< 28 January	30 January >

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 close, article is not the topic of deletion (but a contested section) matt (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auchinloch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Auchinloch

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

Nominated for deletion for legal reasons revolving around the auchengeigh theft, previous detailed on the Moodiesburn article until my removal today. These details must not return to either article. I will not tolerate (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2010 (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) 00:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ADL (artist)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of results on [Google]. Seems to have won the first 'Swedish Championship in rap', assuming thats a real title. Can't find any significant coverage in mainstream media, but that's possibly because I'm only looking out for British stuff. If someone has more experience in looking at Swedish or American sources, feel free. Gut instinct is delete. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 00:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 01:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 01:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Checked Swedish Wikipiedia article as well. Seems to have been active here and there, but mostly collaborated on songs rather than done his own albums, so not obviously notable. Tomas e (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Cannot find any evidence of having a single or album on any country's music chart. Most information online is of a promotional nature. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable per above. Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2010 (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) 00:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jaames[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. ttonyb (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 01:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. No evidence that the subject has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The only reference is the subject's website. Worldcat has no listings for any publications credited to "Joshua Jaames". Victoriagirl (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be self-promotional with no evidence of notability. Out if interest it is probably not a real name either (no evidence of any Jaames born in England in 1992). MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good luck to the young poet, but he's not notable yet. Without commenting on the quality of his poetry, he fails the notability requirements of WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO in every respect.

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. Although a merger discussion would seem to be in order as many of these articles do not convey any meaningful information and are single line sub-stubs. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo (Brathwaite poem)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Limbo (Brathwaite poem)

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

It lacks notability as it has not been expanded for three and half years and seems to be people writing out their English homework Lizzie Harrison (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because also lack notability as individual articles:[reply]

Keep A number of these articles need some serious repair, but they don't appear fundamentally flawed to the point of warranting outright deletion. The anthology which includes the poems is notable in and of itself (and a few of these poem articles link back to the anthology as part of a series) and as such the poems are arguably warranted for inclusion. I don't think an article being broken is in and of itself grounds for deletion or evidence of non-notability. Ginsengbomb (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proposer's arguments are not reasons to delete. Homework can be used as an article. Articles do not have to expand to survive here. The question should be is whether these are notable as individual articles. People studying them as homework, does suggest that they are notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first named poem analysis in the Afd proposal. That particular article does not show notability. --Stormbay (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)* maybe redirect the whole group to the AQA Anthology article. --Stormbay (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into AQA Anthology, unless the poems are individually notable. No need to have so many stubs. Ivanvector (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge all idea. The anthology itself is not particularly notable so merging the individual poems makes sense. --Stormbay (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 23:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The very fact these poems are included in the anthology is a good case for notability. I don't know if merging is the best idea, because the poems however do not have relevance only as part of an anthology, and are best discussed separately. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with the individual poems is that they do not reach a level of notability to justify individual articles. Much of their recognition value derives from their exposure in the anthology. I don't feel they stand alone. Even an anthology of this type has minimal notability for inclusion here, in my mind. I understand it to be an assigned text. That says a great deal about the importance of all the material in terms of this encyclopedia. Stormbay (talk)

Keep You can't merge them all, the article would be too long. Are there any of those listed which anyone doubts are taught in English schools, that meaning millions of children study them? The only thing they have in common is that they are taught in schools, and are thus approved by a notable organization. The AQA Anthology is a collection of poems and short texts which are studied in English schools for GCSE English and English Literature, produced by the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (the AQA). Dream Focus 20:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Ivanvector has it right. The best option here is to have an article containing all the AQA study poems~~, with a ((main)) note for those which are more than a stub.~~, those with their own article will be wikilinked. Most on this list are very short indeed. pablo_hablo. 22:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taught in all schools and modern classics. If they were 50 years older the delete would not be considered. JoshHolloway 00:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge excessive fragmentation. I do not see how the merged article would be too long, as the individual ones here are only about one short paragraph each. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The very fact these poems are included in the anthology demonstrates notability. Being included in a mainstream secondary school syllabus, they will have been written about in study guides, so sources could be found to improve each article. If this was a group of songs, video games, tv episodes or bits of software, that degree of coverage would be enough for even a stubby article to be assured of a keep --Sussexonian (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2010 (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. JForget 01:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quassel IRC[edit]

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

Delete. Here lies yet another non-notable software application which lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i don't see any reliable sources to attest to the notability of this article. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 01:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Included in Tom's Hardware round-up, which also says: "Since version 9.04, Quassel is the default IRC client for Kubuntu". Also briefly reviewed here, and similarly covered in this interview. Granted, we might have to wait until the next batch of Ubuntu books hits the shelves for print coverage, but here is a tutorial (this is the blog of one of the Ubuntu dev teams, so more than a random guy's blog, and is independent of the Quassel developers). Pcap ping 17:53, 31 January 2010 (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. There are some concerns about the quality of the sources, but it appears that enough people want to give the article the benefit of the doubt for the time being at least. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Platformic[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. The sources given are not significant, and I have been unable to find any significant independent coverage from reliable sources. Article was written by the company's CEO. It was speedied in December and this new version was mostly a copyright violation. Prod was contested without reason. Haakon (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little better than spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [1], [2], and [3]. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe Chill. LotLE×talk 00:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have no experience of this product and could be accused of having a COI. Source [1] cmswire (and cmswatch) approach CMS providers (like myself) seeking to add pages of content to their systems and newsletters in return for recipricol linking. Source [2] is well very popular provider of software and hardware in the UK, but note that the article is written by Zack Stern himself. Sendalldavies (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cmsmatrix.org allows people to add their own listings (http://www.cmsmatrix.org/help/wiki/how-do-i-add-a-product-to-the-matrix) Sendalldavies (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another online web development environment and content management platform. Small blurb in PC World surely does not read like a reliable source: "Platformic could save you time--and money--in the consuming steps after you define your graphical design." San Diego Tribune is a product announcement. CMS Wire seems to be a glorified blog with a small audience, and does not look like a reliable source[4]. And we need to be able to subject promotional articles like this to the Coriolis effect more efficiently and without having to examine every press release and blog review that a busy marketing director can cook up. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure if I am a neutral contributor, because I have used Platformic before, but it seems to me that there should not be an issue with it having a Wiki page. I have done research on CMS vendors on here, and have seen some that seem to have much more "corporate" information that this one does. Ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCoz So why would there be a need to delete this entry. I admit I am not a heavy contributor on wikipedia, but this seems fine to me.71.195.179.202 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — 71.195.179.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 23:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joe Chill sources. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Joe Chill sources..."weak" because the sources are questionable per Sendalldavies' comments above. Were the article content more questionable or provocative I would be a delete voter, but I see no particular problem with the article being included and the sources do exist, even if they're arguably of borderline reliability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete still spam, sources read like paid advertisments. Viridae ^Talk 23:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Only a handful of news articles, but the PC World article inclines the balance towards keep. Someone should edit the article to explain more what their software does, as opposed to the irrelevant trivia about who founded the company it, and where he worked before, etc. The PC World article thankfully has some details on that, so improvement is possible. Pcap ping 19:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed some of the ((like-resume)) stuff. Not spammy now, I think. Pcap ping 19:10, 31 January 2010 (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. kur ykh 03:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Farhat[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable politician who was never elected (he placed 16th out of 22 candidates, receiving only 0.5% of the vote). All information on this person is already included within the Liberian general election, 2005 article. Onthegogo (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC) ~~The following articles should also be added to this discussion:~~ [reply]

Alfred Reeves

George Kiadii

John Morlu

Margaret Tor-Thompson

Robert Kpoto

Roland Massaquoi

Samuel Raymond Divine

~~William V.S. Tubman, Jr.~~

Onthegogo (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of other articles will not be debated here. Onthegogo (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 02:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 02:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all~~ ~~- Concur with nominator. There are not enough significant sources to establish notability or flesh out these articles at present. Risker (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

On returning to this, I see that one of the other commentators has done an improved sorting of information about Farhat (my googling was showing a US politician, which was not remotely helpful). With a bit of playing around, I note that it is possible that at least one other of this list was a former cabinet member in Liberia. Therefore, I withdraw my delete opinion. I do not believe that the inherent notability of all people who put themselves forward as candidates for high office, as advocated by Thomas.macmillan below, is necessarily well translated to all countries, but I do believe cabinet members will meet notability standards. Nonetheless, single-sentence stub articles such as this are not particularly useful to the reader. I'd suggest merging and redirecting these articles together into a List of presidential candidates in the 2005 Liberia election, where the information currently available can be placed into context, but still permit development of individual articles as more research is done. I note that a lot of the sources that are coming up on Google search are behind pay walls, raising the question of accessibility of the information. Risker (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I added a source to Samuel Raymond Divine which definitely justifies keeping. As for the others, candidates for Presidents are considered notable, see Category:Presidential candidates.--TM 04:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a former Finance Minister. Each of the other candidates included in this nomination should be considered on their merits, not as a group. That way we don't delete notable people, like Farhat. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment you should relist each article individually and reconsider which you want to delete. I have personally expanded and aded references to a number of them and will continue to do so. Arguing here over notability of all of them is pointless.--TM 13:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Keep. Agree with the procedural comment and my keep relates only to Farhat. Meets the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN in that he has held national office.

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. Icewedge (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzy Osbourne's 10th studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ozzy Osbourne's 10th studio album

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

Not enough information for an article right now. Needs more sources, WP:HAMMER. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 02:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:HAMMER clearly applies, as does WP:CRYSTAL. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This sign says it all. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 00:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Song titles, an expected release date, musicians, producers, etc. are all known and verifiable. A Google search on "Soul Sucka", the record's original title (now scrapped), produces 100+ hits. Does the record suddenly lose notability because of the decision to change it's title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murrarie (talk • contribs) 00:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying to delete it because there is no title, but rather lack of verifiable information. There is no source for the tracklist or release date. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 03:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: looks like another job for the WP:HAMMER. The necessary trio, so to speak, of title and track list and release date isn't complete. Yes, sometimes with enough verified info an album could have an article before those three are known, but this doesn't appear to be such an occasional exception. Info on this album should remain at the artist's article until we know more. Cliff smith ^talk 01:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. could even be a hoax. happens all the time from fans of artists Alan - talk 23:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler smith[edit]

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

Disputed prod - which I placed - so it has to come here. I prodded it because, "he fails Wp:ATHLETE, having not played basketball at its highest level". The user removed the prod - without explaining why (naturally), but didn't include any reasons as to why he might meet the aforementioned guideline. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - college basketball players with significant coverage easily pass the GNG. Considering his controversial career, he easily passes it. Google news search him. That said, the article should be moved so the first letter of his last name is capitalized. matt91486 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 09:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If his controversial career is the source of his notability, why is there no mention of it in the article? EeepEeep (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is. It discusses his dismissal from Tennessee's team briefly, just perhaps not as extensively as it ought. matt91486 (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. Notability not established. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He has made several all-conference teams. This establishes his notability in college basketball. I'm not saying the article doesn't need serious work (I rewrote a little bit, but it's still in dire straits, I agree), but there's a significant claim to notability. matt91486 (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now that sources are added, withdraw oppose. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - should this continue to stay as a no consensus situation, could the closing admin fix the capitalization in the title? matt91486 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 23:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just as a note for any new contirbutors, I've added ten references to the article since the AfD opened. Several of which focus soley or extensively on Smith, and there are several other duplicate citations available online with similar results, which should strongly indicate notability. Once again, I agree the article isn't perfect, but I think he clearly meets WP:GNG. matt91486 (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - General notability seems clear given sources. There are many major press articles entirely about Smith and various things he's done, as a quick google news search will confirm (be sure to add the word "basketball" because there are other Tyler Smiths out there). - Wikidemon (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2010 (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. JForget 01:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LimeChat[edit]

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

Delete. Software app which lacks non trivial coverage from multiple third party publications, thus failing GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is GNG? If you are going to argue to delete something based on policy, please link to the policy. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, GNG is one of the shortcuts to it. TJ Spyke 00:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 02:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is written in Ruby (has a book mention because of that), and appears popular in Japan based on the news archive hits (click links at the top here). None of those immediately strike me as WP:RS though. Pcap ping 02:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be personal software project without independent coverage currently. LotLE×talk 23:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage by PCWorld[5] and Cnet[6]. As Pcap notes it seems to be big in Japan ^walk victor falk^talk 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment unfortunately, both of those sources are simply copies of the description provided by the software author. Press releases, essentially, and no editorial changes were made by PCWorld or Cnet. LotLE×talk 19:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm huge in Japan. JBsupreme (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Michael Schelp. NW (Talk) 22:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spark Plug Entertainment[edit]

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

Non-notable production company, not seeing news or notable ghits. MBisanz ^talk 22:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Your search - "Spark Plug Entertainment" source:"-newswire" source:"-wire" source:"-presswire" source:"-PR" source:"-press" source:"-release" source:"-wikipedia" - did not match any documents. JBsupreme (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CORP. Warrah (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Schelp As the original prodder of this article, I agree that it is non-notable. However, Michael Schelp, the founder of this company, is notable. Per the discussion at User talk:Cunard#in case you thought I'd forgotten..., MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs) is working on a draft of the director's article at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Sandbox/Michael Schelp. He plans to use some of the information in this article for a merge, so I would recommend holding off on deletion. Cunard (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Redirect is not possible because Michael Schelp article does not exist. Should it exist sometime in the future, then the information in this article would be included there. Truthanado (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It now exists and the information on this company has been included. A redirect is suitable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Schelp as the article is now in mainspace and being improved. The article was created in order to give a spot to properly redirect the problematic article An Ant's Life, and this was done during a time when the Spark Plug Entertainment article was deleted. User:Cunard asked User:Jclemens to undelete the Spark Plug article undeleted only so it might them be properly redirected to the article on its founder. See dscussions here and here. Perhaps BOLD, but how about we simply close this well-intended AFD and continue with the redirects of the two problematic articles as planned? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Redirect now that the Michael Schelp article exists and it appears that the article will remain. When redirected, the wikilink to "Spark Plug Entertainment" in the Michael Schelp article should be deleted to prevent a circular wikilink. Truthanado (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. Just unlinked it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 31 January 2010 (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. JForget 01:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conspire (IRC client)[edit]

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

Delete. Software application with no real claim to notability, nor does it appear to have significant coverage from multiple reliable third party publications thus failing GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 02:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per inclusion in many OS distros. Btw. I assume Joe Chill's boilerplate failure to find (by not looking for) sources is some sort of automated response, since it never varies based on AfD topic. LotLE×talk 23:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I always look for sources. You bad faith assuming dick. Joe Chill (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey troll, where do see that in WP:N? Joe Chill (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 'inclusion with a free OS' is irrelevant to notability and is not a valid keep rationale. this software is just not demonstrably notable. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2010 (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) 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nettalk (IRC client)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. This was discussed approximately 3-4 months ago with the result being no consensus. Since that time, zero evidence has come forward of non-trivial coverage of this subject from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 02:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Another IRC client with regional affinity. I wasn't able to find reviews on the usual German tech sites though, except on the download page of netzwelt. Pcap ping 02:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Pcap. LotLE×talk 23:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus seems to be that there are not enough significant mentions in reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. NW (Talk) 22:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HydraIRC[edit]

