fairly. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - this is an attempt to undo the consensus formed at the AfD of "Harry Benjamin Syndrome", which was closed a few months ago as redirect to Transsexualism. All redirects formed in this squabble should be deleted and salted; the remaining redirect should be protected as it seems absolutely clear that things have certainly gotten out of hand. Both sides have been ignoring constructive suggestions to them at the Harry Benjamin Syndrome RfD, and this AfD is not helping matters as the heat is already quite intense. Everything should be returned to a point two weeks ago... and then, a civil discussion be made at the appropriate venue. There has been too much forum shopping going on here as it is. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article can't be speedily deleted, as it's not an exact recreation of the version that was deleted. It's different (in fact, I dare say it's worse than the original version, judging just by the quality of sources and the writing style), so it doesn't fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. Regular deletion after AfD discussion, though, is fine. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and keep the redirect, protecting it if necessary. The sources given are totally inconsistent: the principle site, [6] at various places claims it as very rare, but also says it is the most common cause of what they term "true Transsexualism" -- contra the assertion above by 74.124.187.76. The question of whether the two terms are synonymous is unanswerable, because the sources are inconsistent. In this context, I would regard none as truly reliable; they have all been contaminated by propaganda. All we can do is report the variation in terminology, but not canonize it in one way or another. The extent to which human feelings correspond to human biology is not to be solved by squabbling over definitions. The question of determining the biological basis of this is confused, not clarified , by this aberrant terminology. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because I have found no convincing support for the academic or scientific validity of this term. Unable to figure out what the difference was between HBS and TG, I went to the self-published HBS site that is linked repeatedly in the article and I perused this page of it; I also read part of the Nature review that is repeatedly cited on the HBS page. Based on my reading of it, the Nature article does not support many of the claims it's being used for on the HBS page—in the typical spirit of science journalism, that page appears to be taking mundane observations (for example, a bird with half a female brain transplanted into it can't breed, big surprise there) and leaping to unsupported but flashy conclusions with them (i.e., the claim that "gender identity" is determined wholly by the neurobiological architecture of the brain). Anyway, by now I think I understand the difference that editors are claiming between HBS and TG (that HBS is a physical disorder and TG is a psychological state), but I don't see scientific evidence to back it up and I don't see evidence that HBS is recognized by the academic or scientific communities. No opinion on whether the article should be redirected or deleted, but at the very least it should not remain an article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. First off, I can see lots of TG Men discussing here and in another related pages about Harry Benjamin's Syndrome, these people's arguments should not be considered neutral nor objective for the discussion of the current topic. They have a clear agenda and and they often show an open hate towards this particular patient advocacy movement (all this will be reported soon online on several websites including on a new specific HBS Phobia wikipedia article on several languages). The main purpose of this article is not to claim for a new disease but to refine a precise diagnostic for the type VI of primary transsexualism which is stated to be a form of intersexualism by dozens of medical experts on this condition today [7]. We should rely on FACTS and medicine, the term transsexualism is not longer suitable for this very precise type VI of patients, because the etiology of their condition is intersexual as Harry Benjamin himself pointed out. To rely in the opinions and arguments of transgender men with a clear agenda behind is not serious at all, as I said, is not objective judgement. Wikipedia's articles about Harry Benjamin's Syndrome in Spanish and in Italian keeps online and the references provided on these articles had been proved realiable and verified by the OTRS team of Wikipedia in these countries. In this English version however, it clearly appears a conflict of interest in the publication of this article, and this violates Wikipedia policy. But the REAL MAIN PURPOSE of this article, beyond all of what I mentioned, is just only to reflect the reality of an absolutely real patient advocacy movement (if it would not exist these TG men would be not so active here and in another places to block it) who is the reality of a minority group who identifies with this definition following the advance in facts in Medicine and this is very widely showed by dozens of blogs, sites, etc, on the internet, just Google for Harry Benjamin's Syndrome [8] at this moment of the search 51.900 entries resulted from the search. So it is a social reality and a terminological fact that we cannot deny, and that it deserves its own page on Wikipedia.
  This article should Keep, of course, we must rely on these facts and in the conclusions of doctors and Medicine, and above all, PATIENT FACT, not to rely in the conclusions of TG men that supports an opposite agenda to the purposes of this minority of people that suffer this precise condition. If Wikipedia keeps online an article about Queer Theory [9] which is just that, a theory, not more than a theory, then the Harry Benjamin's Syndrome article should be keep too, as the social movement who identifies with it exists as much as the one who identifies with that "queer theory".
  And I will not comment more about this. The situation of this problem of HBS Phobia that some TG people suffer from, it will be soon exposed widely on the internet, and eventually other articles will appear on Wikipedia and in other informational resources on the internet about the wide progress of this patient advocacy movement, so what you decide to do or not here will be seen in a short future as just something anecdotal in the history of this patient advocacy movemement. --CharlotteGoiar (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off-topic discussion removed. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by the way... first of all, saying that editors are haters is not helpful, do you have evidence to back this up? And why should it affect the deletion debate anyway? Deletion debates are swayed by references to Wikipedia policy, not by ad hominem attacks; saying "the people voting 'delete' are bad people" doesn't get articles deleted.

    Next, about your repeated comments that this is a precise medical diagnostic...do you have any medical sources confirming this? (a diagnostic manual or some such.)