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

Delete. And another non-notable software application which fails GNG. This article is apparently edited by the authors of the software (COI?) not that that has any real impact on the general notability here. JBsupreme (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 02:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A blurb in a book, included in a round-up in Russian here, two-paragraph review in netzwelt, and mentioned as "feature-packed" in The Hindu (mainstream newspaper). Pcap ping 18:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article appears non notable. 2 or 3 trivial mentions do not establish notability. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pcap. LotLE×talk 23:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I trust Joe's search for sources. I also trust Pcap, but I disagree with him that a smattering of trivial mentions amounts to notability. Miami33139 (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2010 (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. NW (Talk) 22:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquy (IRC client)[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable software application which fails GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: One minute of Googling brought up this article from Ars Technica, a reputable source, describing Colloquy as "a heavyweight in the Mac OS X IRC space" -- not to mention a whole ton of how-to-use-it tutorials produced by third parties, which seems like a pretty decent metric of notability for an IRC client. Jd4v15 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, sorry, should be "reviews and how-to-use-it tutorials." Jd4v15 (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 02:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ars Technica reference is insignificant availability announcement. Miami33139 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an availability announcement, in a well-known and respected third-party source, of a new version of "a heavyweight in the Mac OS X IRC space." Clearly the folks at Ars Technica think Colloquy is notable. How is that insignificant? Jd4v15 (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mobile Colloquy also has a loooooooooooong review in Ars Technica, so you should have guessed that the full fledged OS X client itself has more coverage, like easy, peasy, clicky linky at the AfDy toppy booky coveragy: [7] [8] Probably the most notable OS X IRC client based on [9] and [10]. Obviously also has articles on the usual mac review sites, [11], [12], etc. Pcap ping 22:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or Speedy keep. This is a widely used, well-known, and obviously notable software product. Heck, I use it myself as it is probably the most widely used OSX IRC program. This is one of those nominations that is far past the far side of absurd, and probably openly bad-faith. The "Delete" !votes are all by the "usual suspects" who automatically vote to delete FOSS articles, regardless of overwhelming and obvious notability.LotLE×talk 22:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. andyzweb (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG, the reason for the nomination, demands significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Pcap points to a number of different how-to-use-a-Mac books that discuss Colloquy in depth. That alone satisfies GNG criteria, in my opinion; if you disagree, would you mind explaining why in more detail? (Sorry to harp on this, I just honestly don't see how the article fails GNG.) Jd4v15 (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - one of the most notable and popular IRC clients for the Mac. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic is notable. Time here would be better spent debating improving the article, e.g. which sources to add. Besides the books mentioned above, here are two signed articles in professional news sources posted online: signed post from a professional online news source, which says "One of the most popular open source IRC clients for the Mac" and goes on to talk about the mobile version and signed post in a source by the makers of Macworld (magazine). Versiontracker shows a high rating and nearly 50,000 downloads on their site. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, ostatic.com is owned by IDG (look at the bottom of any page there), and Lisa Hoover is a contributor to other well-know sites [13]. Pcap ping 18:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - <facepalm> per LotLE. appleinsider.com "OS X's most popular IRC client". ErikHaugen (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There may be more book mentions here to add to all the other links already referenced. A major player in a small niche. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nom feels pointy, but notability questions have been met by the other participants above riffic (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2010 (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. Virtually unanimous keep. (non-admin closure) Blodance the Seeker 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. This is a completely indiscriminate directory listing of chat software. Do not be fooled by the blue links as they are circular redirects back to this very list. JBsupreme (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Links are good. Also has feautures listed. Has been around since 2009. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, quoting myself verbatim from the previous AfD: the article is much more than a directory, provides lots of useful -and often sourced, even maybe if not as thoroughly as it could be (but that's grounds for improvement,not deletion) information about a lot of notable software. There is nothing in policy/guidelines against this article. Also: Far from being an "indiscriminate directory listing", it is an exceptionally thorough and complete set of comparison tables. I cannot understand where is the "indiscriminateness". Moreover, the nom has already nominated the article less than 3 months ago, when it was speedy kept -renominating now is akin to forum shopping and the AfD should be closed per WP:NOTAGAIN: Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination. (emphasis mine). --Cyclopia ^talk 00:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is a de facto consensus on wikipedia that comparison articles are useful to the encyclopaedia. See Category:Software comparisons. --thommey (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep You went through this three months ago and the consensus was clear. Are you going to nominate this again in April? Resolute 00:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that the consensus was clear, in fact I would argue that the speedy keep was invalid to begin with. JBsupreme (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was not a single delete vote in the previous AfD, and you disagree that consensus was clear? If it wasn't speedy keep, it would have been WP:SNOW: same result. You may disagree with consensus, but denying it is nonsensical. --Cyclopia^talk 01:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only thing nonsensical about the invalid speedy keep closure last time was allowing less than 24 hours of discussion when there should be five to seven days, depending. JBsupreme (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Invalid? [14] Really? [15] --Tothwolf (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To those who are only interested in hand waving, I strongly urge you to engage in the discussion on the talk page of this article which highlights just how indiscriminate this list is, thus violating WP:NOTDIR. The discussion has been going on for quite some time since the last deletion debate. JBsupreme (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a place for clean-up. If it is a directory than it needs to be cleaned up as there are notable IRC clients.--Crossmr (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense again. JBsupreme asked on talk page What criteria must an IRC client meet in order to be included in this list? - Ehm, like, being an IRC client? It seems a pretty definite and objective criteria. What further discrimination should be made? Perhaps one can argue that it has to be a notable one, and some of the criteria proposed in the talk page by Miami31339 may make sense: but as Crossmr rightly says above, it is matter of cleanup, and has nothing to do with deletion. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclopia, are you suggesting that merely being an IRC client is enough for inclusion in this list? Wikipedia is not intended to be used as a promotional vehicle for non-notable products, open source or not, and that is precisely how this is being used. JBsupreme (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't understand the difference between being a thoroughly comprehensive list and being an indiscriminate and/or promotional list, I don't know how to help you. No one still explained convincingly why the list is indiscriminate, much less promotional. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it seems like a sufficiently discriminate list (only IRC clients allowed, and only if they are verifiable), and almost all of the blue links went to stand-alone articles at the time of nomination – those that didn't had previously existed, but had been changed to a redirect without updating this list. Seems like a viable (and genuinely useful) list. - Bilby (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:USEFUL. Verifiability is hardly a discriminatory criteria, which is why this directory listing (ahem, "comparison") should be deleted. Comparing 100 non-notable things together doesn't somehow make them collectively notable. JBsupreme (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, notability has nothing to do with content, except in regard to lists of people. WP:NOTE only applies to the existence of an article. The individual elements of a list don't need to be individually notable, but they do need to to be verifiable, as does all content, and discriminate, as is the case here. In regard to WP:USEFUL, I'm aware of it - I think we ignore the value of articles too often, but, even so, WP:USEFUL doesn't deny that usefulness can be a criteria for inclusion, and specifically mentions lists and tables as when usefulness can be a valid argument for inclusion. - Bilby (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually that isn't true. For general article content, notability doesn't usually apply. However, NPOV would (why give equal attention to something that hasn't received it), and more specifically Wikipedia:NOT#DIR which states Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic which does not put a focus on it being a list of people. Simply all lists. It gives a list of people as an example, but states such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). Any list regardless of topic is required to limit its entries to notable ones to avoid being a directory.--Crossmr (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's an incredibly long bow you're drawing there, to argue that NPOV means that we can't list "notable" and "non-notable" software in the same comparison list. :) I'm afraid I see that as stretching the meaning of NPOV just a tad too far. And the NOT#DIR argument you're pointing to refers to "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", which isn't the case here. In general, it has been accepted practice in Wikipedia to group together articles which are non-notable on their own into a list, hence all of the "List of ... episodes" or "List of ... characters" articles, and WP:NOTE has been very clear that notability doesn't apply to content of articles except in regard to people. At any rate, how to make the list more discriminate, and whether or not it needs to be, is an issue for the article's talk. My point is simply that the list is discriminate, as it stands, even if some would like to see it made more so. - Bilby (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Speaking as one of several major contributors who has spent a good bit of time reworking this article, including removing a considerable amount of material [16] (which unfortunately made some other contributors unhappy [17]) I can say with certainty that there are some inclusion criteria [18] [19] that have to be met. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Just to be clear - I'm not arguing that there is no need for inclusion criteria. I'm simply stating that notability is not required for list items. If editors agree to make it a requirement for a given article then they're welcome to, if consensus goes that way - but that doesn't mean you can argue that a list is indiscriminate because it doesn't list notability in its requirements. - Bilby (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        My point was that the nom, et al. are claiming that no form of inclusion criteria are in place and that this article is an "indiscriminate list" and should therefore be deleted [20] [21] or "gutted". [22] This despite the fact that they seem to be rather unfamiliar with the subject area as a whole [23] [24] [25] [26] and only began this deletion campaign [27] [28] after they discovered [29] [30] that I edited articles in this subject area. We've come full circle here and I think I've said just about everything that needed to be said here. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Both of those links you've used don't' remotely establish sufficient criteria. You deleted one which wasn't an IRC client, which is obvious, and one which wasn't finished. Simply being "finished" isn't sufficient criteria for a list.--Crossmr (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, do we need to gut out large sections [31] from other articles such as List of neutrino experiments with red links and non-linked entries as well? Would you still be removing material which is otherwise verifiable with the references already in the article (but perhaps not quite notable enough on its own for a standalone article) if those red-link and non-link entries were instead categorized redirects which redirected to a subsection of a larger article? It seems as though we have a Catch-22 here in that we are/were already redirecting to anchors in this larger article for that very reason with quite a number of smaller articles already having been merged here. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes because we're not a directory or guide to all IRC clients. Wikipedia's concern is with notable topics. The subject of IRC is notable, individual clients may be notable, a comparison of those notable clients is appropriate to wikipedia. A comparison of ALL finished IRC clients, isn't sufficient criteria to support this on wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree, we are not a directory or guide to all IRC clients. The clients that were included here (or otherwise planned for) are well known, popular, important, or otherwise unique in their features. Including all IRC clients in a comparison would not be feasible...there are 100s upon 100s of IRC clients, a great many of which no-one (and I mean no-one) has ever heard of. (Don't even get me started on all the people with their pet-project Visual Basic-based IRC clients...) --Tothwolf (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The only criteria we have on wikipedia for being "well known" is WP:NOTABILITY. Anything else is editorial bias and violates WP:OR. So if you agree that only well-known popular clients belong on the list that means they would qualify for the article. Thank you for supporting my position. You've just listed all the things that would satisfy notability as the criteria, which is exactly what I said it should be.--Crossmr (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make discriminate The current contents are indiscriminate. That can be solved by removing most of it, but there is a valid comparison to be made here. I am not particularly fond of many Comparison articles, but this one can be fixed. Don't get me wrong either, it has to get fixed by deleting most of the content. Miami33139 (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but make discriminate. At a minimum only notable products should be listed on this page for comparison.--Crossmr (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment - this article sucks because it's an indiscriminate list of mostly non notable software. taking an indiscriminate, non notable list, and making a clumsy comparison chart out of them, only serves to make the article less encyclopedic. the article honestly isn't even encyclopedic in any way. it looks more like a random collection of mostly irrelevant irc clients, but packaged into a vaguely wikipedia-esque format. these non notable irc clients have to be removed ASAP, and any keep votes should be scrutinized for whether their reasoning is actually justified by policy. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the non-notable entries. Lots of indiscriminate information, remove all the redlinked programs. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK 2.4: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course", and because nobody besides the nominator asked for wholesale deletion. I had closed this as a duplicate discussion of the talk page discussion, also intiated by JBsupreme: Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#How is this list discriminate?, but someone here thought this exercise in futility should continue. There's also a RfC going on to decide a criteria for inclusion, which I hope will draw outside input, as the long term combatants are obviously deadlocked. Pcap ping 20:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Pcap. LotLE×talk 04:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A good example of wp:standalone. I also note that the previous Afd from the same editor less than two months ago resulted in speedy keep.¨¨ victor falk 06:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article that meets all viable criteria. Lots of IRC clients are notable and the information can be verified. The list combines key information about many closely-linked articles in an encyclopedic way. If non-notable client is removed, that is just fine. Don't throw away the basket because of one rotten egg. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This should not have been re-nominated so soon after a closure of speedy keep, particularly when no new argument is being made & there was no attempt at a deletion review. Some list cleanup is certainly possible & I see that there are ongoing efforts to clean this up. While JBSupreme notes there is more to be done to clean it up, he has not made a compelling argument for why that cannot be done or why deletion instead of cleanup is preferable. --Karnesky (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument is that this is an indiscriminate directory listing. [32] It is clear that a resolution via editing is unlikely. Furthermore, all of the comparison data is original research. I hope that helps. JBsupreme (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - JBsupreme, please assume good faith. A number of editors, including myself spent a great deal of time not too terribly long ago adding references to this comparison article for verification purposes as well as verifying the existing data. While some errors were found during the process (and corrected), the majority of it was already accurate. While inline citations are great for written prose, a combination of embedded citations (also known as embedded links), footnotes using ((ref)), ((note)), etc, and inline citations work much better for large tables. It is not practical to add an inline citation inside each and every table cell (and the verifiability policy does not required this either), but it is quite trivial to link to the official documentation and/or website for the purposes of verifying the features and functionality of software as supported by WP:SELFPUB. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Under normal circumstances I am always assuming good faith, and this is no exception. What I meant by original research is that the comparisons are not published anywhere else, we (as a community) are creating the comparisons, in effect synthesizing from primary sources. Does that make sense? I know you will most likely disagree, but that is how I see it. JBsupreme (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Following this reasoning, every conceivable WP entry is OR, since any entry didn't exist anywhere else, we (as a community) are creating them, putting together information from sources. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps you missed my distinction between primary and third party sources? JBsupreme (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I missed it indeed, but what difference does it make? All WP articles are "synthesis" of primary,secondary, tertiary sources, in the meaning that they organize and summarize information from these sources in a structured fashion. Primary sources are absolutely fine for referencing content: they just don't count when dealing with notability, for obvious reasons. If this article is synthesis just because it takes information from sources and structures it, then every article is synthesis. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is a good way to compare the IRC Clients in a page of what they support. I think it should be kept Mmanley (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is a valuable information source, which is the purpose of a list according to WP:LISTPURP. Maybe it needs cleaning up, maybe not - but as someone said, this is not the place for cleanup. Also I'd love to see a real explanation about how this is indiscriminate. The inclusion criteria is explained in the title fgs! Is it the red links? All that means is you have opportunities to improve the wiki! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Go For TLI (talk • contribs) 01:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of useful info, good content material for an article, plenty of relevant sourcing. Cirt (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valuable and useful information source - Alison ^❤ 00:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - very useful information. fr33k man ^-simpleWP- 00:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Valuable information, well-sourced, shouldn't have been nominated again. Rebecca (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Case for deletion lacks substance. There is no policy to support the statement. --Hm2k (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2010 (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) 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Frissell[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Author is only known for one single book, and "known" may be an exaggeration: this is all I can find in Google News--a few mentions, really. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2010 (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 (NAC). Swarm^(Talk) 00:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Mackintosh[edit]

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

Political candidate; no other indication of notability. Per WP:POLITICIAN, that is not enough. I know there is a view that POLITICIAN should be scrapped or ignored, but until there is consensus for that we should apply it. The point of POLITICIAN is that allowing candidates to have articles is an open invitation to COI editing and promotion: I note, for instance, that this article was first created, some time ago, by user Fred Mackintosh (talk · contribs), and that the author of this version is creating a number of articles about candidates, all for the Liberal Democrat party. Even a neutrally-written article about a candidate constitutes promotion; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an election notice-board. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:POLITICIAN says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."". (Emphasis added) This person is now standing for Parliament for the third time, as I understand it. I wouldn't be surprised if there is enough coverage out there to qualify on that basis alone. However, no opinion until I check. Disclosure: I asked the admin who speedy deleted this under WP:CSD#A7 to undelete. DES ^(talk) 21:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage 1 2 (I would expect someone like this to be on google news if they were notable). I note that he is also the Liberal Democrat party's transport spokesman for Edinburgh, but the results on this basis are merely mentioning his name when he gives a statement, with again no significant coverage.--Pontificalibus (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - based on previous years results, it's likely this person will be elected. I suggest it's left until after the election before deciding. If it's deleted, it'll probably be recreated in a few months. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the WP:UPANDCOMING argument; also, using it for candidates requires subjective, and perhaps partisan, judgements about who is "likely" to be elected; better IMO to wait for the objective fact of who actually does get elected. JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a number of news references to the article. I agree that WP:UPANDCOMING isn't a good argument, but I think there is now a sufficient extent of coverage, stretching over a number of years and several political campaigns and several years in local office, to add up to notability under the WP:GNG, and in accord with the "can still be notable" clause of WP:POLITICIAN, quoted above. DES ^(talk) 17:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of independent sources where Mackintosh has been mentioned, it's missing the point to say that just because he is a PPC he isn't significant enough. The fact is that he is a PPC for a highly marginal seat which will be at the center of the election campaign, he has also been involved in Scottish politics for some time. People accessing wikepedia in search of a little bit of information about a man, who potentially, could be their elected representative should be entitled to be able to access this information.Notjamesbond (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Until the forthcoming General Election. One of many such articles of people with a strong chance of election to Parliament. We have kept all the others so I see no reason to remove this one until after the election when we can review it again then in the light of circumstances. - Galloglass 08:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary: if he is considered notable now, he will still be notable if he fails to be elected. In any case, I don't think that creating articles for all the candidates and deleting unsuccessful ones after the election, presumably by AfD, is a sensible plan. JohnCD (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - My own opinion which is appears not as clear as I thought it was, is that no candidate is notable until elected. In reality however, over the past year all UK parliamentary candidates with a strong chance of being elected have been retained on wikipedia so in all fairness I feel we should retain Mr Mackintosh as well. As to further reviews, we do this all the time with some articles coming to AfD on several occasions. - Galloglass 13:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not all being retained - e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Jones (politician). It seems the result is rather random depending on who happens to turn up at the AfD. There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Candidates for legislative elections to try to agree a consistent policy. JohnCD (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edinburgh South (UK Parliament constituency)#2010 election, and protect the redirect until the election. He's NN by our lights yet, but there's a bunch of good stuff in the article that we shouldn't get rid of. Ray^Talk 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Edinburgh South. Candidates are not notable regardless of the seat per WP:CRYSTAL. If he is elected we can create the article then, for now he fails notability criteria. Valenciano (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article makes no claim of notability. Subject has done nothing encyclopedic. Abductive (reasoning) 10:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too low notability. If some guideline says otherwise, then change it. We can't maintain thousands of blps at this level.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Hmm, in my opinion the subject doesn't quite meet WP:POLITICIAN. Perhaps if he gets elected, but WP:CRYSTAL applies for now, I feel. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:04, 7 February 2010 (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. Since the outcome is clear and there is some offsite canvassing that will just clutter the discussion I'll bring the shutters down now. The vast majority of the keep votes are non-policy based and have very littkle weight as a result. The one substantial keep vote asserts that the sources are notable but the overhwhealming consensus of established editors with policy based arguments is that the sources do not cut the mustard. The delete side is therefore a hands down winner. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DexOS[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

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

Delete. Looks to be a non-notable free/open source operating system. JBsupreme (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've reviewed round-ups of this kind of software recently, and saw no mention of this one. I see that there are some references in the article, but they're all blogs, and the coverage is a paragraph + screenshot at the most. The most serious one is [33], a company blog. DexOS gets even [34] less coverage in OSNews than MikeOS. Pcap ping 01:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just weighing in and ignoring all rules :) I hope DexOS gets significant coverage one day... rCX (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how is this AfD preventing you from improving Wikipedia? Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:RCX has performed a copy/paste move of this article to User:RCX/DexOS. I think there are some licensing problems with this action should the article be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't think what I was doing was wrong. I'll remove the subpage. rCX (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. DexOS is the only game sys OS, that is open source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.100.219 (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DexOS is one of the few really independent, not posix-based, free OS. Also, it's the only OS whith a GUI that is not window based —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.1.220.106 (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That alone doesn't establish notability. Significant coverage in reliable third-party sources is what establishes notability. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple, independent sources already in article. LotLE×talk 22:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existence does not equal notability, and there are no reliable third-party sources to establish that or verifiability; the references on the page consist of a home page and blog posts, which are not considered reliable sources. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Verifiable independent source here: http://royal.pingdom.com/2008/09/26/10-amazingly-alternative-operating-systems-and-what-they-could-mean-for-the-future/ 174.112.211.143 (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I already discussed that source above. It's a company blog, probably the source here that's closest to a WP:RS. Coverage is three sentences plus a screenshot. Pcap ping 00:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Verifiable independent source here:http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/ linux format magazine april 2009 issue=117 82.29.100.219 (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to AGF it was mentioned in a print issue, but a search on their site returned nothing, and even minor coverage like "hot picks" has a list of the applications covered in the freely-available toc. Pcap ping 10:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked at the toc of the issue carefully, and I see no article that could even potentially cover it. Pcap ping 10:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'NOTE -- Off-site canvassing occuring here --Teancum (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: As humans are equal, why shouldn't be OSes equal? Why would you delete DexOS and not Windows? DexOS is one of the few independent OSes that are not related at all with the others. It's free and open and the mostly important, MADE IN ASM. ([Special:Contributions/89.47.179.111]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.96.133.5 (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be assuming that all humans are worth of having articles on Wikipedia. They're not. And although being written in assembly is impressive, that alone does not guarantee notability. I've looked for significant coverage by independent sources and haven't found any. Reach Out to the Truth 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find significant coverage of this software. I haven't see Linux Format coverage, but based on the comments here and the searching I've done it doesn't appear that this software is notable. Reach Out to the Truth 21:55, 2 February 2010 (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 several sources found (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 18:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas F. O'Neill[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article of a non-notable living person should be removed per WP:BLP. Onthegogo (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and refimprove-BLP, depending on whether a trainer of horses racing in the Kentucky Derby is notable. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [35][36][37][38]etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references found by Phil Bridger - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:11, 3 February 2010 (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Desseille[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced BLP of a business person. The only "sources" are foreign language. I was willing to AGF on the sources, until I looked closer at them. The first isn't even accessible for perusal, and the second only mentions the man's last name ONE TIME in it. This does not satisfy the "non-trivial" source requirement for notability. Unit Anode 18:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or merge into Winterthur Group, of which he is president. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oh Unitanode (edited), why does the word sources appear in quotes? Is it, "Those foreign language people, they don't know nuthin!" Just because an article mentions the man once, its relevant because it confirmed his position. But since its in AFD now, I shall determine whether I believe him to notable. This is not a BLP sourcing issue, as its clear that a sourced article can be maintained on this individual. I recall I deprodded this one when you prodded a slew of articles in record time (edited) last week.--Milowent (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to stop making assumptions as to what I'm thinking. I'm perfectly willing to assume good faith on foreign language sources, but the man's name is only mentioned one time in the one that actually has an article available to peruse. At that point, it makes one wonder whether the sources satisfy the requirement of non-trivial coverage, which is the primary basis of this nomination. You also need to stop referring pejoratively to my use of the PROD tag. I PRODed about 40 articles per day for 4 or 5 days, while also fixing up 20 or so articles per day during that same time. What were you doing to fix the problem during that time, other than calling those who disagreed with you "book burners"? Unit Anode 15:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at my edit history, you'll see i sourced maybe 50 articles.--Milowent (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The two original sources were the same two that show up on this Google News archive search. The fact that a reference is in French or behind a paywall doesn't detract from the subject's notability, and the previews shown by Google News indicate the context in which the name appears. The article was created more than four years ago, and some of the information in it may be out of date, particularly since Winterthur's Belgian operation is now part of AXA. I changed some present tense to past tense. He was also chairman of a newspaper publishing company and chairman of an insurance trade association. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable source to establish notability. Two of the links are not about the person but relating to businesses he works or worked for, and where he is only briefly mentioned. The third is a press release which cannot be used as a source for notability. Either way, there's no significant coverage, Since this is essentially a stub, it could however be merged into Winterthur Group as Bearian suggested.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Someone's accomplishments - including building a company - are what make them notable. Coverage of them in the context of their work is as valid a reference as coverage of their life outside work. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The French sources are pretty lightweight and I note that fr:wp and the other European language wikis have omitted this fellow. Jack Merridew 18:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jack Merridew. The mere absence of an article for this person on fr:wp and others is telling, but the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications puts this one over the top. If better sourcing can be located please do notify me on my talk page. JBsupreme (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2010 (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) 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Shadows[edit]

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

Delete. Vaporware from the past, does not appear to have received any kind of significant coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article, never got past demo stage, and is not one of the small handful of unreleased games that are actually notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:40, 29 January 2010 (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Movie Cars Database[edit]

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

The only sources are from 2006 when the site was founded, with no substantial coverage afterward. A brief flurry of coverage from around the foundation does not translate to full blown notability if the site never got any coverage from third party sources after its foundation. Prod declined with a proposed merge to IMDb simply because it ~~shares a founder~~ was inspired by IMDb -- not a good idea in my opinion given the tenuous connection. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sites don't share a founder. Rather, the merge requester said that the founders of this database were inspired by IMDb. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which would make the connection all the more tenuous and the merge all the less plausible. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There were plenty of links that could be used as third party sources, until the Nominee removed them. ----DanTD (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically, nobody cares about this stuff (I sincerely hope...) so it's not notable. Chutznik (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Being "inspired" by something notable does not equal notability. Alexa rank is a really unimpressive 61,130. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. The name really rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it. JBsupreme (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This site passes WB:WEB IMO because it does have substantive coverage, delete votes should be made on the basis of WP:NOT#NEWS. Polarpanda (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2010 (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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Ex Lighting[edit]

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

This article has insufficient context to make it a valid article, yet more information than would qualify it for speedy deletion Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as of A7. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Armbrust. No references, nothing to read--NotedGrant Talk 17:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete advertisement, disguised as an article but the tone gives it away ("a leap foreward, and a new benchmark" and so on sounds straight off the brochure). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since my original nomination it has been fleshed out and turned into an advert. I support speedy deletion now Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2010 (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) 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hazrat Syed Shah Afzal Biabani[edit]

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

It's unclear who this person was, and he doesn't seem very notable from Google nor is there much claim of notability here, of what I can decipher. fetchcomms☛ 16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems that he has a "holy shrine" (and here, but there's very little out there that verifies what he did during his lifetime. I note this duplicate has been prodded. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, quite a good example of a hagiography (literally :-) with no real sources for the information provided. Clearly a lack of notability. Nyttend (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2010 (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) 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Leip[edit]

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

No indications of notability. Claims of notability amount to front office jobs at various minor league sports teams and leagues. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A perfectly ordinary administrative worker, with no claim to notability at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete Failed to find any reliable sources on this individual. No awards or honors. Per nominator. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 16:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and other commenters. Not every job in sports is noteworthy. Risker (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not quite an WP:A7 candidate, but still not notable enough for a biography. Robofish (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2010 (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. without prejudice to merge. Keep voters urged to find sources or risk another sucessful afd soon. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dastak (Nakhichevan)[edit]

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

With the relevant filter word 'Armenian' I've found no reliable sources at all, whether on web or on Google Books. Even the Armenian sources are virtually non-existent. Dastak turns ambiguous, giving several unrelated topics. Brand[t] 14:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —Brand[t] 14:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. —Brand[t] 14:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not have any sources or has any relevant importantce, it seems like a cheap article. Neftchi (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probable Merge. I had noticed this article before. I think Dastak is actually the Agulis district, and Dasht (meaning "fields") is its more common spelling - this is just from memory but there should be sources about. But if I'm correct, the content should probably be in the Agulis entry. Meowy 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source that uses Dasht with Agulis http://www.cilicia.com/armo5_agulis-nshan.html Meowy 03:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I spotted it on Google, but there is still no reliable coverage. Brand[t] 11:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources, does not seem to hold any significance. Parishan (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources about this location, no proof that it actually exists. Grandmaster 07:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - since what proof there is indicates that it no longer exists, that it was demolished within the last 10 years as part of Azerbaijan's campaign of cultural genocide against anything that can be identified as being of Armenian origin. What needs to be done is to merge the content of this article into an entry for Agulis, a place which was once a very significant and historically important settlement. Meowy 13:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Took me two seconds to find a source despite the partisan complaints above. "The various settlements of Goght'n are located in valleys and include the present-day villages Agulis, Orduar (Ordubad), Trunis, Vanand, Ts'ghna, Dastak..." From: The journal of Zak'aria of Agulis By Zakʻaria (Aguletsʻi), George A. Bournoutian[39]-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh ... I was hoping to find someone who had access to that book! It and other sources should be used to put together an entry on Agulis. But if Dastak is not an alternative name for Agulis, is there a more recent name for Dastak so that its location can be fixed on a modern map? Meowy 15:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a present day village, why only Bournoutian mentions it? WP policy discourages the usage of one source, which is Armenian in this case (Template:One source). Brand[t] 09:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bournoutian doesn't mention it. Eupator is simply quoting his translation of a seventeenth century Armenian traveler named Zak'aria, who was from Agulis.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's real, that used to mean a for-sure keep, but in the Caucasus dispute it seems that articles on real places (current and former) are deleted, if enough people from one side of the divide come and scream. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maf, Shamkir where the existence of the place was claimed not to be sourced to an infallible source. So echoing the protagonists who managed to get that article deleted: is the source infallible? If not, this should go as well under the sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, or maybe we should just restore the other article or maybe we'll just let WP be your WP:BATTLEground since it's better than actually killing people. One standard or WP shoots itself in the foot, folks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maf actually exists, there is even a weather forecast for it: [40], [41]. Brand[t] 11:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be either keep (if it no longer exists as a settlement) or maybe merge if it still exists but under another name and Dastak had no particular notability under the name Dastak. If it does still exist as a settlement then there is probably a Nachchivan place-name stub waiting for this article's content. I'm not for creating two articles for "settlement X when it was called A" and "settlement X when it was called B" where the only change is a change in the ethnicity of its inhabitants. Meowy 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge The paucity of sources on this settlement seems to suggest that little information exists on it. I have several historical-geographical books on Armenia and none of them mention it (I don't believe it is mentioned in the entry for Agulis in the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, either). Nevertheless, as Eupator showed above, the settlement did exist with that name at one time. I will look into a more comprehensive volume on historical geography, which will probably provide details on Dastak's previous names or its current state. After we have gathered the basic information, we'll probably merge this into another article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sanders (politician)[edit]

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN Ironholds (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there AfD discussions for the previous attempts? I can't seem to find them. PDCook (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject fails WP:Politician. A Google search reveals some mention of him here and there, but I'm not finding any in-depth coverage in reliable sources that would satisfy WP:BIO. If significant source were presented in the previous AfD discussions I'd be interested in seeing them and I could reconsider. PDCook (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication he meets either the GNG or POLITICIAN. Yeah, his brother does, but Notability is not inherited. --Saalstin (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the third time someone tried to delete this article. For information, the last two attempts failed: I forgot whether it was ‘consensus to keep’ or ‘no consensus to delete’. My personal opinion is to keep. – Kaihsu (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC) note: Kaihsu is the creator of this article Ironholds (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Kaihsu was referring to Jacob Sanders, which was deleted on its 2nd and 3rd nominations. This article seems to be non-notable member of a local government and nothing indicates that his relationship with Bernie Sanders is notable either. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Member of local council doesn't pass muster for notability. Not enough reliable third party sources to verify his bio information (I personally don't consider a podcast reliable by any means). Nefariousski (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that have to depend on the podcast, though? I presume the White House's podcasts (open in iTunes) would be as reliable as any press release or interview. I'm not familiar with this particular podcast, but rejecting all podcasts is just a little extreme. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the podcast is what lends it reliability. I'm sorry for my lack of clarity. Surely a podcast from an obviously reliable source would be acceptable but I still would hold a podcast to a higher level of scrutiny than similar content from the same source in a circulated periodical or article due to higher scrutiny and standards for inclusion in print than on self generated media. Nefariousski (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A mere member of a local council. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and insufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Intersting that he's Bernie Sanders' brother. Learn something every day. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have dug out a few independent references from a local newspaper and there seem to be a few other articles in their archives dating back to 2006. I will see if I can pull up any other source material. Road Wizard (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources verify that he is a county-level politician, but they do not demonstrate any notability. PDCook (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a test of the number of sources that cover a topic and to a lesser extent the quality of those sources. If you are under the impression that a guideline saying "we don't like county-level politicians because they are unimportant" beats general source material then you are sadly mistaken. At the moment he is a borderline case on notability; he is important enough to receive several mentions in the local media, but the sources so far do not go into much depth about him. While it is preferred to have 1 source with some depth, it is often accepted that having multiple sources of less depth can support the same material, assuming that all facts are verified and the sources are reliable. The only other significant concern is that several of the local media sources appear to be from a single publisher, which leaves us open to adopting the publisher's bias and presenting a non-neutral view of the subject.