    Finally, I am not TG, nor are several of the other people who have commented here. You're doing yourself no good by making assumptions about people and trying to discredit them without any actual evidence. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per nom. No more really needs saying. Has nothing to do with phobias and everything to do with non-notability. (The vitriol from CharlotteGoiar didn't help any, either.)  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 14:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep because I have found enough convincing support for the scientific validity of this term on the sources given by Goiar and a lot of evidence of the existence of this patient advocacy movement both online and offline. Especially online Google shows it. It is vital to differentiate between HBS and TG for the adequate medical understanding and treatment of the first group. This article help to many people who suffer this condition to be informed about it and understand it properly, without queer ideology involved. TG people should refrain from write their opinions here because they don't have the condition, they don't understand it, and many of them are strongly against it (because is different to their TG lifestyle choices and agenda). And yes, Goiar comments on HBS-phobia are completely right, this page's discussion and the old one they speaks by themselves about this. But if you want further evidence of this just read the hundreds of posts on online TG forums of hate about the HBS community. Read articles as the ones written by HFarmer (another TG who participated in the old "consensus" they got among TGs about the old HBS article) or just take a walk by TG sites like Laura's Playground to feel all the hate-HBS-phobia that they spit all the time. You cannot erase the HBS community by deleting this article, you only create more hate between both communities by doing that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk)
  • Sock-puppetry struck. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did you find scientific proof? Can you link me to sources in peer-reviewed scholarly journals? I already read the Nature source cited on Goiar's website and it doesn't support any of the pseudoscientific claims made there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scientific proof and medical use of the term: In the sources provided by Goiar. But if you aren't able to recognize them, this is not my problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk)
• Keep. As the authoress of this article, I hereby demand respect for Harry Benjamin's Syndrome article, since it's been properly proved in this discussion that there is a big group of supporters of this terminology, who reject being tagged as "Transsexuals"; there is enough proof of the wide use of the term, which can be checked by means of Google, as well as by the different articles about the fact that exist in other languages in Wikipedia. That's why I think it must be saved from deletion. Regards. Marta314 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is getting respect. were discussing it right here, right now. demanding respect doesnt help the argument to keep. there seems to be a lack of credible sources to show that HBS is a valid medical diagnosis at this time. fascinating research perhaps. and if there is a significant population rejecting "transsexuals" in favor of HBS, that may be notable, but unfortunately, this begins to approach the margins of notability. transsexuals are a small minority of the human population. it appears that most transsexuals accept or identify with a single, fairly well defined approach to their situation. This may well be recognized one day as an incomplete or misplaced approach, but as of today its NOT. a small minority disagrees with this as a form of labeling? good, in fact, great, more power to all people to self identify as they desire and seek acceptance for that identity, but that doesnt automatically mean this group has enough recognition OUTSIDE itself for an article right now. I havent seen enough evidence for this being a social phenomenon, let alone a medical breakthrough, for to justify an article. I know it really shouldnt have an article which reads like a medical diagnosis at this time. I suspect HBS is going to stay a minority, oppositional point of view within the scope of the article on transsexualism.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G4 with optional protected redirect. This is transparently reposted content. Compare this revision (at Harry Benjamin Syndrome -- no possessive) with the first revision of the current article. The same user, Marta314 was the creator of both linked revisions. The current article was created on 21 September, after the redirect left from the previous article was protected on 19 September to end an edit war by IP user 74.124.187.76. All three active contributors to the two versions of this article (74.124.187.76, Marta314, and CharlotteGoair) are primarily or wholly single purpose accounts who have defended their position with similar invective, claiming phobia, bias, or persecution by the transsexual community. Despite their claims, even ignoring the G4 reposting and examining this article on its merits, there has never been a source provided that satisfies WP:MEDRS, and no more than passing mentions in any reliable source whatsoever. Claims that there are foreign-language reliable sources to support the Spanish or Italian versions are further spurious, as those articles do not have any additional sourcing that provided here. Sir Landmass Weevil (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read my comment above? This article is not speedyable, it has sources added and much of the content has been rewritten. It should be deleted, but through regular deletion, not speedy (see my own delete rationale above). Please focus on the correct reasons for deletion; incorrectly calling for speedy deletion isn't going to help. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irrespective of whether the current version is "substantially identical" to the deleted one or not, then, it still lacks anything to satisfy WP:RS. Of the 11 sources cited, 7 are to the same advocacy group website. One is an internet petition site. One is a personal testamonial. One is an article in Biological Psychiatry that does not address the term (but does include "transsexualism" in its abstract keywords). And one is the trivial BBC mention that earned the previous version a redirect rather than outright deletion. Sir Landmass Weevil (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Transsexualism. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it. Is a very valuable and reliable resource in spite of the biased views of some people here. IMO transgender people are not the ones who should decide it, Harry Benjamin's Syndrome is a term used by some doctors and by a community of people who identify with it, not with transgenderism. Your excuses for to boycott this article are not worth enough in comparison with the positive comments and votes given here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk)
  • Sock-puppetry struck. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another useless ad hominem; who says that all the people participating in this discussion are transgender? Please focus on the issues, not the editors. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As others have said, the cited sources do not demonstrate the existence of the condition. Reconsider if HBS, or the movement supporting it, receive substantial coverage in reliable sources. And it should go without saying that the gender or gender identity of the posters to this discussion is of no importance whatever. PhGustaf (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, this article looks like a unique view on what the RS seem to assert is the same condition, and thus may fall under WP:POVFORK. PhGustaf (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • you and these other ones are wrong, the cited sources demonstrate the existence of the condition, is a refinement of what was previosuly wrongly know as Type VI True transsexualism. If you don't fall in this category it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 23 September 2009
      • — 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete A redirect would apparently be inaccurate, according to those who have defined the term in the article and above. Without reliable sourcing that would make clear that there in fact is any distinction from the proposed redirect target, the term as defined by the article is not notable at this point, and the article should await (possible) confirmation of a speculative theory that although interesting does not establish that there is any phenomenon distinguishable from the proposed redirect target. Steveozone (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion of sock-puppetry removed. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliable sources back up the HB'S article and its movement. Keep it, it's very good. There is not conceptual connection at all between HBS and transsexualism/transgenderism based on modern research for what was know as true transsexualism before. Transsexualism is an outdated term for people with Harry Benjamin's Syndrome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 23 September 2009
  • — 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Not only is an outdated term as you say, but the fact is that HBS is NOT transsexualism, but intersexualism, as considered today by the medical experts in the field, as cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 23 September 2009
  • In relation to what transgender leader User Jokestress said at the top of this page: Very poor argument to rely in what a journalist writes about a completely new term. And by saying that is a non-existent disease you are saying that primary transsexualism (its old concept) does not exist. So, you don't understand the topic of this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 23 September 2009
    • Off-topic discussion of not having accounts removed. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: [Off-topic discussion of sockpuppetry removed. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)] Please also note that shb-info.org (again owned by someone named Charlotte Goiar) is virtually the only cited source of information for this article. All other issues aside, there's an incredible WP:COI problem here; citing a website one owns and administers as proof of anything is laughable. I'm not sure anything else needs to be said. --B.Rossow · talk 16:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps of interest to those with less time on their hands is a snippet from Goiar's own website: "Charlotte Goiar in Spain decided to attempt to popularise the term 'Harry Benjamin’s Syndrome' (HBS), as it follows the naming conventions of intersex conditions. [...] HBS as a term is still a 'work in progress'". [10] --B.Rossow · talk 16:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • [Off-topic discussion of sockpuppetry removed. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)] On the other hand to say that all sources given in this article are referring only to her website is a funny lie because they are not, as everyone can see. As others have said, TGs biased arguments here are not credible at all, I am sorry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk • contribs) 16:50, September 23, 2009[reply]
      • Goiar (or Guren, as she is also known) is apparently known outside the city as well ... though not in the favorable light she'd likely prefer: A slightly different take on Goiar and HBS. Not taking sides here; just sharing some interesting Ghits. FWIW, I'm not TG and have no agenda other than keeping BS off of Wikipedia. --B.Rossow · talk 17:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for provide us further evidence about the HBS phobia that is coming from the TG community. The link you posted about Laura Playground site is a wonderful example of this, as this is a TG site with a TG agenda and shows a huge HBS phobia. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk)
      • Quick question: who is diagnosing these individuals with HBS, and what papers have they written on the subject? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quick answer: some doctors as showed in the cited sources of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk)
• Comment Has this dispute over this diagnosis been covered in reliable independent media? Is the subject notable and covered substantially by reliable independent sources? Please keep comments focused and relevant to the AfD. Arguments and soapboxing aren't constructive and make it hard for independent parties to assess the article and whether the subject meets inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, in lots of independent media Example One,Example Two -there is not reference to transsexuality here, Example Three -again not reference to transsexuality here, Example Four -again not mentioning of transsexuality here,Example Five -again without references to transsexuality, only to HBS and so on and on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk)
    • The first two examples are the same article (2 is a Spanish translation of 1). The others appear to be just trivial mentions that happen to use the name HSB, they're not actually discussions of the dispute (which is what CoM asked for). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No trivial at all, these are full articles referring exclusively to Harry Benjamin's Syndrome without mention of transsexuality (except in Example One that the journalist confuses a bit the things, but not in Example Two where journalist Daniel Schweimler corrects the mistake). Anyway I wish you a good discussion here, I am off to a trip in a couple of hours, so don't miss me so much, goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk • contribs)
        • Examples 1-2 have been covered. Example 3 refers to the subject of the article as a transsexual, directly contradicting "keep" supporters here. Example 4, astoundingly, refers to Goiar as a doctor. Is she? I can find ZERO other references to her being a doctor; if she is not, then the natural assumption is that either she misrepresented herself to the author of the article or the writer isn't concerned about facts and accuracy. Either way, the article is suspect at best. Example 5 just summarizes Example 4, which again is suspect at best. --B.Rossow · talk 19:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is there a broader article subject where this fringe diagnosis (if that's the accurate description) can be included appropriately? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • See previous AfD where this was previously decided prior to the recreation of the article. --B.Rossow · talk 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • As best I can glean from the references, HBS isn't even a "fringe diagnosis". It's just a word Claire M., by her own statement, "coined". What matters here is that the coinage hasn't caught on enough to be reported by reliable sources. If it were, it could be covered, fringe or not. Same with the movement supporting HBS. But neither is, so it's a redirect at most. The previous AfD includes the word "autocunniphilic". I wonder whether that boggler has the same coiner. PhGustaf (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough! I find shameful and disgusting the full "investigation" made up by users Brossow and Rjanag about the possible IPs used by user Charlotte Goiar and about her very person and her work User Brossow talk page (vid. comments above), trying to discredit her and her opinions about this matter. I created this article for the sole purpose of spreading knowledge on Harry Benjamin's Syndrome to all those people interested in it, not to query the spotless work of a person (Charlotte Goiar) whom I don't have the chance to know, but whose work helping people suffering from this Syndrome is simply praiseworthy, as can clearly be inferred from the work displayed on her website [11]. I think it is ridiculous the discuss over the "notability" and the "reliability" of the term "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome" and the suitability of an article on such Syndrome, after having seen that terms at least as "notable" and "reliable" as the one discussed, like Third genderThird sex, genderqueer or queer heterosexual, have their own safe place on Wikipedia with extensive articles entitled with them, and no one thinks about their deletion. Is it necessary to remind user Jokestress, who nominated this article for deletion, that not a single biologist or scientist would EVER state that there is a third sex in humans or a third gender? Do we have to remind the other users who objected to this article that a word so used in this discussion such as "transgender", in opposition to "transsexual", was almost unthinkable only ten years ago? What is a queer heterosexual? What right does theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick hold in order to create a "queer theory" and why doesn't the one who created the Harry Benjamin's Syndrome term have it as well, especially when it's being a syndrome treated by doctors all over the world for more than 40 years? I strongly believe that Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, can no longer remain indifferent to those terms such as "Third sex", "genderqueer" or "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome" that may not be officially recognized but which are a part of society, and have a reflection in newspapers, the Internet or mass media. This has been proved above with the external links of newspapers that mentioned the term which is being discussed. Nevertheless, since I see here that my article has made such bad reactions arise, with personal attacks being involved, I ask for the deletion of this article if it is considered to be of help in order to stop it. Thank you. Marta314 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many scientific and medical articles on gender reassignment and gender dysphoria that refer to Harry Benjamin and the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association. There are no scientific or medical articles that refer specifically to Harry Benjamin Syndrome as a specific type of gender dysphoria. It may be a colloquialism that is common among LBGT persons, but there are insufficient reliable sources to show this, and the current article suffers from soapboxing, synthesis and original research. As far as CharlotteGoiar is concerned, anyone may participate in article discussions on Wikipedia, but they are not allowed to pretend to be 3 different people. Thatcher 22:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break and reconsideration[edit]