As I said, I will be trying to identify further source material for the article. Road Wizard (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Correct, articles that are subject of a number of articles from reliable sources will over-ride the requirements for notability by those guidelines. They are, after all, guidelines. However, the articles that you have cited are not about Larry Sanders. They simply mention him - or are really about his brother! - so do not count as sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. I will search for references on Factiva it tomorrow, but it's probably that he does not have the requisite coverage himself. Keep until tomorrow, and then provisionally delete. Bastin 16:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything of particular note. So vote delete. Bastin 09:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete as a fail of WP:POLITICIAN but consider preserving the reference material at Bernie Sanders#Personal life if deleted. References seem to be in demand these days ;-) Ray^Talk 22:53, 3 February 2010 (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) 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Diaa[edit]

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

Contested prod. I can't find significant coverage for this high school student. Tim Song (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N, per nom (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, quickly. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
db-a7, blatant self-publicity Bazj (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good luck to the young man, but he's certainly not notable at the moment. Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as a result of expansion. Good work, people. DS (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aristidh Ruci[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABLE and WP:ONEEVENT. While the Declaration is itself notable, and many of its signatories are as well, it does not appear that this individual is notable for anything other than his signature. I cannot find anything about him in the literature. Since he is already listed at Albanian Declaration of Independence, Delete or Merge.Alexikoua (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Albanian Declaration of Independence until some information is found about this person that is not already at the Declaration of Independence article.--Ptolion (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Automatically notable as a member of the Assembly of Vlora. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenel bej Begolli for a discussion of other signatories of the Albanian Declaration of Independence. This is an article about 15 notable people from Vlora (including him) being honoured by the the district of Vlora. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. kedadial 18:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - though this person may technically pass WP:POLITICIAN, there is insufficient information to warrant an article as all the information is already contained in Albanian Declaration of Independence (where Assembly of Vlora also redirects). At the moment, the article is nothing more than a glorified redirect.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlogged user, his voting shouldn't count.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 13:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted you, sulmues, let the closing admin decide.--Ptolion (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Albanian Declaration of Independence per WP:ONEVENT. Athenean (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of Albania's de facto national legislature. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain, Phil Bridger, and kedadi. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition, please note that this cannot a ONEEVENT case as Aristidh Ruci was very active in the Battle of Vlora, a very important war that sanctioned the independence of Albania in 1920 (See Aristidh Ruci in google books). To say the least his political activity spans for 8 years.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 23:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a search on Google Books on him reveals next to nothing [42].

For some reason, you are not getting the second hit [43]sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Albanian Declaration of Independence per WP:ONEVENT. In this case it is more important then WP:POLITICIAN. --Tadija (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentPlease read updated article about his active participation in the Battle of Vlora and being the first President of the Chamber of Commerce of Vlora and member of the Board of the newly formed Bank of Albania. Clearly not a ONEEVENT person. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 17:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Albanian Declaration of Independence--Factuarius (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Albanian Declaration of Independence per WP:ONEVENT Megistias (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The events in which the personality might have been involved: Vlore Congress and Battle, still have not a source that meets wp:verify.Alexikoua (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a source for the congress, and how does the source provided for the battle not meet WP:V? It has author, title, publisher, year of publication and page number - all the standard information for a book citation. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep - appears to meet notability and ref's (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Envy (MC / Rapper)[edit]