• Harry Benjamin is an important figure in the study of transsexualism. The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association was named for him and their standard of care for transgendered persons have been widely adopted. (Read, for example, the abtracts to PMID 16267416, PMID 12917087, and PMID 19556952.) It appears, however, that Harry Benjamin Syndrome is not a recognized medical term for sexual dysphoria due to chemical imbalances in the brain. Therefore most of this article is original research and possibly soapboxing; also misleading quoting of sources is a serious concern. Redirect to Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association. Thatcher 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC) (The current redirect of HBS to Transsexualism#Alternative_terminology is probably acceptable as well, although the text there needs some work. Thatcher 21:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points. The Harry Benjamin Association page, though, says the Association is dedicated to mainstream notions of gender dysphoria, and the HBS group distance themselves from that. I do see it as a matter of terminology, and the second link suggested works with that. PhGustaf (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Transsexualism#Alternative_terminology. This diagnosis is noted in the BBC news source and is at least mentioned in other news sources. Providing information to those searching for this term and noting that this diagnosis exists seems to be in the best interest of our readers. We can duke it out there over how the content should be phrased. :) The unsourced "incorrect" designation there now is a bit much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC source says, "The decision ends a long-running legal process for Nati, who suffers from the transsexual disorder known as Harry Benjamin Syndrome". This sort of casual en passant mention is not, in my opinion, sufficient to establish HBS as a diagnosis. A scientific source would be good, but there don't seem to be any. You really don't want to trust most reporters with science. The redirect is fine. PhGustaf (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You suggest once again redirect to "Transsexualism"; may I ask you then why is not genderqueer redirected to transgender according to your reasoning? Thanks Marta314 (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they should be. "Other crap exists so this should exist also" is not generally considered a valid argument in these discussions. The issue is, for example, whether there is sufficient reliable sources that support the creation of a separate article for the term, instead of as a brief mention in another article. Gender identification is extremely complex, and it would be a very foolish scientist who would say that all transgender and intersex persons are due to psychological trauma, or that all transgender and intersex is due to biological changes. Harry Benjamin Syndrome is referred to en passant in a BBC article and a Mirror article about the same case; it is use on some LGBT blogs and advocacy web sites. It may very well be a term used by some transgender/intersex persons to refer to themselves. At present, however, there are insufficient independent reliable sources to support a separate article, without relying on non-reliable sources and improper synthesis and original research. Thatcher 22:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am a neurobiologist, not an endocrinologist, so I decided to do some looking into this condition. I found nothing on pubmed which describes a specific condition by this name, tho this article may seem to back up the claims of such a condition- that brain gender is developed during fetal development and not later. However, since I could not find this specific condition listed anywhere in a reliable source, then I have to opine that it be deleted. My apologies to those who may find this offensive. I would advocate that articles in reliable scientific sources- or medical text books- may help turn the opinion. Basket of Puppies 23:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I think there is some research on brain development and how it relates to transgenderism, but there is no diagnosis or condition by the name of HBS so the article is original research by way of synthesis, perhaps to support a term that is colloquially used by some transgendered persons but with insufficient sources to support a stand alone article. Thatcher 23:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I am not a neurobiologist but a cognitive neuroscientist, and I too found nothing other than pseudoscience (including, regrettably, in the Nature article cited on Goiar's website... although, in Nature's defense, the Nature article itself isn't too bad, what's bad is the unfounded conclusions Goiar is leaping to from that article). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also @BasketofPuppies: actually, the pubmed article you link above could be seen as evidence against HBS as Goiar construes it. Much of Goiar's website rants about how "physical gender" is not determined by hormones, but that the brain has gender independently (differentiated by neurocytological architecture itself). This article, though, says (in the abstract, at least; I haven't read the full article) that their conclusion is that brain and behavioral sex differentiation is caused by hormonal influence—just the opposite of what Goiar is trying to say. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually an extremely fascinating topic, but I doubt that this AfD is the appropriate place to discuss it. :) Is there a forum available for discussion? Basket of Puppies 01:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but it is unfairly true to state that there are no scientific nor medical mentions of this Syndrome; in Charlotte Goiar's website there is a collection of articles signed by doctors on that Syndrome; take, for instance, this article signed by Argentinian Psychiatrist Doctor Ignacio A. Lutzky [12]; though it is in Spanish, I could translate it for you if you desire; it talks about Harry Benjamin's Syndrome as an intersex condition and a summary of the notion captured in the article nominated for deletion; that document is signed by a Doctor and it bears his professional association number, so I do not find a reason why we should suspect it is a fake; we find also an article by the Argentinian Surgeon Doctor Pablo Maldonado on Goiar's website, [13] that I could translate for you too, if you wish, and the proof that it is not a fake relies on the external link to his website; therefore, it cannot be said that there are no medical mentions of such Syndrome in pubmeds. Marta314 (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If these doctors wrote an article discussing HBS as a new diagnosis for a subset of TG patients (with differential diagnosis, etc), and it was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, then it would be acceptable as a reliable source. As the situation stands today, the term seems to be an informal term used by some doctors and some TG persons that is not officially recognized. You could potentially write an article that says "HBS is an informal term for a subset of TG persons used by some doctors" but you still need independently published reliable sources on this; letters from individual doctors posted on an advocacy web site is just not enough. Thatcher 13:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Thatcher, to say that "HBS is a subset of TGism" is the typical argument used by many TG people without any conceptual basis that supports it. If you want to be taken seriously then you should retract from expressing these false assumptions. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs)

I don't have a view on HBS, having never heard of it before yesterday. The issue is that Wikipedia articles collect and summarize information from reliable independent sources. If the reliable independent sources say that HBS is a medical diagnosis for some TG patients, that's what the article will say. If the reliable independent sources say that HBS is a misnomer applied by some TG persons to themselves, that's what the article will say. If the reliable independent sources say that Harry Benjamin syndrome is a condition in freshwater aquaria caused by not changing the water often enough, that's what the Wikipedia article will say. The key is that there simple are no independent reliable sources describing Harry Benjamin Syndrome. Thatcher 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable independent sources for to back up Wikipedia existing articles such as Third Sex or Queer Heterosexual? By the way the theory that gender identity is socially constructed is finally shattered and by contrast the theory that prenatally established brain and CNS structures determine innate gender feelings and gender identity is finally established quoting Lynn Conway: "These are dramatic, unprecedented, undeniable observations that shift the previous paradigm of thought, and do so in an area of science that had been subject to much misinformation and taboo. In Galileo's case, the shift was from an 'earth-centered universe' to a 'sun-centered universe'. In the cases here, the shift is away from a 'genitals + upbringing' theory of gender identity to a 'CNS neurobiological developmental' theory of gender identity. The implications of this paradigm shift are far reaching, especially for those who suffer from cross-gender identities. Instead of those gender feelings being considered to be "psychological", they can now be understood as being "neurological" in nature." further supporting the sourcing of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs)

Oh my goodness, you sure got us there! The long-standing theory of gender identity has finally been shattered...on someone's personal website! I especially love how she shatters the theory using a bunch of broken urls—a real shining beacon of science, there. We'd all better watch out....

And by the way, the writer of that website, Lynn Conway, is described as a "transgender activist"...aren't those the people who are supposed to hate you so much? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained this before, this is the last time because I have more important things to do right now. The argument "Other crap exists so this should too" is not a valid argument for keeping this article; it may be a valid argument for reconsidering the other articles you mentioned. But Third sex has 78 references covering about 60+ independent reliable sources, so your argument doesn't even work there. There is an argument made here that "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" is the proper name for the condition formerly known as intense True Transsexualism. That is an argument made on an advocacy web site and is not a reliable source. There are articles cited on the web site under the heading "MEDICAL RESEARCH NEWS" that discuss various biological findings in transsexual persons, but none of them mention HBS, or define HBS as a condition, or adopt HBS as medical diagnosis. Writing an article here that cites these sources as proof that HBS is real is called original research and synthesis. Original research and synthesis are not allowed. Wikipedia only reports things that have already been published and widely adopted in reliable sources. The current article on transsexualism leaves much to be desired. It might be useful, for example, to discuss the scientific findings and social and cultural issues in separate articles, where findings on biological changes would be useful. But the simple fact is that Harry Benjamin Syndrome is a term adopted by an advocacy web site that is not supported or used by the medical and scientific community, and not even widely used in the TG community. Thatcher 15:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they criticized Galileo too, though hundreds of years later his ideas were common sense... As Galileo before being burnt, I rectify: I ask for the article's deletion (not a redirect, of course). Marta314 (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the guidelines WP:Crystal and WP:Up and coming next big thing. Arguments saying "well, this is going to be really big in the future!" aren't helpful here; Wikipedia is only concerned with the state of the field now. If HBS is going to be the next Galileo, we can write about HBS after that happens. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I move to have this closed. Once the !votes of sockpuppets are discounted, the only person voting keep is the IP 213.x, who was also under suspicion of being a sockpuppet (the checkuser found no definitive evidence that it's connected with Goiar's IPs, but no definitive evidence that it's independent either). Even Marta314, the article's creator, has asked for it to be removed. Whether to delete or redirect it can be taken up elsewhere; it is already clear per WP:SNOW, though, that there is absolutely no consensus to keep the article, and leaving this AfD open will just encourage further disruption. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please let the discussion run its course. I don't see cause for a speedy close. The closer can weigh the arguments. Comments that are disruptive should be removed, but I encourage patience. There has actually been some good and interesting discussion and investigation in this process so let's finish what it according to normal procedures. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Aswering Rjanag question: Lynn Conway is considered to be a transgender activist however she doesn't suffer from HBS phobia. She shows respect for the HBS community as showed in this very long article published at her website (Reference 8 of this article) where Harry Benjamin Syndrome is the term used for diagnosis, scroll down and read the entire page for to verify this. Therefore, we have another more independent source added to the many exposed above (mass media, Google, etc..). And by the way, she shatters the theory of gender as a social construct very well, further supporting the sourcing of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 11:56, September 25, 2009 (talk • contribs) 213.60.150.80

First, you really need to start appending four ~ symbols to the end of your posts, so we can identify who is commenting. Please do so in the future.

Second, what you've linked is just a personal account of her experiences, not a reliable secondary source. It's effectively a blog-style editorial, which does nothing to show this is anything more than a neologism. It really sounds like some people are trying to get this term to be commonly used, but it's not reached the point where we have books or scholarly papers on the subject, which means it's too new to warrant a Wikipedia article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I support people's right to self-refer as they wish, but in various place this encyclopedia presents HBS as a diagnosis using sources that do not refer to HBS specifically. It fails on various counts, such as WP:NEO, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and worse than this, it misrepresents HBS as a genuine diagnosis rather than a self-identity label, potentially misleading readers that such a diagnosis exists. Deleting the article will help avoid this for the article, and ensure that references to HBS elsewhere are forced to source themselves on their own merits. I have responded because of the notice on the Sexology project. I'd support it being kept if phrased in a way that avoided these problems, such as 'The HBS movement', but as it stands it is a poor article full of material that is unsourced, unreliable, or misusing source - hence the heavy tagging. Mish (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am hesitant to say that a term that is so widely used is a neologism or non-notable. Whether it has currency in medical or scientific circles or not does not prevent it from being notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Scholarly research and scientific acceptance are not necessary for this to be notable. Notability comes from outside medical circles at this point, though there are some doctors and governments that are using the term. 213.60.150.80 (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is widely used amongst people who use it self-referentially, which is a minority even within the trans community. Whether it is notable enough to include does not justify it being used to describe a medical syndrome that is not described as such by medical authorities. Scholarly research and scientific acceptance are necessary for it to be described as a medical syndrome. Do you have any description of or reference to this syndrome from an official government source (beyond the primary source originating from a Spanish Notary) or medical directive (ICD.10, for example)? Mish (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Don't even bother, MishMish...the IP is just going to point you to Goiar's self-published website over and over again.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I am pointing Conway's self-published website. Although there are other self-published websites as well as this one. 213.60.150.80 (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the point we're trying to make. Self-published websites can only be used to show what a person has said, not to reference facts. In an article about Conway, we could cite that website for Conway's opinions. But it's not a valid source for demonstrating that HBS is a term used outside a fringe group in the TS community. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect – the only ocurrence in a book says its another term for transsexualism, and we already have an article on that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No redirects please; if it is a term used "outside a fringe group in the TS community" to differentiate between them and transsexuals, it is rather unfair to redirect it to them, don't you think so? Marta314 (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you've already said that many times, we already know what you think. But for what it's worth, it's not going to redirect to the whole transsexualism article; it would be redirected to the specific section that discusses HBS. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redirect, and protect - this was an attempt to circumvent consensus that was established a few months ago. Harry Benjamin's Syndrome was an article that was developed as it became evident that the people at WP:RfD (myself included) were taking no part of the edit war in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 19#Harry Benjamin Syndrome. This was an edit war at RfD; it's one here, and aside from a couple of people with agendas, there has been nothing new since the first AfD to indicate the need to overturn consensus. The similar Harry Benjamin Syndrome was protected as a result of the earlier edit war; the same should be done here after the article is converted into a redirect. Those who want an article of this name should heed Wikipedia policy and start convincing (and not by shouting over) the editors in the appropriate Wikiproject before the edit war could get even more out of hand.B.Wind (talk) 15:39, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Installation permitting guidance for hydrogen and fuel cells stationary applications[edit]

Installation permitting guidance for hydrogen and fuel cells stationary applications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As can be seen from the Google searches, this thing has only 35 Google hits, and its 3 Google Scholar hits are in-house. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 23:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 14:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable, no secondary sources. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 18:32, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Troupers[edit]

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

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

Non-notable series by notable SF writer; no substantial sources, no assertion of notability. This one is basically a plot outline of a series that stalled after three non-notable books that went almost nowhere. Anything of value here, after being trimmed by 96-98%, could go in the article on Stasheff. Orange Mike | Talk 23:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not pass WP:BK along with lacking any independent sources. I've done a Google search and failed to find anything beyond entries on book databases. Xenocide^{Talk|Contributions} 23:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I should be able to dig up some reviews later. The series got a fair bit of coverage at the time, as I recall. I quite liked them on release, and remember reading reviews in the usual magazines. Unfortunately, they were released from 1991-1994, so while not technically predating the web, there are unlikely to be online reviews from reliable sources, hence the need to turn to print. As mentioned, the writer is notable, so a new series from him wasn't going to pass without commentary. - Bilby (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 14:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep and Major Revise first book may (barely) meet notability requirements. Article needs serious shortening. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I went ahead and deleted the extraneous plot summary stuff.Simonm223 (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unable to find meaningful sources... there were passing "capsule" mentions in a LexisNexis search, but no meaningful reviews or other information that could be used to prove notability. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So this: ^{^ Cassada, Jackie (September 15, 1991). "A Company of Stars". Library Journal 116 (15): 117.} doesn't count?
  • I don't know... the source didn't appear in my search, and I do not have access to it to judge its contents. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added that one. It is the usual Library Journal review. All the books were also reviewed in Locus, and appear to have been reviewed in Analog. I also remember reviews in SFX, but all are only available in print. - Bilby (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment - most SF works are reviewed in Locus and one or more of the pulps; that doesn't make them necessarily fit the standard set out in WP:BK of "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.". LJ qualifies as a "work serving a general audience"; but not sure the others really do (except for trufen like myself). Heck, otherwise I'd argue that every book I reviewed for Dragon was thus made notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, although I suspect SFX is for a more general audience than Locus. That said, this series would have been reviewed elsewhere - Stasheff was of note at the time. But a 1991 release makes online reviews unlikely. - Bilby (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If SFX you are talking about is the UK mag I have most issues. Give me details and I will look it up. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawing deletion nomination - reliable sources have been provided. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that a good deal of this article was removed by this edit. I would agree that the plot summary was overly long, but WP:PLOT is quite clear that "Plot-only description of fictional works." are inappropriate, whereas "A concise plot summary is sometimes appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." Anarchangel (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I replied on the relevant talk page to your concerns. Not averse to restoration of a concise plot summary. What was there was not concise. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robo.to[edit]

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

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

Does not pass GNG due to the fact that there is only a single reliable source listed. Further, I'm not sure what the policy for Apple applications is, but if every one had an article there would be over 10,000 new articles. Xenocide^{Talk|Contributions} 23:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:N.. South Bay (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:N.  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 14:25, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per author's request at the article page, and talk page. JamieS93 23:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CARE Pest[edit]

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

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

Care Pest & Wildlife Control – note that primary editor moved the article to this location after the start of the AfD.