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

This article appears to be promotion. the artist hasn't released any reliable material yet, s she fails WP:N. Two quotes are not enough to establish notability. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Envy (MC / Rapper) probably needs a rename. This is the source already in the article, from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/oct/06/new.band.envy Someone with that many words in the Guardian is going to be notable, and indeed there is coverage in Plan B, HHC, RWD etc. 86.44.24.146 (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 16:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both articles above are significant coverage, both are reliable sources. Subject therefore meets both WP:GNG and WP:BAND #1.--Michig (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy Keep. Just a suggestion -- if the nom is agreeable at this point to this closing as a snow/speedy keep (given that all others are unanimous that it is a keep), or withdrawing it, that might perhaps save some people some time.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2010 (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. Still fails WP:ATHLETE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Main (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Footballer who has never played at a fully professional level. Previously deleted by AfD twice as Jon Main for that reason, and he has not as yet advanced any further in his career... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG with significant media coverage - which isn't suprising given his league-leading scoring. Nfitz (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously fails WP:ATH. Not enough significant media coverage to pass WP:GNG, beyond the odd name checks in match reports and other WP:NTEMP stuff. --Jimbo^[online] 15:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He fails Wp:ATHLETE, and not a lot of stuff to pass Wp:GNG that isn't related to a claim of him being the Blue Square South's highest-ever scorer (and I'm finding it difficult to find evidence of that). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a lot changed since last two deletions. Great local sportsman at his level maybe, but hasn't made it on the notability stage. Still fails ATHLETE, still fails GNG --ClubOranje^T 10:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments. He fails both WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG. There's no grounds for keeping this article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous debates (CSD G4). Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 23:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He failed the notability criteria in the first two nominations, and he still still fails them now. Being the leading scorer in a semi-pro league is hardly notable. Bettia (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He fails both WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and page protect, per third AfD. The article can be restored if he stays at Wimbledon after they knock Luton out of the playoffs to earn promotion. WFCforLife (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as a result of expansion. Good work, people. DS (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kristo Meksi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABLE and WP:ONEEVENT. While the Declaration is itself notable, and many of its signatories are as well, it does not appear that this individual is notable for anything other than his signature. I cannot find anything about him in the literature. Since he is already listed at Albanian Declaration of Independence, Delete or Merge.Alexikoua (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Albanian Declaration of Independence until some information is found about this person that is not already at the Declaration of Independence article.--Ptolion (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Automatically notable as a member of the Assembly of Vlora. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenel bej Begolli for a discussion of other signatories of the Albanian Declaration of Independence. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. kedadial 18:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Redirect - though this person may technically pass WP:POLITICIAN, there is insufficient information to warrant an article as all the information is already contained in Albanian Declaration of Independence (where Assembly of Vlora also redirects). At the moment, the article is nothing more than a glorified redirect. These nominations should have been grouped as one.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Expand per 137.122.49.102. Clearly notable, but the article basically has no content. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Albanian Declaration of Independence per WP:ONEVENT. Athenean (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of Albania's de facto national legislature. Expansion is much more likely to happen if this is kept as a separate article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain, Phil Bridger, and kedadi. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 22:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Albanian Declaration of Independence per WP:ONEVENT. In this case it is more important then WP:POLITICIAN. --Tadija (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not a ONE EVENT person, but a very well known Albanian personality whose work spans in politics and contributions in Albanian linguistics for 40 years. Please read at least a little what google book has about him, before considering Kristo Meksi a WP:ONEVENT character. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 23:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is not internationally known for anything else, then this ONE EVENT. Of chores, he had a life of its own, but that's not of interest to international community. So, WP:ONEVENT. --Tadija (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he IS internationally known for being the emissary of the Provisional Government of Albania to the Congress of Trieste, which secured international recognition for that government [44]sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sulmues: Passes WP:DIPLOMAT. Participation in an international congress which secured recognition for Albanian independence would qualify as taking part in a significant diplomatic event. Ray^Talk 22:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Factuarius (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notabilityMegistias (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why he isn't notable. As noted above, since he is a member of the legislature, he clearly is notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Unless you can rebut that claim? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this claim is extremely poorly sourced. No page number is given, it is completely impossible to verify. For all we know, Sulmues could just be making this up, and given how desperately he doesn't want the article deleted, I wouldn't be surprised if he did. The second source, a self-published nationalist tract by Fan Noli, does not meet WP:RS and should be removed. Athenean (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what's wrong with the East European Quarterly source? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No page number. Can anyone actually check it and see that it actually says what is claimed? Athenean (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several ways in which you can check the source. You can find what libraries it is held in by clicking on the ISSN link that I provided - I'm sure that the journal has a table of contents that lets you find what page this article is on. Alternatively anyone with a Questia subscription can check it online here. Or you could do a search to check if there is a free copy available online, and it turns out that there is. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2010 (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. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is a content fork from Robert Baden-Powell which has two paragraphs on allegations that he was gay as well. It quotes at excessive length from the one book filled with speculation that powell was gay (written long after powell's death) and appears to be the subject of some agenda driven editing. It is a classic content fork as well as a coatrack. While there might be bits of Baden-Powell's life that could stand being broken out (Robert Baden-Powell's impact on scouting say), what we have here is the creation of a forked article to give undue weight to a fringe set of speculation. Forks like this most crucially undermine WP:NPOV by hiving off a set of controversial and unproven claims and treating them as a topic of their own. There can be no "neutral point of view" when this is done. Witness the article as it currently stands "Baden-Powell liked boys, he sometimes talked to them when they were naked after swimming, sometimes he slept apart from his wife, he admired the male form OMG he was a homo who molested underaged boys!" Encyclopedic, this is not.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If one scholar had made this case, it would be unsuited for an article. But now several have (at least according to the article), and it appears to be a subjec of controversy in Baden-Powell scholarship. It may well not be true, but he's no longer living, and the fact that it's being so heavily debated suggests it's worth a fork. 7triton7 (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, talkpage was just working out a concerted effort to allow editors interested in verifying sources a bit of time to look through a handful of books addressing this subject. The main article is quite clear the subject is notable so after an effort to distill which sources were best and how to apply them - and allowing fresh eyes at WP:RSN to weigh in on any disputes a better article would either be produced or if a lack of sourcing was an issue a possible re-merge to the main article would be the next step. Instead nom has chosen the route of most disruption and drama which is unfortunate coupled with their generalized disparaging remarks against other editors on the talkpage. It's unhelpful and certainly unneeded. With more eyes the talkpage was turning more constructive but as long as we're here if anyone has ideas on what the best sources are for this material please feel free to comment. The article talkpage may be best but here is fine as well. -- Banjeboi 11:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Several hundred GScholar hits and 100+ GBook hits suggests that sourcing indeed exists. -- Banjeboi 11:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you mendacious or just lazy and irresponsible? Yes, if you type "Robert Baden-Powell" sexuality into google scholar you get 435 "hits." But did you look at the hits? Almost none of them are about Baden-Powell's sexuality -- instead the represent the random, unconnected proximity of two phrases. For instance, first hit says: "It was to Lieutenant Robert Baden-Powell's disadvantage (however he later, characteristically, manipulated it to his benefit) that the early decades of his ... A pastoral escapism is openly celebrated in the less conventional work of the sexual theorist Edward Carpenter, and in the..." This means that the word "sexuality" is in that book, but not in relation to powell. Or take this from the second page: "Baden-Powell in its formation and rapid ... By emphasizing sport, Fine tells us about the male sex role (the more appropriate term is gender role), socialization, character development." Get the point? Baden Powell is the subject of 1,000s of articles and hundreds of books (defined as ones where he gets at least a chapter) yet how many books are solely dedicated to the topic of his sexuality? As far as i can tell, just the jeal book. You've just thrown up a smokescreen.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work in achieving a collegial and cooperative environment. I'll let others decide what sources may be the best. This subject has been discussed extensively on the main article before a split for size was made. Lack of reliable sourcing does not seem to be an issue. -- Banjeboi 12:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is apparently the 4th AfD. -- Banjeboi 11:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added details of previous AfDs, but I do not know why it shows some more than once. It did that on the last AfD. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, the renaming from 2nd to second, etc serves up duplicates. -- Banjeboi 12:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fourth AfD? Seems that a lot of people really don't agree that it is notable in its current form then. DiverScout (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually that would be synthesis and OR to assume someone's, let alone several editors' motivations. It's quite clear this is uncomfortable information for some of the current editors campaigning to delete the article but luckily we don't censor to sooth discomfort. -- Banjeboi 11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence there are sufficient references here to build an article on - and I mean a proper article, not just a glorified stub - nor, given the scant biographical information surrounding Baden-Powell's sexuality available, are there likely to be so. Passing speculation from biographies does not a Wikipedia article make. What we currently have is simply a content fork that could just as easily be summarised in a couple of lines at the main article with a good deal more accuracy and less flannel. Whether or not this is the product of someone with an agenda, I don't know, but it really feels like it. Moreschi (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography is the ongoing process of analysis of often limited or conflicting data in order to develop an understanding of probable past events and causes. To naively dismiss that process as "speculation" or to imagine that absolute certainty exists shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what historians and biographers do. That also feels like an agenda, an unconscious one more troubling than any avowed agenda. Haiduc (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I totally agree with Moreschi, non biographical speculation about someones sexuality, it is more that enough covered in the main article already. Off2riorob (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, the main article's current content seems awfully POV with emphasis added to how a biography collaborating with one of his relatives made no mention of any homosexuality. Is that really surprising? I think not. It then goes on to state how "his mind was filled with thoughts of her. His whole being was stirred as it had never been before." This has evolved from what was there: The orthodoxy of Robert Baden-Powell's sexuality has been brought into question by his principal modern biographers, who have found a great deal of evidence indicating he was attracted to youthful men and to boys. Nonetheless, Baden-Powell is thought to always have remained chaste with his scouts, and he did not tolerate Scoutmasters who indulged in sexual 'escapades' with their charges. We seem to be going to great lengths to dispute "his principal modern biographers". Just a thought to keep in mind while edit-warring starts to remove more content from this article. -- Banjeboi 13:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From 2005 discussion that resulted in this article being created - Jeal's biography (one of the sources cited above) is one of the definitive works on Baden-Powell. It is very well sourced and of the highest academic standard, so most of the labels above (nonsensical, lacking legitimacy, libel, speculative, loose, inappropriate) are far from accurate. Although it is true that Jeal's conclusion on Baden-Powell's sexuality is somewhat controversial, this is probably due to general controversy around the issue of homsexuality. Jeal is not the only researcher to have reached this conclusion, nor are his conclusions unreasonable. However, given the controversy, perhaps this subsection should be removed from the Baden-Powell page onto a separate page, e.g. a page about Tim Jeal's biography of Baden-Powell? -- Banjeboi 15:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The extensive quote in italics above is one wikipedia editor's opinion from 2005. His assertions are unsupported (i.e. "highest academic standard" "definitive" etc...)Bali ultimate (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So for the record you are familiar with all the notable biographies on Robert Baden-Powell and what they have to state on the subject? If not perhaps we should listed to those who are. -- Banjeboi 16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I have read most of them, and most of Baden-Powell's published writing (both Scouting and non-Scouting) and have a pretty heavy academic qualification that would be appropriate to such a study. I have my own opinion about the reasons for the inclusion of comments relating to B-P's sexuality in these texts (and my own opinions on the matter they explore) - but I'd not claim that my opinion is any more important/valid or correct than any other editor. What any Wikipedia editor thinks about a book is really of no importance. Let's not cloud the water by quoting each other! :) DiverScout (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually to produce a good article, we would hope that several editors would be quite familar with the main sources and would help compare and contrast what likely should and should not be included. To dismiss the same sources used on the main article out-of-hand is disingenuous at best. We let the sources speak for themselves and editors familiar with them are invaluable. -- Banjeboi 11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be an article based upon one person's book, strung out with a couple of mis-interpreted quotes from BP's own book. People nowadays may be into fitness and appreciate the male form, but does that mean they are aa repressed homosexual? By all means include that there has been debate about his exuality in the main Baden Powell article, but a seperate article simply put in place to question his sexuality? No. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. To quote from the main R B-P article: 'Jeal claims that Baden-Powell was a "repressed homosexual"; but also states that no documentary evidence exists to prove that he ever acted on his sexual orientation.' Some people may believe it but there is no evidence to support the allegation. Even many of the more far fetched conspiracy theories can at least find something vaguely resembling evidence. Arnie Side (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. The problem is not so much here unencyclopedicity as such - sexuality of X articles can be legitimate pieces, either based on scholarly work (which "Sexuality of Adolf Hitler" can and should be), or based on major popular culture notoriety (sexuality of Jesus). But I fail to see how this gets close to satisfying either criterion. Moreschi (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned on the talk page, there is vast amounts of coverage of this in the news media. That makes it notable by Wikipedia standards. The article was created as a fork from the main article. It list the claims, where they came from, and counter arguments for them. Dream Focus 14:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You simply can't build a decent encyclopedia article off passing mentions in popular media, not without incorporating vast amounts of WP:SYNTH anyway. From looking at the talkpage I saw a singular paucity of RS being presented that actually pertain to the topic, while additional the content that was being proposed was simply a coatrack stick to beat the American Boy Scouts over the head with. I'm sorry, but much as I sympathise, Wikipedia is not the platform for that. There have been decent biographies of Baden-Powell written: the consensus seems to be that he may possibly have had some homoerotic inclinations but anything else is simply unprovable. That could be summarised in so many words in the main article without all this ridiculous palaver, which I'm starting to think has little to do with Baden-Powell and much more to do with contemporary gay rights politics. Moreschi (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't popular mentions in popular media, its detailed mention in major newspapers. It has nothing to do with gay rights, that not making any sense at all. And there is no consensus he had any homoerotic inclinations. The article list the issue, those accusing him, and counter arguments to their ridiculous claims. Dream Focus 11:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article essentially amounts to the following: "Dude #1 says he might have been gay but maybe not, Dude #2 says he probably wasn't, and Dude #3 couldn't be arsed to bother mentioning it one way or another." In other words, nobody knows, and unless something truly extraordinary happens, nobody ever will know. The evidence is extremely slim at best and entirely circumstantial. While the subject is deceased and thus not technically covered under BLP, it still seems unreasonable for Wikipedia to speculate on his private life, especially when the evidence we have is next to nothing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a gross misrepresentation of both the sources and the article history. That editors who wish to scrub non-heterosexaul content have edit-warred to remove and degrade the article doesn't mean the issues can't be resolved. If the article has to be protected so be it but we don't rewrite history nor do we claim the best or at least leading biographies on the main page to be fringe or otherwise compromised on a sub article. -- Banjeboi 15:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The separate article seems awkwardly disproportionate to the rest of his coverage.--Pink Bull 15:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with some material being merged. This is a totally over-the-top and unrequired agenda-driven entry. The short passage in the main article that notes the unsubstantiated possibility that Baden-Powell may have unknowingly had some homosexual tendencies that he never acted on, wrote about or used as an inspiration for his art work does not seem to require the level of coverage it has been given. A short entry, how it relates to the arguments being made with the Boy Scouts of America and a couple of links should be enough for something that has no real bearing on the man's life or his personal notability. I realise that some non-heterosexual editors feel strongly that they want to emphasise this content, and some heterosexual editors wish to bury it totally, but undue weighting is currently being given to an exceptionally marginal matter. If the content is being drawn pretty much solely from Jeal's text, and wider commentary on how these observations actually fit in with the time that B-P lived is still being refused on grounds of OR, perhaps it should be in an article with a title relating to the text, linked from a short section on the main B-P page. DiverScout (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non biographical speculation about someones sexuality is inappropriate here. JBsupreme (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am concerned not so much by whether BP was in any way homosexual, although that is of interest in trying to understand this impressive man, but more by the seeming homophobia of a number of the comments above. I suspect that a lot of the opposition to the article is from those who are closely connected with the Boy Scouts of America, a body with a strong public anti-homosexual image. It would explain their concern with any suggestion that BP had gay tendencies. To those who see homosexuality in a less negative light, that suggestion about BP would be of no great concern. There are vague references above to the article being agenda driven, but exactly which agenda isn't mentioned. The only agenda that I can guess at is that of those who oppose BSA's position on homosexuality. So it is actually those wanting to defend BSA who are agenda driven here, whatever that really means. The literature exists. It is now widely known about (at least partly because the suggestions in it led to its opponents talking about it so much). The article is therefore valid. HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but what the cuss are you talking about? "I suspect that a lot of the opposition to the article is from those who are closely connected with the Boy Scouts of America". Is this supposed to be some kind of troll? JBsupreme (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The possible homophobia of some editors is surely not a valid reason to keep an article and more than the homophile (not sure that that is is right word to describe active promotion & advocation of homosexual issues but it seems like the closest I know) attitude of others? DiverScout (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This whole page appears to be driven by homophobia. It is present in the first sentence where the word allegations is used, rather than something like speculation or discussion. Allegations has a negative connotation that would only exist for someone who sees homosexuality as a bad thing. HiLo48 (talk)
      - Are you saying that everyone arguing for the deletion of this article is a homophobe? Because that would be... bad.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy card to play though, despite the confusion over whether the issue is a) that Baden-Powell did not have sex with adult men and was thus clearly a repressed homosexual or b) Baden-Powell did not have sex with boys and was thus a repressed paedophile. pablo_hablo. 19:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I saying that that everyone arguing for the deletion of the article is a homophobe? Of course not! That auggestion is clarly bad though. Misrepresentation is not a mature way to discuss things. I was simply pointing out that the article appears to have been created by a homophobe. The rest of the "deletes" have just followed that lead, perhaps without noticing the homophobia. HiLo48 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you wrote: "This whole page appears to be driven by homophobia." A about 20 people have argued for deletion so far. The clear implication of your statement was that all of these people are homophobes. No matter. Humpty Dumpty would approve.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise for not making that clearer. I intended no implication apart from the motivations of the person who created the page. That is what I meant by "driven". HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the minimal amount of speculation by some of his biographers about this man's sexuality should go in the main article, or possibly the article(s) on the individual biographer(s) but not in a stand-alone piece. I am not seeing the 'seeming homophobia' that HiLo48 is. (Full disclosure: I have no connection whatsoever with the "Boy Scouts of America" or the "Boy Scouts of Anywhere Else"). pablo_hablo. 20:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclosure - Fair enough, for the record I also have no connections to the Boy Scouts of America, indeed I vocally oppose their views on the matter of their treatment of homosexuals. I also have no interest in the sexuality of either B-P (or the other editors). I do maintain, however, that, in the context of the notability of Robert Baden-Powell, allegations relating to his sexuality do not merit the attention they are being given here. DiverScout (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that anyone here who is endorsing that this article be kept must hold some sort of anti Boy Scouts of America agenda. (SEE HOW FUCKING RIDICULOUS THAT SOUNDS?) JBsupreme (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shut up, you homophobe! pablo_hablo. 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete A worthless article that exists only to repeat an unsubstantiated theory posed by a single biographer with a revisionist history agenda. This should have been thrown out a long time ago. Warrah (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a single biographer and how do you know he has a revisionist history agenda? --Bduke (Discussion) 20:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Jeal is the only biographer who is going out on a limb to suggest (not prove, suggest) that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual. It doesn't appear that any of B-P's other biographers are willing to go that far. Putting this spin into his life story is revisionism.Warrah (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient for standalone article. Dlabtot (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Side a: There are scholarly books that discuss this issue. Side b: There is no hard proof of this, just speculation and theories. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JBsupreme - not so much a troll as trawling for information. I have learnt that when one is negotiating things it's likely to be most successful if the true motives and goals of all the participants can be ascertained. Many people won't declare such things up front. Sevaral of the Delete posts above seem pretty thin on substance. Approaches like mine can be confrontational in the short term, but usually bring out more honesty about the real aims of the various participants in a discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is that that speculation has risen over decades certainly to a notable level. -- Banjeboi 11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no shortage of sources for this article. In fact the extent of the sources resulted in the section in the main article on Baden-Powell becoming too long. This fork was a perfectly proper fork to handle this. We now have more sources. Recently it was mentioned on the talk page that the suggestion that Baden-Powell was homosexual was first made in 1979 by Piers Brendon in Eminent Edwardians. In fact I was reading that book yesterday while this AfD was started. Reference on the talk page is also made to Scouting Frontiers: Youth and the Scout Movement’s First Century, a scholarly account of the first century of scouting, which apparently discusses Jeal's views. That book is on delivery to me. Rosenthal is mentioned but reference to his book, The Character Factory, a scholarly account of Baden-Powell and the origins of the Scout Movement, is not even referenced now, although I think it was at one time. This is far from one person's (Jeal) views, and Jeal has also been widely noticed. This is a difficult article. On the one hand we have members of the Scout Movement who can not face up to the suggestion that their beloved founder might have been gay (for example the section on B-Ps main article on his sexuality is frequently blanked with no explanation). On the other hand we have the gay lobby that wants to make too much of it. I believe we can follow a middle way, that is the wikipedia way, by following the sources carefully. The internet is not that helpful. The sources need access to a library. Too many people have waded into this debate, first on the talk page and now here, without looking at the sources. I was getting these sources together to start an improvement drive on this article, when this AfD was proposed, and I would like to finish it, although it may take time. BTW, both Tim Jeal and his book Baden-Powell (book) have articles on wikipedia, but I do not believe this article should be merged there as Jeal's book is much wider and it would give undue weight to one chapter. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the whole article gives undue weight to (mainly) that one chapter which is either some kind of forensic psychoanalysis or speculation! pablo_hablo. 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs improvement and it has been degraded, but it seems to me that every biographical article on Baden-Powell since the late 1970s mentions this aspect of Baden-Powell. At least I know of no exceptions. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at about the weight proportional to its representation in the article on Robert Baden-Powell. This is a content fork to provide detail of undue weight on a subject of minor speculation, but no verifiable information. Two paragraphs in the main article is what this should be.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very large article in Wikipedia on Jesus. None of the information about him in it is verifiable. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article originally just pretty much spouted Jeal's views and allowed no counters to be made. In fact counter-arguments were agressively removed with editors (including me) being told to leave it alone so as not to upset the "gay lobby" (I always wonder whether that is the name for a room at the front of my house...). The fork is totally out of balance in terms of its notability in relation to the life of the individual. It is, however, pretty much the only thing that most people seem to make comment on with regard to Jeal's book which would suggest that it could be far more sensible to locate the more detailed commentary on Jeal's reasoning there. Giving Jeal's views in an article about Jeal's book just seems a lot more appropriate. Similar treatment could then be given to the other notable texts with links from a short overview paragraph in the main Baden-Powell page. The information stays on Wikipedia, people can read what each text proposes in a format that allows them then to see where the information comes from and we dispose of an article that has no real sustance of its own. DiverScout (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what makes this thing weird and maddening. I have never been and am not now a member of the scouts ("am not now and never been a member of the american communist party," too). I don't care who people fuck. Period. But what we have here is a whole article that boils down to this: "Some people have theorized that Baden-Powell had homosexual desires that he never acted upon or commented upon publicly." Let's assume that's "true" (truth value unknowable of course in the absence of some new diary/letter etc... coming to light, which seems unlikely): Who cares? Is this something crying out for its own spin-off article as a coatrack for people angry at the homophobia of a lot of modern scouting organizations? Is it crying out for a spinoff for people who just know that he wasn't gay so much as a child-molester (a subtext to all that "naked boy" nonsense?) No rational encyclopedia with editors skilled in the humanities would even consider a separate article on this. Mention? Yes. It's currently about 5% of the text of the main article (i excluded the lists), with its own subsection (one of 7) that addresses it. Which is about what a rational encyclopedia should do (particularly an open edit one that has a constant POV problem).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? - WP:WHOCARES ; No rational encyclopedia - WP:UNENCYC, WP:NOTPAPER. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I !=voted to "keep" the article in a previous AFD, but I am persuaded by Moreschi's arguments above that this is a content fork built on too slim a foundation to justify an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rule in Wikipedia is to give the state of science. All scientific scholars regard it to be an important item and all agree he was homosexual. That is in the article, properly referenced. The article also mentions arguments which question this opinion (most from me), dangerously approaching to be not allowed original research. But that is the limit. It is not allowed to delete an article because you don't agree with science. Then do research and change the scientifice opinion. Then Wikipedia will follow. DParlevliet (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)— DParlevliet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Scientists and psychohistorians they may be, but none of them have anything other than speculation. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. There is no science here. pablo_hablo. 21:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, and I partly agree. But as editors we are not allowed to judge scientific scholars because that is personal opinion. We are only allowed to give the content of publications which are widely regarded to be scientific. That is Wiki rule. If you want to fight their opinion you must use the scientific way: write articles which are better then theirs. Wikipedia does not allow to use its platform for this. DParlevliet (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "scientific scholars" are you referring to? Jeal is a novelist and writes biographies. Has he published in peer reviewed scientific journals, and does he have a doctorate in a science? Is he a member of a science faculty at a university? We are not required to blindly repeat everything every biographer states, when it may be speculation. Edison (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"All scientific scholars regard it to be an important item and all agree he was homosexual. " No, they don't. A couple of recent authors of commercial bibliographys have attempted to suggest that he may have had homosexual leanings. That is all. Several others have gone against this, and their views are no less deserving simply because they published prior to Jeal et al. DiverScout (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the writer but what he wrote which is referred too. If you want to check their status then check the wikipedia page of Jeal and his book. Those meet the demand of Wikipedia for reference. It is scientific research that you check that yourself first before you dispute a reference. "Several others have gone against this": then add them to the article. DParlevliet (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please correct or delete the excessive unnecessary redirects in the box at the top to previous Afds, thanks. I would do it but I would likely break the wiki, the two repeated redirects appear to not be needed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator is criticizing and debating scholarly sources. The topic is amply sourced. However, the article as it presently stands after the edits of the past few days has become a mockery of intelligent and responsible editing and will have to be repaired when and if cooler heads prevail. Haiduc (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep: The last nomination was a 'keep' and nominator doesn't explain why consensus should have changed. It does seem a bit much to have a separate article about this, but that's an organizational question.--Milowent (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that both this article and the Sexuality section in Baden-Powell's article fail to draw a contrast between homosexuality and pederasty; this should be rectified regardless of whether this article is kept.--Father Goose (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, this is important and many nuances really should be dealt with dispassionately. Unfortunately the discussion that was taking place got highjacked by this AFD/edit-warring. There is a good article here but the drama does need to be reigned in one way or another. -- Banjeboi 11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - largely per Moreschi above. It's basically a synthesis of opinions previously laid out in two books, both of which seem largely unsubstantiated. At worst, merge with Robert Baden-Powell, at best just delete it - Alison ^❤ 10:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Moreschi. Jacina (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing of substance here. - Schrandit (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schrandit is right! There IS nothing of substance here any more since the article has suffered a hatchet job over the past few days. So how do you people have the nerve to come in, deface an article, and then submit the dregs for deletion??? This is the stratagem that you are trying to impose on Wikipedia, and you are trying to pull it off by ganging up on the article and bulldozing your way through it. Let's see if you succeed. Haiduc (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "you people"? pablo_hablo. 13:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EXAMPLE: Here is some of the original text:
While early works on the life of Baden-Powell tended towards the hagiographic[2], two modern biographers, Michael Rosenthal of Columbia University and Tim Jeal in his book Baden-Powell, have reached the conclusion that he was probably a repressed homosexual.[2][3] Baden-Powell "…consistently praised the male body when naked. At Gilwell Park, the Scouts' camping ground in Epping Forest, he always enjoyed watching the boys swimming naked, and would sometimes chat with them after they had just 'stripped off.'"[2] Jeal cites an account by Baden-Powell of a visit to Charterhouse, his old public school, where he stayed with a bachelor teacher and housemaster who had taken large numbers of nude photographs of his pupils. Baden-Powell's diary entry reads: "Stayed with Tod. Tod's photos of naked boys and trees. Excellent." In a subsequent communication to Tod regarding starting up a Scout troop at the school, Baden-Powell mentions an impending return visit and adds: "Possibly I might get a further look at those wonderful photographs of yours." (According to R. Jenkyns, the album contained nude boys in "contrived and artificial" poses.)[2]

And this is what the "rescuers" have butchered it into:
Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation has been brought into question by two biographers, Michael Rosenthal[1][2] and Tim Jeal. They contend that Baden-Powell had homoerotic interests, based on their analysis of circumstantial evidence. [...] Tim Jeal in his 1989 book Baden-Powell claimed that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual.[4] Jeal based this on the fact that Baden-Powell had publically praised the nude male form and sometimes talked to boys that had stripped naked for swimming.[4] Jeal also cites Baden-Powell's praise of a friend's photos of naked boys.