Company with no indication of notability WP:CORP from reliable sources outside of a local scope. Contested PROD. Trying to assume good faith, but this is possibly spam (due to the user name of the primary editor) and there is no evidence that the "notable employees" section is anything more than WP:COI. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not pass WP:CORP due to lack of significant coverage in the media, along with no reliable sources being provided to confirm notability. Xenocide^{Talk|Contributions} 23:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable, and article reads like promotional material.119.224.57.190 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 14:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I live in Vancouver and am familiar with the nature of the citations provided; the first and third are certainly trivial (in that they would offer nothing in the way of informed analysis or comment) and the second, CBC, is likely trivial. I see this media attention as a coatrack for the company's use of dogs to sniff out bedbugs (currently rampant in Vancouver); admittedly this is an interesting use of detection dogs, but one that lends no notability to the company, IMHO. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. The individual bios are particularly non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 21:14, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to BITS-Pilani,_Goa_Campus. Black Kite 23:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quark : Innovation Festival[edit]

Quark : Innovation Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear to be notable. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article has no independent sources Xenocide^{Talk|Contributions} 23:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only reference is the school magazine. NO references found elsewise. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Recent edit shows reference to an article in a daily, mentioning presence of a notable dignitary at the event.

eNVy™ 01:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Still doesn't make it notable. Unless, of course, Magic Johnson showing up at your house makes your house notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If Magic Johnson showed up and an independent source reported it, it is notable. The link to an independent, verifiable and nationally accredited source is provided on the page as of this edit.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into BITS-Pilani, Goa Campus. There is some news media coverage of the 2009 festival [14], but it is largely a reprint of the organizer's press release [15], and thus borderline independent. However, the coverage is sufficient for verifiability purposes, and the festival can be mentioned in the article on the university. Abecedare (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Festival been cited by National Dailies The Hindu, Times of India and Robots Showcased at this festival have won the International RoboSoccer Event in USA this year Acyut. Former President of India Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam innaugrated and delivered lecture in 2009. International Performers Feeding the Fish among others drew crowds from across the nation to this event. Reference to Goa could be made as this is the largest Techical festival in this otherwise touristy region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.160.101 (talk)

• Merge. The 2009 article in the Times of India is a bit thin on details, but is coverage in a reliable source. The material from The Hindu appears to be more a press release than journalism, and not good enough to rely upon. Much of the article is largely self-sourced, and should probably be removed, but the well-referenced parts can be merged into the existing section in the BITS article. TheFeds 22:32, 28 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 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. Needs expansion and better sources. Tone 22:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naseem Vicky[edit]

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

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT . 1 mention in gnews [16]. created by an editor who was only on WP for 1 day. Unless someone can find something in Urdu... LibStar (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Seems to be notable in Pakisten. Unless Pakistani contributors provide reliable, verifiable and independent sources, this page is candidate to be deleted Rirunmot (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 08:12, 9 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 00:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Received an award (or maybe an "award" from NME for a goofy video [17]; seems to be enough out there to infer notability from, despite lack of English-language sources. Article badly needs attention from editor familiar with general subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I don't read Urdu, all I can do is just pick out the Persian or Arabic words in Urdu text. But I see his name in lots of newspaper headlines on regular Google search and he seems to have some sort of involvement in theatre: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (talk) 11:10, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrol magazine[edit]

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

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

Notability not established for internet magazine. Sources given are primary sources or from sources that are not reliable, such as a blog. Google search does not help. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I also can't find significant discussion of the magazine from reliable, third-party sources. ThemFromSpace 02:55, 14 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 00:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 14:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One of many websites that hasn't attracted national attention. Mandsford (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:38, 22 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 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. MuZemike 23:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U-S-A! cheer[edit]

U-S-A! cheer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete poorly sourced, citations to an editorial that mentions the chant in passing, a youtube video and other poor sources. The article does nothing to establish the importance of this cheer or document it in any encyclopedic way. More a random collection of references to this cheer than a real article. Bonewah (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 9 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 00:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable, needs improvement and more sources, but there is no deadline. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Please do not delete this article. It may have its faults, but clearly and succinctly explains the origin of the cheer (with links to articles related to the Olympic games of that year) and a highly accurate exemplification of when it seems to be currently used in modern popular culture (i.e. the Simpsons and Springer example). Indeed, it was a context similar to this that prompted me to search for this article in the first place. Deleting it, or incorporating it as a subsection in a detailed and full account of the Olympics in which it occurred would be to minimize and distort the fact that the cheer now exists as a separate and unique entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.146.58.212 (talk • contribs) — 112.146.58.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep and regular-strength improve. this article about freed Kuwaiti hostages suggests that the chant is known and used throughout the world (unless it developed spontaneously elsewhere), and this one discusses using the chant to drown out protestors. I think there's the germ of a decent article here, though I admit there's also a real chance of it veering into an essay.Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage is sufficient. Needs work. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable New seeker (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Needs cleanup, not deletion.  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 14:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think I might not be so inclined to delete this if the sources weren't so utterly awful. Bonewah (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is pretty bad, but it does contain real content (I did learn something from it). Its problems can be resolved through normal editing. Gruntler (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There seems to be original research here. "Found pride vicariously through the players" has no source. I watched the you tube video and did not hear any USA chant, nor did the announcers make any comment about it. There is no source for the assertion that the "chant became a fixture of the remaining games." The article then makes the unsourced statement that it has been "spontaneously chanted" at events and attempts to prove this statement by giving several examples. As far as the examples given, delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not a good article, but it does seem to be a notable subject. The origin at the '80 Winter Olympics is verified by this NYT article:[18] and this book, Miracle on Ice:[19] It was chanted by WTC rescuers when Bush visited,[20] by sports fans when the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001,[21], by Kuwaiti hostages who were freed after the Gulf War:[22], by the crowd when Bush pitched at the Yankee's stadium in October 2001:[23], and by Americans watching Rambo in movie theatres:[24] It's iconic. It was also used at McCain rallies to drown out protesters:[25]. Also see this analysis of pro-Gulf War protests: "All over the country, whenever there was a pro-war demonstration, crowds chanted "USA USA!" The lack of specific content in the chant in favor of empty patriotism contrasted with the anti-war chants and slogans that always had a specific content".[26] Martha Nussbaum made a similar analysis: "I went to [a baseball game] at Chicago's Comiskey Park, the first game played there after September 11 - and a game against the Yankees, so there was a heightened awareness of the situation of New York and its people. Things began well, with a moving ceremony commemorating the firefighters who had lost their lives, and honoring local firefighters who had gone to New York afterwards to help out. There was even a lot of cheering when the Yankees took the field, a highly unusual transcendence of local attachments. But as the game went on and the beer flowed, one heard, increasingly, the chant "U-S-A. U-S-A," a chant left over from the Olympic hockey match in which the U. S. defeated Russia. This chant seemed to express a wish for America to defeat, abase, humiliate its enemies. Indeed, it soon became a general way of expressing the desire to crush one's enemies, whoever they were. When the umpire made a bad call that went against the Sox, the same group in the stands turned to him, chanting "U-S-A." In other words, anyone who crosses us is evil, and should be crushed."[27] Fences&Windows 23:55, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MuZemike 23:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CDS Invenio[edit]

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

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently it's used to manage hundreds of thousands of papers on particle physics: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/. I would hold onto it. I also found some Google News articles from around 2005-06 if you search for 'CDSware'. Leoniceno (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The software is indeed used a lot, but no significant coverage (under either name) is available through Google searches. If good indications of notability (not popularity) can be provided, the article can of course be kept. Fram (talk) 08:39, 9 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 00:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Leoniceno. I also listed it for rescue. --Mokhov (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am a new editor, but article does not seem to be sourced well. My search did not produce much result.Editor for hire (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC) — Editor for hire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Weak keep per Leoniceno.  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 14:31, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Poker Pack[edit]

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

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

The article should have been speedied as it was created by a single purpose account as a promotional advert. The notable individuals mentioned have articles. Existing article has no actual content except a list of accomplishmenst of the different individuals. Online mentions are press releases. 2005 (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a notable poker group. The page needs sourcing and cleaning up but is primarily factual. Plenty of sources available - [28][29][30][31][32][33][34] etc TerriersFan (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four of those six links are press releases or only mention the group in passing. Two could meet the minimum qualification for notability if someone was being generous. However, the entire existing article is a COI advert. A short stub could be made listing the players and using the Pokerlistings and Tightpoker articles as references. 2005 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine stub it (or I can in due course) because certainly the 'Tournament Success' section is OTT and unnecessary. I accept that there is a COI and I'm not defending the present form of the page. The point that I'm making is that this group is notable in poker circles and it is for editorial action, not deletion, to turn this into an objective article. TerriersFan (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 9 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 00:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete I fail to see the relevance or notability. Not every group of people on the planet merits an entry here.  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 14:33, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete A pity because he's well deserving of more notability, but I cannot disagree with the arguments below. Kevin (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Church[edit]

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

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

Contrary to what the biography states, there's nothing I can find that proves Church is notable. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, nothing to indicate notability. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 14:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hookers & Blow[edit]

Hookers & Blow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Band appears to be non-notable, and it seems unlikely that any band won an Emmy. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A supergroup won an emmy for best cover band after performing at a Hard Rock Cafe? Not likely. No sources, no info, this doesn't seem likely at all. Aside from bad formatting, this sounds like a fantasy rock band. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Looks like a hoax to me. - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 02:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad. There actually exists a band with this name! Anyway, delete as a non notable band. No published albums, seems to be a live-performance cover band, or something similar. - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 02:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 13:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nomination thw subject is an unknown. BC Rocky (talk) 08:20, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Telephone Game (Movie)[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Massive self-promotion; note how it says more about the cast and crew than about the film. An earlier version of the article actually contained exernal links to each person's individual website!
No non-superficial Ghits; most are self-published, with a couple of basic directory listings. Author's claim that the film will become notable once it's been screened at festivals contravenes Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. OK, so when the author's claims are met, we can have an article. Unfortunately, we're not a crystal ball, so we have no way of verifying that it will be notable until then - so we delete for now, and recreate if/when it does happen. Good luck. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm the one who put up the original PROD. This is much like an album coming out independently next year. Just too early. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 02:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 14:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lemme know when it comes to a theater. Mandsford (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 09:33, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Fish Dish[edit]

The Best of Fish Dish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album Joe Chill (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage that I can find, either.  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 14:41, 22 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 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. Some of the arguments presented during this AfD are confusing to say the least, but regardless, it appears that there is no consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trek73[edit]

Trek73 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As per article talk page, there seems to be a lack of notability to support this article. The references given after the last AfD are pretty lacking, they simply describe the game as having been played in a university and by two people in particular. I checked (as per the article talk page) on Google, Googlebooks and Googlenews and could find nothing else other than personal websites on the game. Perhaps my Google-fu is weak, but I would like it noted that I had searched and am not using this Afd for general article cleanup. Alastairward (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• More comment later, but it might be worth checking out the sources claimed here. The sixth paragraph notes some places where the game was published in the 1970s. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That paragraph is discussing descendants of Mike Mayfield's Star Trek game (covered in depth at Star Trek (text game)), not Trek73 which is an unrelated game.--Chris Johnson (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah. My mistake. Protonk (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No mistake, the article clearly talks about the Trek'73 under discussion here, and links to a port of it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Protonk was hoping to use the SCCS INTERFACE and Peoples Computer Company journal publications as sources for this article. I was pointing out that those were about a different game. The article discusses Trek73 later on but doesn't point to any publications about it. --Chris Johnson (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Too bad that article is just floating on someone's web site. It could qualify as coverage for both versions of the game if it was a reliable source. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article in question is NOTE through Hackers, Steve Levy's widely read book which has its own article here. Link provided in the article, and mentioned in on the talk page. Passing mentioned, but several independent websites and personal histories round it out, including http://www.decodesystems.com/hp2000/] [35] [36] [37] etc. These demonstrate that it's not just "two people in particular", and the presence of many ports, some of them modern, demonstrate continued interest. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I was looking for were some reliable, third party sources, that provide more than trivial mention of the source material. There are a lot of fan sites certainly, I found those through the Google search that I performed already. Alastairward (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much the entire history of early computing is not available via Internet research. Journals and magazines of the 1970s and 1980s have not been fully indexed and made available on line though Google Books says Trek73 has a mention in one of the issues of Byte magazine from 1976.

The current on-line evidence of notability for Trek73, and games such as Adventure, is that there's continued fan interest 35 years later. One surprise is no one has written a recent RS article about how some of early computing devices and applications continue to attract interest today. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marc, regarding your point about internet research, two out of four "references" already given in the article are from books. The information seems to be out there about such games, in this case it just seems that there isn't anything significant about it to merit a non-trivial article in a reliable source. Don't you think that there might be something to your second paragraph, that there doesn't seem to be a recent RS article given the supposed continued interest? Alastairward (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: An important piece of computing history notable per above and per the article. Previous AfD found no consensus for delete but led to a botched merge from which the article was rescued (note that Trek73 is a text Star Trek game but is not related to the Star Trek (text game)) --Kkmurray (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, wouldn't this notability be reflected in more than a trivial mention? Alastairward (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that the consensus view is that the references are trivial.--Kkmurray (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I've been told, but nobody has been kind enough to elaborate. As I said before, all that seems to be sure from the references, is that the game was worked upon by certain programmers and was popular in an American university. Surely if there's something more to be taken from them, you or the others building this consensus can simply state it? Why else would this have reached AfD? Alastairward (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I know that "I remember playing this" is not an argument for keep, but it was one of the early computer games, with results printed on teletype, and popular at college computer labs. Citation to verifiable sources is enough to confirm notability. Mandsford (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Other than Maury Markowitz's second link above, I can see no sources which are both reliable (by our standards; people's recollections on their personal websites are not really sufficient) and non-trivial. It is important to reiterate that merely being played by a number of people in the early days of computing is not sufficient for us; we must rely predominantly on non-trivial secondary sources upon which to base the article, and there's only one of them right now. I'm willing to accept that such sources may well exist, but if those strongly arguing for a keep are going to break the cycle of this getting repeatedly AFDed then they have to be located and added to the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So then you agree that link in question passes muster? So then it's a keep? Excellent! Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you care to elaborate on how it establishes notability (that's all I've been asking all along)? Alastairward (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Repectfully, I rather think you've missed the point of my comment. While I may be convinced that the article has potentially to be reliably sourced on this occasion, that there is one single solitary RS which gives the subject non-trivial coverage right now is problematic. That needs to be addressed to break this cycle. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I meant that question for Maury. Alastairward (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  My reply was directed at Maury. I agree with your sentiments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I absolutely sucked at this game when I played it in the mid-70s using a teletype connected to the DG Nova at LHS. There, is that the reliable third party source or should I see if the teletype printouts are still at my mother's house? :-) Seriously - the game attracted a huge amount of attention. Look at this page for the number of ports. Each of those could be considered reliable independent coverage of the entire game and many are also fully referenced in that copies are available today. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No, they couldn't; ports are hardly independent sources. Once again, the issue here is that making out that such examples are evidence of adequate reliable sourcing may allow for the article to survive another AfD, but it will not remove the possibility of it being re-nominated in future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, by my count, only two of the linked games have anything to do with Trek73 (though a few other ports are mentioned in the text). The rest are different Trek games.--Chris Johnson (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that finding evidence of independent/reliable/secondary coverage from the 1973 to late 1970s period will be tough. One thought is Electronics (magazine) which was the "computer magazine" of the era. FWIW, a rewrite of the game may qualify as WP:GNG coverage if the independent sources show the developers put a great deal of effort in faithful duplication of the algorithms or other aspects. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my main complaint when writing about early computer history. I call it "the internet black hole". Many topics that would be trivially easy to document today due to widespread internet presence and archiving went undocumented in the past because dead trees cost more money. And in the 70's it was considerably more expensive to publish than it is today, even in the same format. It's a bit sad that so much great history is locked up behind the paywalls of people like the IEEE and ACM and are unlikely to ever be set free. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That era is hardly unique. People did not stop documenting their experiences on pieces of dead plants just because there were new media available. We have many articles on subjects contemporary to that period which do not rely on first-hand accounts from students of the period in question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the point about the number of ports from above, I can identify ten: Precursor $SPACE (Char, 1973), HP2000 BASIC TREK73 (Char, Perry, Lee, and Gee, 1973),[38] LHS BASIC version (Perkins, 1974), C Port (Pare, 1984), C Port (Williams, 1984), Combined Pare/Williams C port (Okamoto, Yee, 1985),[39] DOS Lattice C (Soussan, 1985), Turbo Pascal (Chu, 1985),[40] C/Curses version (Chu, 1990),[41] FreeBSD Port (Dillon, 1999).[42] --Kkmurray (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maury, this "internet black hole", is simply irrelevant. You have decided yourself that there is a great deal of history to this game, if only someone would produce a significant article on it in a reliable third party publication. That's just your own OR, if such a publication does not exist, even if you think it should, then that's that really. Notability has not been supplied, wishing hard that it should does nothing for this article. Alastairward (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Star Trek (text game). I simply don't see the sources needed for a standalone article. I realize Star Trek (text game) is primarily focused on the family of games descending from Mayfield's game, but I don't see any reason it can't be broadened to cover similar but independently created early Star Trek games like Trek73.--Chris Johnson (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The games are utterly unrelated in every possible way except their name. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Maury Markowitz and others. Given the date and topic this was darn notable for the time but unlikely to get coverage in the pre-web era. Hobit (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, may I ask if you would clarify please? You seem to be essentially saying that it's notable, but we can't cite that notability. That's the crux of the reason for the AfD, if it's so "darn notable" where's the cite? Alastairward (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great question. WP:N is a fine guidepost for what makes a subject notable--If there is significant coverage in RSes, it's notable and otherwise not. But it is a guideline, and not policy, for a reason. Sometimes the guideline is wrong. Here we have a topic that is important from a computer games history viewpoint but that isn't a topic covered very well by RSes. So we be _darn_ sure we are meeting WP:V and write the best article we can because we believe the topic is notable in the dictionary definition meaning "worthy of note" even if it doesn't meet the goalpost set by WP:N. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had an article deleted that I believed was notable and had similar sources to back it up. I've had articles deleted or merged that other users have been adamant were notable. None of which matter since nobody could provide sources to prove they really were notable. Nobody has done so for this article, all we have in essence is the word of the editors here. Assuming good faith is all well and good, but we can't include things on someone's promise alone. You might very well point out that this isn't a paper encyclopaedia, why not have an article on everything? Well, that would pretty much open the flood gates to so many articles that we couldn't spend the time to verify what we're adding. To counter what you said, I say that the twin goals of notable articles backed up by verified sources are worth maintaining and this article just doesn't cut it. All we can say from the sources for sure is that it was a university project and really that's it. Alastairward (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can verify that it was felt to be an important project years ago. And yes, we trust editor's opinions. That's why we have discussions. Hobit (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the sticking point, we can't verify anything other than the opinion of fans online and while it's good to know other editors are being honest, that's not the bar for the inclusion of material in Wikipedia. We have discussions not just to provide opinions, but to provide opinions on the material being added and how it can be verified and proved to be notable. Alastairward (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepEven I tried to play this game. I'd apologize for not documenting this at the time in a reliable-source fashion; I had no notion of Wikipedia's desires then. htom (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's time to add Category:Wikipedians who have played Trek73? :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 05:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More OR? Simply remembering the game does not constitute a reliable source nor does it supply notability. Alastairward (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate questions here. A) Does this meet WP:N and B) does this meet WP:V. I think we have near consensus that this doesn't meet WP:N but should be kept anyways (WP:IAR if you want a rule for that, but WP:N is a guideline and not policy for a reason). Are you arguing past that and saying we can't verify the existence of the game or anywhere near enough stuff to be able to make a decent stub? Hobit (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. WP:NOTABILITY can be trumped if editors explain themselves well enough. A mitigating factor is the age of this game - and the editors! - which makes it harder to find reliable sources, though contemporary computer magazines will almost certainly have covered it. The game is obviously popular, which can sometimes act as a guide in lieu of significant coverage in reliable sources, though it's not a precedent I want to see set often. Fences&Windows 18:01, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Hiberniantears. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati X (band)[edit]