Jeal based his conclusions on FAR more than what you make him out to have done, and sets out years of research in hundreds of pages of evidence. But your "new" version grossly misrepresents Jeal and makes him sound like an imbecil. And THIS is what has been submitted for deletion? Who are you trying to fool?! Haiduc (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has evolved through a number of editors, despite the attempt of one or two to own it. That is what Wikipedia articles do! If this article is intended to be an in-depth description of Jeal's views your original text is fine. It is not, though, as it is presented under a wider title to which Jeal is merely a contributor. That is one of the reasons why I keep saying that Jeal's comments, arguably one of the most notable aspects of his book, should be located on the page relating to that text. The Baden-Powell article should retain it's mention of the allegations, with a link to the articles on the appropriate texts. The sexuality page is really not required as there is no real evidence relating to Baden-Powell's sexuality to realte it to - only the opinions of various people (both authors and editors), most of whom never even met him. DiverScout (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete massive undue weight, and synthesis. Essentially an essay given that the vast majority is speculation. Was going to afd this myself. Viridae ^Talk 13:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. ~~We don't have a 'Sexuality of X' article for anyone else, and nor should we.~~ While not a BLP, this article should be treated in the same spirit: if Baden-Powell was still alive it would be totally unacceptable, and it isn't any more acceptable for his being dead. Robofish (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore: this article is essentially a content fork devoted to a fringe theory. It should be mentioned briefly in the main article; creating a separate article for it is seriously undue weight. Robofish (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is Sexuality of Jesus. But that's rather a different case.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy, we do have "Sexuality of..." articles for several peopls - William Shakespeare, Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler, to name a few. And since the BSA makes sexuality an issue, the sexuality of the founder of Scouting is of interest. HiLo48 (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected! I still don't think we should have this article, though - just because something is 'of interest' doesn't mean it deserves its own article, particularly when (as here) there are additional concerns about neutrality and undue weight. Robofish (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I would usually !vote for a merge in such cases, but the Baden-Powell main article seems enough too long to allow that. The subject has been covered in several sources in detail, and as such there's no reason to delete it -we ought to report it. The subject is not living since long time, so WP:BLP concerns are of course moot. WP:UNDUE applies to articles individually, not to WP coverage: I agree it's quite quirky to see so much attention on Baden-Powell sexuality, but it's not to me or to anyone else to judge subjects of articles. It can be a fringe theory, but we do of course cover fringe theories extensively in Wikipedia, of course, if they're notable (provided they're presented as such an keeping NPOV). The fact that there are few or none other "Sexuality of X" articles it's a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument and, if anything, only tell us that more articles like this one could be needed, if backed up by enough RS to merit an article in itself. In the end, what counts is if the subject has been covered by multiple independent RS. Since it is, it meets WP:GNG and every other consideration -merging, trimming, etc.- can be dealt with editing, per deletion policy and WP:PRESERVE. --Cyclopia^talk 13:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And of course, if consensus goes against you, you've already copied the article over to a shadow site, haven't you? Because you know better than anyone else about whether the internet needs this around? ++Lar: t/c 06:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete This should be merged with hte main article. There seems to be very little here we have two biographies (by the way who is Michael Rosenthal?), what exacly does Michael Rosenthal say on the subject (Mr Jeal seems to try and have it both ways, that he was homosexual but there is also evidance he was not)? This seems a very poor collection of inuedno that even its authors do not seem to be that sure of.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are already two paragraphs on BP's sexuality in the main article that summarize these claims. Here [45].Bali ultimate (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough there there can be no reason that I see to keep this. Changed to delete.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, as little more than a POV-fork. Unit Anode 15:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moreschi and Alison. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, necessary for comprehensive coverage. Everyking (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Comprehensive coverage" is not a valid "keep" rationale. Unit Anode 16:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would comprehensive coverage not be a valid keep rational? If you can't cover everything in the main article, you make a side article to hold it all. That's how things are done. Dream Focus 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say that comprehensive coverage hardley applies to the use of two sources, one of which does not even seem to be that convinced.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Moreschi and Bali ultimate. Article is based on an unconfirmed theory. - Josette (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Moreschi and Alison summed it up well. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete synthesis of opinions - and frankly not notable enough for more than a paragraph in the bio.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existence and length of this article gives undue weight to a relatively minor and unimportant bit of theorizing about Baden-Powell. It therefore violates WP:NPOV, which is a Foundation policy. A sentence or two, maybe a paragraph, in the main biography is really all that this theory warrants. *** Crotalus *** 17:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look a compelling argument to me: citing policies is one thing, actually doing it properly another. Now, we have articles (lots of them!) on fringe theories: see Category:Fringe theory and Category:Pseudoscience for example. There is nothing violating WP:NPOV in the existence of such articles per se: what is important per WP:NPOV is that the topic is dealt with in a NPOV way. How the existence of an article can violate WP:UNDUE also baffles me, since undue weight is a consideration applied within an article, not to all of Wikipedia. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is undue, or rather WP:UNDUE because it is a completely unnecessary content fork giving UNDUE weight to speculation of a small minority. JBsupreme (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1)It is a content fork of what? Of the main article on BP? It doesn't seem redundant with it, it seems to focus on an aspect, which is different. 2)Speculations of small minorities can be notable, and can deserve articles on their own. UNDUE means to avoid giving, of an article subject, a biased view by giving an opinion more weight than necessary. That is, within the article. But it doesn't mean avoiding coverage in other articles: indeed, using separate articles is the way to go to cover a detailed aspect of a subject without incurring in UNDUE. Cold fusion is fringe speculation of a small minority of the physics community: yet it is an obviously notable subject, and we have a pretty massive article on it. If a fringe speculation meets WP:GNG, we can -and should- cover it. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A small minority? What about the massive news coverage? Dream Focus 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even glance over all the massive hits you claim you found on this, did you? If you had, you would have found this from the fourth on the list -- "he resourcefulness of judges is something to behold but it is still a stretch to find anything in Scout lore remotely encouraging of practising gays. B-P took a dim view of any kind of carnal activity - or, as he put it, "beastliness" - especially when practised by certain types of young men with their "pink socks, fancy ties and well-oiled hair." I'm fairly confident that a large number of the remainder are of a similar nature. What was your point again, Walter? (addendum DF's previous post had links, this one does not. Not sure what happened there.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating what was said on the talk page, many major newspapers do feature articles about this, and not just in reference to the books alone. Google news search shows 166 hits in one search [46]. Discussion about the specific news sources was started on the talk page [47]. His sexuality got plenty of news coverage and was mentioned in notable books, so the article has a right to exist. Dream Focus 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48 has erased my talk page comment. [48] I just added it back in. Don't erase others messages, that against the rules, and ridiculously rude. Dream Focus 20:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this. I have no idea how that happened. It wasn't intentional. I know it's against the rules, and just plain silly, to remove senisble Discussion points. I hvae chastised others for doing so. Many apologies. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that major newspapers feature things that give the impression that Baden Powell was a pedophile, such as The Roanoke Times [49]. The article reads:

"Lord Robert Stephenson Baden-Powell, British soldier and founder of what became the worldwide Boy Scout movement, was supposedly a repressed homosexual pedophile. He was devoted to the moral and physical development of newly pubescent boys. At his Scout's camp in Epping Forest, he enjoyed watching the boys swim naked, thinking it healthy. He also appreciated photographs of nude boys taken by an old male friend, A.H. Tod.

While glorifying the youthful bodies, the line apparently was not crossed and Lord Baden-Powell remained physically chaste. It is ironic that avowed gays are not now permitted membership in the Boy Scouts of America."

We need a Wikipedia article to denounce the slanderous and ridiculous claims made by others, who take things out of context. This article exist not to slander the person farther, but to offer counter arguments to the often repeated claims. Dream Focus 20:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder where they got the quotes from... That said, nice though the thought of it is, Wikipedia won't be changing lazy journalism any time soon.

I intend to make a start on adding a brief synopsis of Jeal's views on the matter onto the book's article this weekend. As this would be required to solely state Jeal's opinions and relate their notability to the BSA situation I'd appreciate oversight from other editors. If anyone starts first though, I'll be delighted to help them out. DiverScout (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elleke Boehmer, literary historian and editor of the 2004 edition of Scouting for Boys, quoted in US News & World Report that year: "Baden-Powell was a deeply, deeply asexual person. If he was homosexual--and there's insufficient evidence to say--then it was so repressed as to be nonexistent."[50] (just emphasizing this is a fringe view, unsupported by hard facts).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficiently broad as to justify a stand-alone article. - Philippe 22:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both content fork and insufficient for a standalone article. Subject is already convered in main article, and none of the sources cited in this AfD suggest it is worthy of expansion, let alone WP:SUMMARY treatment. I see nothing in the current version worth merging. It is amazing that this has survived 3 AfDs. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect back to BP. Clear POV fork - sleeping outside is now evidence of homosexuality? Only 3 or 4 biographers are listed, and one of them devotes hardly any space at all to the topic, to judge by his quotes. Most of the article isn't even directly about homosexuality. --Gwern (contribs) 23:22 28 January 2010 (GMT)
Delete We shouldn't have a huge article on this one topic becuase it is very disproportionate to the rest of his life.--Tonalone (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a huge article on the rest of his life in the main article. This is just to discuss the rumors and offer counter arguments for those who keep mentioning them in the mainstream media and elsewhere. Dream Focus 03:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to the main article. It should be mostly a redirect as the topic is well covered in the main article....a redirect can't hurt but otherwise a delete is in order..no need for a 2nd article. --Stormbay (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you who say merge, how much would you have merged? The main article already gives undue weight to the accusations, without showing counter arguements that they are nonsense. I saw eliminate the nonsense in the main article, replacing it with just one sentence and redirecting here. "There are some unproven rumors about Baden Powell's sexuality, which are discussed here:" and then link to this article. Dream Focus 03:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said merge but read the whole comment! --Stormbay (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to the others who weren't so detailed. Dream Focus 03:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very difficult to use the term "rumors" about a very long discussion in what is very likely the most important biography of Baden-Powell that has been written and one that has been widely noticed. They might well be unfounded, but they are certainly notable. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then what word should be used? Dream Focus 03:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One word will not do. They are well reasoned speculations of a professional biographer. We can look to see what those who comment on Jeal have to say. I am waiting to see what Scouting Frontiers: Youth and the Scout Movement’s First Century has to say (see my comment above). My copy should arrive soon. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If its undue wieght in the main article how can it deserve its own page? That seems to be saying that its so silly we can't mention it in the BLP, but can have a whole artciel on it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not need an article about unfounded rumors about someones sexuality and the content at the main article also could be summarized in a sentence or two. Off2riorob (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please write this summarization to show us then. I don't think you can discredit these wide spread rumors, without mentioning exactly what the accuser said, and for those not already convinced its nonsense, listing a counter argument to it. Dream Focus 03:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge anything sourceable back to main article, which is 52 kb long and has plenty of room. Reads as a speculative/essay type-piece. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Others have said it above, but essentially content fork to give undue weight to a particular issue. Can be covered in the main article, in proportion to the amount of coverage the topic has received. Quantpole (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moreschi and Alison. Ironholds (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blindlngly obvious fork of the main article. Users don't get to create new articles just because their material is rejected in the main one. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Tarc, this is a fork, and the main article is sufficient. One has to wonder why this was even forked. Or maybe not. Violates WP:UNDUE. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was forked because it was getting too long on the main page, there discussions about that. So someone created a side article for it. Dream Focus 18:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that assertion is directly contradicted by Haiduc's edit summary in the fork's creation; "starting article by importing deleted text from main Baden-Powell article". Tarc (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was then a merge proposed and a discussion on the B-P main page talk page [51]. There was consensus to oppose the merge. The article changed. That was 2 days after creation. Over the four years it has certainly been better than it is now. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete - per Moreschi and Starblind. Something minimal in the main article should be more than enough to cover this, unless we're intending to hold a postmortem grand jury trial on his sexual preferences or something... really, it's not that big of a deal, in the grand scheme of things. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One has to consider motives. Debaters often hide their real ones. It's a big deal to BSA defenders. It suggests that the founder of the Scouting movement may have been ineligible for membership of their association had he been around today. He would not have had a problem in most of the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baden-Powel did not set up the BSA (I don't bleive he rode one either). Please assume the same kind of good faith as you would ask.Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that BP set up the BSA, and I wonder why you responded as if I had. It's repsonses like yours that show that there has to be more to this discussion than just what many people say on the surface. You got it wrong, either accidentally, deliberately or subconsciously. It's the second time an almost identical response has been given to me in this discussion. I've seen many similar "errors" by others. Even if I assume good faith, I cannot assume careful reading or logical thought. It is important to point out such things. I am concerned about the large number of responses here that are worded in very similar ways. If, and I emphasise, if, an orchestrated campaign was underway, it is exactly the sort of thing I would expect to see. One has to wonder..... HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you did not, but you seem to be implying (if I may make assuptions about your agenda) that if he were to try and join an organisation with which he has (and would have had) no links he would not be allowed to because of acusations of homosexuality. Hoever if he were alive today these accusations would not exist (there is such a thing as libal, and given the basic assertion of PedoHomesexuality he would have a very strong case), nor could he be blocked from membership based uypon an unproven acusation (as he was not openly gay his pecadilos would not have been a bar on membership of the BSA),Which is the point, he had no links to the BSA, nor is there any reason to think he would have nor is ther any reason to assume they would ban him. Nor does the BSA adhear stritkley to his view of scouting (if we assume that the modern movment outside the USA refelcts his vision) in more way then just its attitude towards sexuality. If I may again make assumtions about intend, you seem to be determiined to prove that there is a hidden homophobic agenda behind the move to delete this page, even though he (if I may labour the point) not have been baned as he was not openly gay thus there is no reason for nay partizan of the BSA to fear this. Moreover the BSA was established in 1910 (say 30 year before mr Badden-Powels death), there appears to have been n o attmpt made by either the BSA or Mr Badden-Powel to install him as a member (either then or latter). There is no reason to assume that this is (or was) an issue for the BSA (as they have no link to Mr Badden-Powel, beyond inspirtation). It seems that it is those promotingtthis idea who beleive there to be this issue, and who insist on raising it. By the way as I am not American why should I care about what happens to the BSA?.Slatersteven (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content is already summarized in RBP main article, and is barely shorter than this spin off. So it is clearly a content fork, but is it worth keeping? The sources as represented present content so speculative as to be nearly unencyclopedic. I mean, I almost laughed, he's saying that based on *what*?. Given the intensity of that corner of scholarship which tries to identify anything nonheteronormative in famous historical figures, if this is the best that can be done the topic is clearly non-notable, deserving one or two sentences (not paragraphs) in the main article at best. Basing this much prose on such indiscriminate ponderings is extraordinarily undue. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV content fork. 2 says you, says two 21:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, one of the purest examples of a POV fork you can get. A minor historical figure's sexuality isn't some vast topic that requires an entire article to discuss - if it isn't worth mentioning in the main article, it's not mentioning at all. Fran Rogers (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the fury of an angry god insane POV fork firstly, secondly since when was it part of wikipedia's goals to promote the outing of anyone? An article purely on the speculation of someone's sexuality based on anecdotal evidence at best is a dangerous precedent to set. The mention in the main Robert Baden-Powell article is bordering on insanity as well. There's absolutely no justification to have an entire article based on outright speculation even if said speculation comes from reliable sources. This is unencyclopedic writing at its finest. Nefariousski (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so, reading this I think I'm either starting to understand some the arguments being made (or am just slowly going insane). Baden-Powell was a homosexual because someone who never met him said so in a book, even though Baden-Powell never wrote anything about homosexual attraction, drew a homoerotic picture, there is no evidence he ever had a homosexual relationship or even considered such a relationship and that anyone who is proposing that this article should be deleted is a homophobic supporter of the BSA's policy against homosexuals, whether they know it or not, support, oppose or know nothing of the BSA's policies and regardless of their own sexual identity. Does that about sum it up? I know that there are some people who really believe that this article should be here and I am honestly reading their views in case they can change my opinion, but could we drop the random accusations of homophobia please? DiverScout (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The arguments against keeping this have been made much more eloquently above. We've got two suspect and minor mentions, and then the GLBTQ.com mention (what makes this chap notable, by the way?) It's unsubstantiated claims and speculation from two books that does not merit an article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest all of you who are voting to keep read the article on James Buchanan which has a very well written "Personal Relationships" section and then ask yourself if there should be an additional article speculating on Sexuality of James Buchanan. If you answer yes feel free to create it, if you answer no then re-evaluate the possibility of your personal feelings against Baden-Powell's organization / BSA policy clouding your judgement in keeping this travesty of an article. Nefariousski (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there are enough sources to deserve treatment, I'd be all for an article on Sexuality of James Buchanan. I have no feelings whatsoever on Baden-Powell, and I couldn't care less about BP himself. I care about the fact that this speculation, no matter how odd and outworldlish it can be, has been published in WP:RS, and as such it is notable. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not gay. I am an active member of Scouting. I admire Baden-Powell immensely. I see no reason to delete the article. This is because it is of interest that there has been writings on this matter. Wikipedia is precisely for consolidating the writings of others in one place. From a Scouting perspective it makes no difference to me what BP's sexual interests were. It means nothing in a global Scouting context if he was gay. The article is not libellous. I know a number of great Scouting members who are gay. However, it would mean a lot to one major western Scouting organization, the BSA. I am more interested in knowledge than the sensitivities of a discriminatory body. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the BSA's offical stance on Mr Badden-Powels sexuality. Is it a publicly stated issue for them? Given that he would not have been banned under thier rules is there any reason to suppose this is an issue with them (given the evidance that he was openly gay or an avowed homosexual or known to be gay? does not exist, it is just an accusation). The artciel may not be libellous, but what about the sources? Would we have this artical without them. I will now formaly ask that accuastions (closet or otherwise) of Homophobia or supporting the homophobic stance of a given group stops.Slatersteven (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accused of being homosexual?! How is that different from being "accused" of being heterosexual? How is that NOT a homophobic statement??? Haiduc (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, stop. I have a couple of friends from back in high school that are gay. They wouldn't like it at all if you accused them of being heterosexual. Are they then heterophobic? You really need to stop turning this AFD into some kind of crusade, Haiduc. Unit Anode 01:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's this concept called "outing" in which someone who is not openly gay gets accused of being homosexual. This tends to deeply offend and upset said person and is often done out of malice or retribution to discredit the person. If an admittedly gay person were accused of not being genuinely gay I'm sure they would be less than thrilled with said accusation as well. This isn't an issue of homophobia. This is an issue of having integrity to not write supposedly encyclopedic articles about speculation and conjecture. I personally don't care if Baden-Powell was gayer than a barrel of penises. Even if he was dancing naked on a parade float during pride week in San Francisco or was a secret self hating gay man or a child molester for that matter, none of those would be justification of a wholly seperate article. This article was obviously created out of spite over the BSA and their stupid anti-gay policies and as such should not exist. If consensus is reached to keep this article then I say we all go watch the movie Outrage and then have a free for all with new articles about the speculated sexuality of everyone mentioned in the film. Why stop there? How about articles for every homosexual person who at one time or another was accused or speculated to be a child molester. This is a dangerous door to open just so someone can make a protest/attack article. Nefariousski (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that door is already open. Wikipedia has articles on the sexuality of William Shakespeare, Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler, to name three. Why should it stop there? HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and Oranges for one. The Lincoln article is largely about criticism of speculation and actually discusses there being evidence (Primary sources) regarding his sexuality. It's not written based on the "assumptions" of people whom were born after he died based on conjecture and second hand stories. The Hitler article is more about the actual controversy and takes a neutral stance only by discussing the fact that actual controversy exists. The Shakespeare article is obviously WP:Fringe if not WP:Bullshit and is being reviewed as such right now. Nefariousski (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not seen WP:Bullshit before. "Giveaway signs of complete bollocks are phrases such as emerging theory and widely disputed." If there was ever a page that descibes this article, this must be it. As to being "accused of being homosexual", I think that the mention of activities such as the spite outing of celebrities rather explains it. This is an article based purely on opinion making an accusation. There is, as has been said, nothing to prove that Baden-Powell was that way inclined. Like the poem on the above Wiki opinion page there is nothing behind the words. Just partisan screed, or opinion masquerading as fact.

The repeated accusations of homophobia against editors does little other than make me more convinced that this is an agenda-led article unworthy of Wikipedia. DiverScout (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you call it accusation? An accusation is a negative thing. Is it a negative thing to you to see a suggestion that someone is homosexual? Does that mean that you think negatively of homosexuals. Can you see why homophobia has been suggested? HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bluntly, no I don't. I might believe that the accusation is wrong, but that is a totally different thing to a persons sexuality. When, as in celebrity outing, a public statement is made that a person is homosexual without firm foundation that is an accusation. I'm afraid personally see this as an attempt to hijack the discussion and scare off potential contributors. If there is real notability in this article I'm sure there must be better ways for those who believe in the article to defend it other than than to hide behind semantics. I'd also offer a friendly caution that calling other editors homophobic is also certainly an accusation - and as, unlike Baden-Powell, we are all alive I really suggest that some of you think very carefully about the statements that you are making on a public forum about living people. Now let's stop clouding the issue, leave the personal comments against other authors aside, accept that there is no huge conspiracy going on and get back to debating whether this article should be on Wikipedia. DiverScout (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But as soon as someone says anything that shows that they see being called a homosexual as a negative thing, they are being offensive to all homosexual people. Homophobic is admittedly too strong a word. We need a better one for people who just think being called a homosexual is a bad thing. This discussion must center on whether the existence of the article is justified, and whether it validly refelcts the sources. As soon as it ventures into the realm of saying that being called a homosexual is bad, it is dangerously off track. HiLo48 (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should focus on the article rather than sematics of the discussion. I've not seen any directly homophobic posts here, but I have seen what I feel to be heterophobic ones... I would also point out that the article actually accuses Baden-Powell of pedophile tendencies rather than just homosexual ones. That certainly is an accusation. Despite the fact that I openly declare myself PC-0 my intention is not to offend, so would you find implication a better choice of vocabulary? DiverScout (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then how would you word the unproven innuendo then HiLo48? I agree that my wording in one respect was wrong, but if your assertion is true (that this is a BSA/homophobic conspiracy) then it is (in their eyes) an accusation. Moreover at the time of his alleged actions it was a criminal offence, thus it is an accusation of illegal activity. Of course you will point out (correctly) that there is no accusation that he committed buggery, or was a practising (or fully accredited) homosexual, which is the point not even the sources say he was just that he might have been. As such your suggestion that this is some homophobic BSA inspired conspiracy is patent nonsense he would not have been subject to censure even at the time (even if these allegations had been made then, rather then long after his death), and there is no reason to assume he would now. You attempts to bully and intimidate users and the wider project by basically saying if you back this you hate gays is both offensive and I believe dishonest. It is clear that you have a BSA bashing agenda. That the purpose of this page is to act as a tool in that agenda, it is a soapbox and a whip , whose sole purpose is to show up the BSA.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unproven innuendo is a statement that takes issue with Jeal et al. If that is your desire, get yourself a doctorate and convince a major publisher to print your theories. Then and only then can you stand shoulder to shoulder with Jeal and other reputable scholars. Until then we are just wasting time and electricity with this type of "argument." Nor is B-P thought to have committed any "criminal offence." Mere desire has NEVER been a criminal offence anywhere. Finally, it has recently become fashionable for groups engaged in thuggish behavior to accuse their victims of being the bullies, presumably on the premise that the best defense is a good attack. But let's not throw sand in people's eyes here with that kind of sophistry, shall we? Haiduc (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're no "victim", Haiduc. You've been bullying people with your false accusations of "homophobia", so please step down from your high horse. Unit Anode 16:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Jeal et al say that he was Homosexual? Or that he may have been, but that they are not sure? Now I again ask how would you word it? Moreover all this is degenerating into is attacks on how users are trying to say that this is an unsubstantiated, unproven and unsure (in the sense that the sources do not seem to be able to make up their mind themselves) statement about possible homoerotic interests, rather then explaining why this article needs to be kept and explaining why the BSA is such an issue) users are instead attacking other users and casting assertions (without direct accusations) about homophobic intent. I said he did not commit an offence, that is the point he was not (an had not been accused) of being an active homosexualist and as such the argument about the BSA is fascicle and spurious it is an attempt to deflect this debate away from the quality of the article and instead to impune the reputation of users who object to its presence in order to use moral bullying to force its retention. I agree that the bullying should stop, and that vague and game playing attempts to imply ulterior motive should stop. I am happy to do so, I hope others do as well.