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

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

Not notable group, in my opinion fails WP:BAND. Prod template was removed with following edit summary: "why would the article be deleted? this is a rising rap group, just because you have not heard of it does not mean it is "not a notable music group". please do not delete article thanks". I still think it doesn't meet our criteria. Google Search for "Illuminati X" hip hop is not helpful. Vejvančický (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 21:24, 21 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Vitale (author)[edit]

Joe Vitale (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Multiple editors have posted to the talk page, both noting the article's spam/advertising/vanity appearance, and its use of primary sources to websites that refer back to each other. I would tend to agree. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article does not make any claims that would qualify the subject as notable. Google books has 455 hits but after adding '-inauthor:"Joe Vitale"' to the search request that dropped it to three all of which are quotation books that take their material from WP. With Google Scholar using '-(author:"Joe Vitale" OR author:"J Vitale")' cut the list down from 325 to 60 and all 60 of these are authored by Joe Vitale. There's a lot of noise in Google News as Joe Vitale is a common name. After subtracting the musician, hockey player, soccer player, battalion chief, etc. I'm still at 719 hits from random people. I then added (metaphysics OR guru OR metaphysician). While the subject is mentioned in plenty of articles none of the ones I saw had significant coverage. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Marc Kupper and nom  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 13:16, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waste Management (t.a.t.u Album)[edit]

Waste Management (t.a.t.u Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

http://dl1.tatu.ru/trailers/WasteManagement%20en.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.163.93 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waste Management(Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Although the article claims to have confirmed songs for this album, I searched Google and couldn't even find a release date, much less confirmed songs. This article thus fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL for now. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A press release from the tatu website (tatu.ru) confirming the album, and the news item from the site as well. The title was recently changed to "Happy Smiles" (from "Waste Management"). No real third-party sources available, but I guess this would not fail WP:CRYSTAL?  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  21:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, speedy redirect both articles to Happy Smiles. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & . I personally don't see the point in a redirect due to the non-plausible nature of the title as a search term.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per other comments; at the very least, t.A.T.u isn't properly capitalized as per the proper name of the group  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 13:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Waste Management (t.a.t.u Album), but Redirect Waste Management(Album) - since it is in use in a hatnote at Waste Management, and would be valuable to redirect those searching for it.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  14:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If the second is to be redirected, which I'm not particularly in favor of, at least fix the spacing. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 15:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. Either way really. Delete both and remove the hatnote, or... delete Waste Management (t.a.t.u Album), move Waste Management(Album) to Waste Management (Album) and redirect it to Vesyolye Ulybki (Happy Smiles), and fix the hatnote.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete article becuase 1. i made it. 2. it is waste management the south america people have confirmed it. Happy smilies is the name of the internation russian album (See itunes and Velski Ubliki page) therefore cannot be named Happy smilies (in english and russian)

Also The american metrosexual please check tatu's english forum at www.tatu.ru/en/, click forum and then all about tatu. then click on Confirmed infomation un-confirmed infomation and Waste management speculation, You can see it all there, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.158.107 (talk)

• Delete - the album didn't retain this title, and the term is not useful for a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What Jujutacular said. A don't need to keep this article as the name has changed and the title isn't a plausible redirect, but Waste Management (Album) should be a redirect. Fences&Windows 21:30, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per "Snowball" is a good name for a cute fluffy white kitten, as well as for the outcome of this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raising a kitten[edit]

Raising a kitten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is at least the second recreation of substantially the same article. Taking it to AfD so it can be speedied if created again, or merged appropriately (there is no content though).

Wikipedia is not a howto guide. Shadowjams (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. My words exactly :) Favonian (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per nom.  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 20:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination - WP:NOTMANUAL.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect – Already covered under Kittens. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete per nom and per Yoniah. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is funny, but im afraid it has to go. 74.249.145.231 (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has no sources. 74.249.145.231 (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Delete: This is a how-to guide. Joe Chill (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't think of anything else to say other than WP may soon be experiencing snowy conditions. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable, unreferenced New seeker (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Kittens need a lot of sleep, but they also need a lot of exersize.You also need to trim kittens nails and treat them for fleas,ticks, and ear mites before they get them! Kittens about 1-3 months should be about 7oz-1.5 lbs." I'd add that "Snowball" is a good name for a cute fluffy white kitten, as well as for the outcome of this discussion. This looks like someone's school assignment, but WP:NOTHOWTO applies. Mandsford (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I might change my !vote/nom to cute Shadowjams (talk) 00:11, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by TimVickers. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meat on the Bone[edit]

Meat on the Bone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Declined speedy/contested PROD. A non notable term. Only source is a forum post, not a reliable source. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 20:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable neologism. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I put the first AfD (with a very similar rationale) on it but something went wrong and it didn't appear on the article and then this AfD got started shortly afterwards. I propose we use this one and ignore my one as it hasn't had any votes. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the first AfD per your request. For future reference: you can close an AfD by adding ((subst:afdtop)) to the top of the AfD and ((afdbottom)) to the bottom of the article. See WP:NAC.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  21:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – To be honest, I have heard of the phrase and was actually able to pull up a number of references and scholarly works as shown here on Google News [43] and here on Google Scholar [44]. However, the piece, as currently written would have to be completely discarded and written from scratch. If someone has the time and energy to start a new, I would be happy to support. However, as it stands, delete. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 20:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean about actual meat sold or served on the bone as a food item, rather than as a euphemism for something else. If so, I agree. There was the whole kerfuffle about beef on the bone during the UK BSE scare. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly…I have also heard the expression used in terms of a proposed project or idea such as “…this proposal/idea has some real Meat On The Bone”. But like I said above, the current piece could almost be classified as nonsense. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. I see no indication that this is a widespread cultural phenomenon.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  20:46, 21 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of the Rest (And Then Some)[edit]

The Best of the Rest (And Then Some) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Thorough Google search reveals virtually no hits other than retail and torrent sites.  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 20:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:39, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little House with an Orange Roof[edit]

Little House with an Orange Roof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Don't get me wrong; I love this series and read it maniacally every single time there's a new chapter out. But frankly, this page has been given enough chances to survive. A Google search of this in English leads to those oh-so-legendary illegal scanlation sites that should never be linked to. A search in Japanese on Google leads to a reference-less JA wiki page, the official publisher's official page, an apparent blogger review, and tons of retail sites. Neither WP:N nor WP:NB are met. The page itself has no lead and is made up of just a list of characters and their descriptions. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 19:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 19:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. Survived a PROD attempt. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 19:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.  B.Rossow ^talk_contr 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on a cursory review of the sources Nocturne brought forth and my own limited search, I agree that this does not meet GNG requirements. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:DONOTWANT Testmasterflex (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That really ought to be a blue link. NW (Talk) 04:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:BK and WP:N. Just not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't been licensed, especially given its apparently addictive properties it inspires in fans such as the nominator. But then, I'm also surprised to learn it finished its run -- somehow I had the impression it was still being serialized -- but that's neither here nor there. I'm not finding anything to suggest it does in fact pass WP:BK, so delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't remind me of the addictive qualities of manga <_< ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 15:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • lol I don't even get the logic here. Why would someone nominate an article about a series they love for deletion instead of expanding it and stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norse Am Legend (talk • contribs) 21:05, September 22, 2009
      • Let's pretend I absolutely love my best friend's band. He's in a no-name, unsigned, absolutely-in-no-way-notable band, and it has a Wikipedia page. Should I go spruce up the page with information I know but can't verify through references? I sure hope not. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 05:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This "band" is "signed" - its been published in Japan, ran 8 volumes. 76.99.63.186 (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, bad example then, since WP:BAND only requires it to be signed from some large-esque recording company. In the case of WP:NB, you need to have reviews or an anime adaption which is clearly not the case. The point remains that this article doesn't have notability in the context of its specific type (books, not bands). ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 16:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well man, you could've at least put in a little effort and improved the article a bit. You may not be able to cite some guy at IGN who said "this character looks cool", but you can pretty easily source all publication, story and character information. "Non-notablity" doesn't at all prevent the creation of a comprehensive, nicely sourced and well written article. And since the first thing most people check in regards to obscure subjects like this is Wikipedia, this is potentially harming the series' chances of gaining "notability" because you're actively barring people from getting interested, lessening the chances of a localized release. This whole line of thinking just sort of baffles me, because I thought people tended to want to see things they like succeed and become more popular. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • First of all, Wikipedia should not be a vessel by which stuff gains notability. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure the actual scanlations will increase a series's popularity, and fyi, I am helping out. Furthermore, in terms of sourcing the publication, story and character information, do you seriously think it's pretty easy? If you've worked with Japanese sources, you'll know that they tend to delete old pages without archives. Furthermore, I don't read Japanese, so all my work is largely done through Google Translator, which has issues of its own. I made a few anime pages into featured content during my prime, but it is seriously difficult to source these series that haven't been licensed in the U.S. In any event, I really wish Japanese magazines published their reviews of mangas and animes online instead of keeping them in print form; think about how many more articles we could prove the notability of! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 20:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • By the sourcing being "pretty easy" I was referring to primary sourcing through the work itself since you don't really need a third party to note basic facts about story and characters. The difficulty in finding Japanese third party sources that almost assuredly exist is a very depressing matter though. Also, most unlicensed manga doesn't really get popular through the simple release of scanlations, they rely on places like forums and online encyclopedias to spread news of their existence and get people interested. I'm not saying WP should be bulletin board for advertising trivial subjects; things like long-running, published series of books are hardly trivial by real standards. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Userfy Lack enough evidence of notability. This series isn't licensed in France, Germany, Spain & Italy so evidence of notability won't come from that avenue. Suggest userfy if anyone is willing to have it in its user space checking for evidence of notability on a regular basis. --KrebMarkt 13:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also say userfy, but the series has ended. Unless it does get licensed or an anime (which given the author's track record is not impossible) such evidence is unlikely. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the one who brought that option, i guess i should assume consequence of it. Please instead of delete, userfy this article into my user space. I will check every 4 months for anime adaptation (WP:BK #3) and licensing in NA & Europe which would bring the needed RS coverage (WP:BK #1) --KrebMarkt 21:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Published in a magazine with a monthly circulation of Circulation 359,792, it having more potential readers than some bestselling novels. A notable magazine does not keep a manga series around for years, or bother publishing that many volumes collecting it all, if it isn't continuing to do well. Dream Focus 01:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The magazine the manga was serialized in is completely irrelevant and unrelated to the manga's notability. —Farix (t | c) 02:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you link to BK just to be passive aggressive, or does it actually have relevance to what that guy said? Though I didn't look very hard, there appears to be nothing in that policy page about works serialized in such ways that manga are and it's probable that staying published in a major magazine like that for years, and even being published in one in the first place is no easy feat. It's not at all dissimilar to getting a television show on the air, and even the most stupidly minor, canceled-after-one-episode TV shows get articles without a problem here. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your response is confrontational in and of itself, fyi. Regardless, I have to admit that I feel that series that have been serialized in notable magazines do deserve articles, like the point you made about TV shows. However, consensus doesn't exist among WP:ANIME for this to be the case which is quite unfortunate. Perhaps a proposal should be attempted again? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 21:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think there was ever really a proposal in the first place, and manga just kind of fell under the standards of novels and comics published in more standard ways. I'd support some sort of proposal to change this. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I totally tried this a while back (like, four-ish months ago) and it got shot down so fast it wasn't even funny. It's redlinked so I could escape the ire of having failed so badly. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 21:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well that's a pity. I don't think it would hurt to try again though, maybe this time just bring it up as a proposal for change in BK or something instead of a whole new policy. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not invested enough in this whole keep/delete nonsense to go push proposals. I just follow whatever rules are laid out before me. I've got no interest in leading anything here. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 21:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yeah, me either. whooo apathy! - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • FWIW, per consensus, it's not up to a WikiProject alone to decide the relevant inclusion guidelines are -- which means WP:MANGA can't decide on its own that the magazine a series is in is enough to pass WP:BK, but instead the larger community has agree. WP:MANGA itself has, repeatedly, agreed that WP:BK is the (as a minumum) appropriate guideline for manga, regardless of individual support for possible additional clauses ... none of which, however, has gotten any traction in the larger wikicommunity. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also a pity. I'd love to see some discussions regarding this subject, if only to affirm my assumption of how they went. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The discussions are not archived, so Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) has them all. There are multiples. The main one dealing with manga would be the "Graphic novels" discussion. For the project side of the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 34#WP:MOS-AM and Notability -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Those who decided this are a dozen or so people, who argue constantly until the other side gives up, and most people don't participate at all after seeing pages of discussion about something already there. There has never been any strawpolling, to see what the consensus of everyone else. Just those who gather together at various projects, rush over at once and make changes, ganging up on anyone who is against them. Wikipedia is not mindless rule following, people suppose to discuss things, and decide how things are best to be done, the guidelines nothing more than a suggestion, not actually policy. That's why most bestselling novels are kept, even when not meeting the notability guidelines, despite some people's determination to delete them simply based on rules. Here [45] is a fine example of that. If you believe the article should be kept, don't hesitate to say so just because some are waving around a rule book they published themselves, without any input from any reasonable number of people. Dream Focus 13:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Interesting that that is always the only one you ever bring up like that and you continue arguing it was kept because of the sales numbers when it was not. Anyone reading that would also see that several "keep" sayers indicating it should be merged to a list of the novels of the series, and others actually showing the third-party coverage required, not just "oh, its a best seller so its notable". There are plenty of others that have closed as delete or merge that were also "best sellers", but of course they just were the result of the mythical cabal's you like to claim are responsible for all deletions and policies and guidelines. However, as you argue that for anything you disagree with (while anything you agree with magically has the "reasonable" number of participants), I'm sure you will not agree with that summary and will continue to just ignore all consensus because you don't agree with it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Hilarious irony and delusions aside, what exactly happened in that BK discussion? One second, Sandifer was citing logical arguments for some sort of change in manga standards based on the radically different ways they're published compared to Western comics(while Nohansen was going "lolwut" the whole time), but then all of a sudden it's decided that manga should stay under BK while comics and graphic novels go directly under N. This is illogical and the exact opposite of what should've happened based on the way that discussion was headed. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It was basically decided to maintain the status quo - manga has always used WP:BK, so this was continued. Comics always has used WP:N only, so this was continued. Basically consensus was - no change needed and to eliminate the inappropriately created "6th" guideline added by the anime/manga project long ago (which, as an aside, would still not save this particular article). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • There are far better forums for this than this page. Yes, I realize I contributed to this, but no, this discussion should probably stop here and continue elsewhere. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 18:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of notability.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy per User:KrebMarkt's request I cannot find sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 20:47, 28 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.