Delete I looked at the current article and this old version from 22 December 2009. The content in both cases is idle speculation. It is true (and verifiable) that a couple of people have written their opinions regarding the sexual interests of Baden-Powell. But an article with "homoerotic interests, based on their analysis of circumstantial evidence" in the lead fails the encyclopedic-value test. The article is a battle between the "yes he was" and "no he wasn't" positions: the image shows the subject with wife and children, yet we learn that the subject slept on a verandah (to avoid sleeping with his wife!). It's just rubbish and should be deleted because the article cannot be improved as there is no possible way for reliable sources to research the issue. If there were sufficient real-world drama concerning the claims, there could be an article on the controversy (only if some good sources are available please). However, this article is inherently unsuitable for an encylopedia because the only material available is wild speculation (did Baden-Powell admire the male body as a sexual object [who cares?], or did he admire it for the beauty of nature: the finest creature made by God?). Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious pov content fork; it's all well-said at this point. *Ignore* those who don't get this. Already covered in parent article. Jack Merridew 02:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP - too concerned with spinning history for political purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a pointless fork that could easily be covered in his bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two authors analysis of circumstantial evidence is not a an encyclopedic article. Ward20 (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete,~~ Merge and Balance Forgive me, I am probably repeating what has been said already but I don't have time to integrate my thoughts on this with all that has been said before. Merging this article into the the main BD article would create WP:Undue and WP:POV (no doubt why it was forked off). Merge it into Baden-Powell (book) and cut back on the emphasis this issue already receives in Baden-Powell In my view those who wish to keep the amount of information collected on this small facet of the BD biography have the burden to build up the rest of it so the balance is restored. If it weren't for the bias against homosexuality in the world this discussion would be moot. That clearly indicates a POV problem. WP is not here to promote an agenda. Jojalozzo (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, merge -- Last time, I said "Given that he founded the Boy Scouts, this has not unnaturally given rise to some controversy, which is much better dealt with here than the main article" . It might be better dealt with separately, but none the less it's a bad principle. We have no logical justification for keeping a fork like this for him or anyone else. The main article will of course need to be carefully watched to maintain NPOV on this topic. Bduke in his analysis of how and why Wikipedia should cover the matter has it exactly right, but he is wrong in that it takes an separate article to do it. has in right. As for some other arguments, One. it is simply not true that " there is no possible way for reliable sources to research the issue. " -- there are going to be RSs on this and every other historical topic. Not that there will be sources to settle the question, aany more than other historical questions, but there are and there will be properly qualified people analyzing the subject. Two. Nor is he a "minor figure" Three. Nor is it a matter of "who cares?" -- if people did not care intensely because of the conceived relevance to current policy of the organization there would not be this intense a controversy in the fist place. Four. Discussing the sexuality of public figures is a legitimate and essential part of history, as is discussing every other aspect of their personalities and behavior. Discussing aspects that were taboo at the time the person lived is perfectly acceptable and even necessary. Sexuality is not something that needs to be concealed, and the facts and the perceptions of them did and does affect people's lives, and the attitudes others had and have towards them, and towards their legacy. Five "outing" does not apply in the reprehensible sense to those people whom the prejudices of society can no longer harm. If the question has been discussed, we can include it. six It is false that "We need a Wikipedia article to denounce the slanderous and ridiculous claims made by others" -- WP does not exist to support or refute propaganda, or to right moral or historical wrongs, except to the extent that presenting neutrally the facts of responsible discussions is the best way to help people approach the truth of anything and everything. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been too much drama here. Thank you DGG for a balanced view. I too would like to sum up. I argued for keep as it was last time it came to AfD. However, I recognize that consensus has changed. The argument that pretty well convinces me is that the material can quite well be covered in the main article and that a separate article is giving more weight than the sources justify. Other arguments for deletion trouble me. Many talk of "POV fork" or even "obvious POV fork". It is certainly not obvious. Of course with a topic like this there has been problems. However over 4 years many editors have tried in good faith to develop an article that expands on the summary in the main article. This is perfectly acceptable in general and is not a POV fork. It would be if the article gave a different POV from the main article. That has not been the intention. However, the difficulties that has resulted perhaps indicates that this article is taking the material too far. The other thing that troubles me is the trivialization and ignorance of sources. Having studied Jeal, it is quite clear to me that it is the source that should be taken more seriously than any other for articles on Baden-Powell. It is the only full independent biography of the man. It is also the most recent biography. It is clearly very well researched and professional. We need such independent reliable sources. Biographies written by Scouters are not independent. The authors have a conflict of interest as Baden-Powell was their friend, founder and Chief. They can give some insights and useful material, but we are the poorer if we have to rely on them. I am leaving my "keep' !vote, as I still think with proper use of sources, some of which nobody has yet used, a good article can be made. I will however accept "delete" for the reasons I give above. However, I hope the closing admin will make it very clear that this AfD gives absolutely no consensus for any editor to move over to the main B-P article and try to get the section on "Sexuality" removed. Let the drama cease. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concluding this is a fine idea, seeing that no real ideas have been presented for discussion. Attacks on the quality of the work of otherwise valid sources are not within the scope of our work here. And such attacks multiplied twenty or however many times over, are not more credible nor more cogent. As for merging the material back into the main article, I have no opinion either way, I am content to have the matter discussed in full either in a separate article or in the main article. But be forewarned that by merging the material back we are leaving ourselves open to the accusation of giving the topic undue weight. Is that not why we spun this off into its own article, because there was too much meat on this bone to properly cover it within a very general biography? Is that not how Wikipedia grows, by branching material out when enough is gathered to stand on its own? And what could be more interesting than to have an analysis of the life of an important and still influential figure that shows quite clearly that the motivation of his life-long work with boys and very authentic love for boys was indeed a very rounded and balanced kind of love that did not in any small-minded way exclude the erotic, emotional and affectional aspects yet did, high-mindedly, exclude the sexual aspects? This adds a great deal to the understanding of the man, so that we now know not only what he did but also why he did it. And this is what some people are trying to cover up?! Haiduc (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting Haiduc: that shows quite clearly that the motivation of his life-long work with boys and very authentic love for boys was indeed a very rounded and balanced kind of love that did not in any small-minded way exclude the erotic, emotional and affectional aspects yet did, high-mindedly, exclude the sexual aspects? I'm probably taking this to an admin in a minute. Do i have this correct? You're basically confirming that your original research and creation of this fork was to show that BP wanted to have sex with boys and that it's "small-minded" when most of us dismiss the urge to have sex with underaged boys as the desires of paedophiles?Bali ultimate (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haidoc says nothing of the kind. He says that BP did not want to have sex with boys. What about "yet did, high-mindedly, exclude the sexual aspects" do you not understand? Why take it to an admin. This admin does not see anything to worry about. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that this should be concluded. The available opinions do not present any evidence one way or the other for Baden-Powell's sexuality. The fact that the debate is being twisted into a "straight vs. gay" argument by a couple of editors has not helped proper discussion to take place, but I think that enough reasoned argument for its removal has been given. There is not enough factual evidence here to generate a proper encyclopedia article, and filling Wikipedia with opinion pieces is not the way it should grow. There is no evidence that Baden-Powell was sexually attracted to boys. Jeal looked hard through the source materials for signs of homosexuality, especially in connection to his letters to "The Boy" but found none. All that was left was speculation on circumstantial evidence. Attempting to push this speculation into a full article is inappropriate. That said, I have argued that the brief mention of the issue should remain on the main B-P page, and that a synopsis of Jeal's thoughts on the matter should be added to the article on Jeal's text where they would be correctly presented as his opinion rather than as encyclopedic fact. I have attempted to do so, but the entry was deleted before it could be completed under the statement that it was POV. I would stress that it was text describing Jeal's arguments from an earlier draft of this article that was copied onto the article on Jeal's book then deleted as POV by a proponent of this page. No counter-arguments or opinions were copied over. If Jeal's views are too POV for his own article...? DiverScout (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Of course any historical topic can in principle be researched. However (and assuming the article gives a reasonable synopsis of the book which forms the basis for the article), the research so far is nonsense: more than 70 years after the death of the subject, and based on tea-leaf divining such as praise of the nude form, the authors claim Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual ("repressed" meaning there is no evidence). I grant that my WP:OR in claiming this is nonsense cannot be used in the article, but we are allowed to use common sense in evaluating whether an article is suitable. A reasonable conclusion is that it is not appropriate to base an entire article on such a flimsy case (although there could be an article on the controversy if it were really controversial). Sure, mention that Tim Jeal (a British novelist, and biographer of notable Victorian men) has written a book making certain claims – but do that in the main article, not in some dedicated fork which can never (barring extraordinary new evidence) be more than a report of Jeal's claim with accompanying wild conjectures. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to see this closed, and the material moved (or at least retained) on the main Paden-Powel page. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence or sources to warrant a separate page (as has been pointed out this page is smaller then similar sections about other public figures on their main page). I apologise if I got a little heated, and drifted of topic, but I do not like being called Homophobic (however obliquely).Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would not matter if this irrelevant item would be handled in a few lines in the main topic. However it is a fact that it is very controversial, mentioned in a lot of publications, so readers want to know and therefore a encyclopedia like Wikipedia should give an answer. If it is transferred to the main article, then fully in the version before the edit war. As mentioned this was edited intensively and resulted in a good and not to extended equilibrium between those who agree and who oppose (is has been much larger in the past). It gives the present common scientific view (by Jeal) and in the second part careful some good arguments against Jeal, leaving the choice to the reader. Official that is not according Wikipedia rules, but given the controversial nature I think a good choice. However I agree with Haiduc that the effect is contrary, because much more readers will be confronted with this and because of it size will overestimates the importance. The present is better: a few lines in the main article (indicating it is not really important) and a special page for those who are interested. So it is no fork, it is like a lot of other articles which handles scouting-related items in more detail, which otherwise should be in the main article. Also this item will remain attracting war's as last week. It is practical to keep that in a separate article, other then load it on the main article, which can loose its featured article position for this. Then finally: look to the list of reasons to delete: none of them applies to the article (it is certainly no fork according Wiki description). So what reason can an administrator have for deletion? Therefore, for practical reasons I remain my "Keep". DParlevliet (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This subject is already handled in the main topic article. I'm still not seeing a reason for this to get a standalone article. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a very strange comment. There are many reasons given above. A reason is a reason, whether you like that reason or not. One of the better ones (at least to me) is immediately above, from DParlevliet. HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the main article could lose it's featured article status should be neither here nor there when it comes to deciding whether or not this article is appropriate. That Jeal gives a view is undisputable, but the constant insistance by some that his view is somehow beyond reproach until someone manages to publish a new biography that directly challenges him is bunkum. That Jeal has put forward a theory based on a dearth of evidence does not negate the fact that the only actual concrete evidence of Baden-Powell's sexuality is that he got married and produced children. That Jeal has used circumstantial evidence to imply a degree of homosexuality does not mean that an encyclopedia article professing to be about Baden-Powell's sexuality, not Jeal's opinion on the same, should not provide balance and context to those statements. If editors want to create an article that just presents Jeal's views they should do so on the existing page relating to the text. I do think that it should also be noted that when I attempted to copy the synopsis of Jeal's arguments from this article to the article on Jeal's text it was DParlevliet who immediately deleted it as POV content, so I must profess to a bit of confusion about how this same material is now being given such strong support in this location. As has been repeatedly said, this proposition is covered in sufficient depth in the main article and this fork is really not needed. Let Jeal's claims go to Jeal's book's stub article, which has been needing to develop for years and where it can be accurately presented as one author's conjecture. The other texts, if notable, should then be treated in the same manner. As these articles should be accurate, academic synopses of those specific texts there would be no further scope for edit wars, conflicts, lobbying by those with agendas and unfortunate misunderstandings. DiverScout (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. In addition, I strongly disagree with the statement given by another user just above: "It gives the present common scientific view (by Jeal)". The whole point of my objection to this article is that Jeal is not qualified to assess repressed homosexuality, and there is no "science" of that subject. Jeal writes novels and biographies and on that basis he can be quoted as a reliable source regarding some fact that he records. But there is zero evidence that anyone can do more than speculate about whether a person is a repressed homosexual (given the total lack of information beyond Baden-Powell praising a friend's photos of naked boys, identification with an all-male culture [apart from his wife and three kids!], and sleeping on a verandah). Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also common view of what, that he might have been Homosexual but there is no evidance? That is about as un-scientific as you can get with out saying a wizard did it. Also common view amoung whome?Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & moreschi who make the arguments why this should not be kept. Eusebeus (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BDuke. There are plenty of sources. This is not the case of a POV fork, where this article says this, that article say that. Sure, there is a WP:NPOV challenge in this article, in collating and summarising what others have said, but that is a worthy challenge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT TO ADMIN: This discussion was not properly included on the January 27 AfD log; instead, the 1st nomination (from 2006) appeared (see old version). I've now fixed it to satisfy Step 3. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content fork. Epbr123 (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV pushing. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has been made above about Scouting Frontiers: Youth and the Scout Movement’s First Century, a scholarly account of the first century of scouting. It is a set of articles arising from the first conference of academic historians of Scouting and Guiding. Nobody else has mentioned this, yet is an important source. I have finally got a copy. Jeal is only mentioned once and the author of that chapter, while clearly thinking that Jeal got in wrong, feels that a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of his article. However, he does say "However, in the almost twenty years since he presented his case, not a single published scholarly critique of his argument has been presented, though it begs for one". Both parts are important. The first to say that Jeal is notable as he has been much noticed, he has not been properly refuted. The second to say that he may be refuted in the future. This is part of a full page on Jeal, so Jeal has clearly been noted by academic historians. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an excellent source, and hopfully that article on Jeal can be added to the page on his book to which it is referring. DiverScout (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way no one has bothered to discuss it. Its so notable it been ignoredSlatersteven (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely wrong. As Brock puts it in that source "While the professional history community generally considers Jeal's conclusions on this topic to be speculative, the mainstream press seems to have taken them as fact". It has been very far from being ignored. Many have bothered to discuss it. His point, in the very next sentence, is the absence of a scholarly critique of Jeal's argument. That Jeal is widely believed to be correct, possably in the absence of that scholarly critique is notable and should be discussed on wikipedia. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point was supposed to be (I badly worded it) that no scholer has taken this up as a serious sugestion. That serious scholers have not botherd with this. How Its so notable that no major accademic (even the one quoted) can be botherd to repudiate it, thats its not worth the time an energy. One accademic historian has noted jeal, and he decides to leave it to others. In 20 years its been commented on by a single serious accademic.Slatersteven (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you begin and from what point of view? The above-quoted author would like Jeal to be critiqued, but the absence of a critique does not diminish Jeal. It may be that he has so thoroughly made his case that it cannot be shot up. As for the author's opinion that professional historians consider Jeal to be speculative, that is HIS opinion. But it can certainly be mentioned in the article, as such. It could be balanced by mentioning the bit about the mainstream press accepting Jeal's conclusions. Haiduc (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be specualtion, all we can say it that it has not been done, not why.Slatersteven (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the issue of whether Jeal's case can be 'shot up'; it is primarily Jeal's case. Most references to Baden-Powell's sexuality quote Jeal. Jeal's view should mentioned on Baden-Powell's biog, and expounded on either Jeal's page or a page for Jeal's book.
Note also that to say (as Haiduc does above) "the motivation of his life-long work with boys and very authentic love for boys was indeed a very rounded and balanced kind of love that did not in any small-minded way exclude the erotic, emotional and affectional aspects ..." is disingenuous; there is no reason to suppose that it included those aspects . pablo_hablo. 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV and content fork. Marauder40 (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article doesn't need to be separate from the other article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two paragraphs on this speculation already in the main article.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FRINGE theory that's not notable enough for a separate article. We do keep fringe theories here, but only when they receive significant commentary, which is not the case with this one. A total of three sources are used, two of them primary for the purpose of advancing the theory, and one commentary from a web site. This is an unjustified fork of Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell#Sexuality, which summarizes both print sources. The only thing lost here is commentary from a web site that's a red link, GLBTQ.com. Pcap ping 06:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content fork that can easily be handled within the main article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable fringe theory. The relevant section of the main article, which is featured, has a sufficient coverage. If a man has a wife and three children, he obviously is not from LGBT stock. Besides, the main article does not label Baden-Powell with some LGBT category. Brand[t] 13:37, 3 February 2010 (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ricta (artist)[edit]

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

Subject is a non-notable artist, fails WP:MUS, no credible assertion of notability. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ricta is and has been for many years a key figure within UK Hip Hop scene and I think definitely deserves a place here on Wikipedia.He is a familiar face within Hip Hop not just within the UK but also throughout Europe and is noted for being one of the first and even only soul style UK Hip Hop acts. He has sold thousands of CD's and performed alongside Hip Hop legends such as KRS-ONE , which for a UK Hip Hop artist is major ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatbackrecs (talk • contribs) 17:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are indeed notable, someone will write an article about you in due course. Wikipedia is not a forum for self-promotion, see WP:COI. An artist who has not released any material of his own (mixtapes unfortunately don't count) and who is not mentioned in any independent, reliable sources is generally not considered notable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any reliable sources, only hits on Google were blogs, a couple of interviews (i.e. primary sources), torrents, and his own web presence. His recordings all seem to be self-published, not on major or notable independent labels. I couldn't find any evidence of major tours. There are notable acts in UK hip hop (The Streets, Roots Manuva, the Ninja Tune label...), but this guy doesn't seem to be one of them. — Gwalla | Talk 17:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Ricta is part of the OFFICIAL UK Hip Hop Wiki, he has also judged 5 different rap competitions at the UK's foremost rap battle league Dont Flop . Deemed to be very noteable within the scene. beatbackrecs —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Open wikis are not considered reliable sources (yes, that includes Wikipedia). User-submitted content in general isn't considered reliable. If you think he's notable, you should point out which of the notability criteria for bands and musicians he meets and how, and point to reliable sources that back it up. — Gwalla | Talk 20:48, 29 January 2010 (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. Even recognizing the foreign notability is a challenge, this does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad Agachi[edit]

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

I found Vlad Agachi whose full name is Vlad Andrei Agachi, while checking Category:Unreferenced BLPs from September 2008.

After some searching I am unsure whether it meets Wikipedia:Notability, it might or it might not:
- there are entries for a Vlad Agachi in facebook and a review by a Vlad Agachi in amazon and a page stating copyright by Vlad.
- there is one video of a concert (Tone Poem Kikimora, played by the National University of Music Orchestra (Bucharest, Romania)) conducted by Vlad Andrei Agachi on vimeo here (this one reports an upload failure)
- no romainian wikipedia article for w:ro:Vlad Agachi or w:ro:Vlad Andrei Agachi
- only one google match (I searched both short and full names, scholar, book, news and images) not derived from wikipedia: http://social.moldova.org/news/eugen-dogaam-vrut-sai-scot-pe-ai-nostri-in-lume-124221-rom.html (Romanian to English translation) which names him as one of the two conductors of a concert by Eugen Doga at the Romanian Athenaeum in Bucharest in 2008.
- not listed on any page from http://fge.org.ro/2008/05/23/ to http://fge.org.ro/2008/06/18/ - dates around the concert review dated 2008 June 3 above

Are these sufficient for Wikipedia? -84user (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 84user (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject doesn't meet notability requirements needed for inclusion in the encyclopedia. No substantial and reliable coverage in the third-party sources.--Vejvančický (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found only one mainstream Romanian press mention: [52] Cotidianul, but I don't think that's enough for WP:MUSICBIO. There are a few more in local press venues [53]. Few google hits about him in Romanian sites [54] [55]. Most are routine announcements of concerts. He did tour Poland, [56] (Romanian Foreign Office announcement), but this did not seem to have generated any coverage beyond an annoucement on the Polish orchestra's page [57]. Getting mentioned in an article on "excess of conductors on labor market" [58] is probably not enough either. The article appears to be an autobiography, see Special:Contributions/Bluemoon4ever. Pcap ping 14:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I happen to know about this article and its main contributor. It is not an autobiography, though, but indeed written by someone who knows Agachi personally. As far as I know, that is called a conflict of interest. But this detail won't help in determining whether the article should stay or should go :) About Agachi's notability I can only add that he's well known in the young Romanian musicians' circles. (Impy4ever (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2010 (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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Gone By Publishers[edit]

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

Not clear how this meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Included references are largely to fan websites. Zero google news hits on the title. Not finding much beyond the "Books Monthly" references provided. RadioFan (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree it does not meet the test of WP:ORG or WP:GNG, however for a publisher of this type it would seem hard to. On the other hand it looks like they publish books written by at least a dozen notable authors - hard one this. Codf1977 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A publisher like this should be easier to meet guidelines as they are working in a niche and would likely be in a position to be the subject of some coverage, more so than another publisher of similar size that isn't in such a niche. I'm just not finding any of that kind of coverage. So many google hits are blogs and message boards of fans of these authors that its hard to see how it might meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG.--RadioFan (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was surprised to find it does seem to meet the WP:GNG (did you forget the look at the News archive...?):[59][60][61][62][63][64]. There's enough for a passable stub; the directory of their books needs removing. Fences&Windows 00:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn additional coverage found above will help this article meet notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2010 (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl (band)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Prodreason was ""... the band has yet to see any official releases ..." also selling out in a small town like Etne isn't notable."
- Etne might not be a big town in itself, but the venue in question is quite notable in the Norwegian country scene.
I concur with the proposed deletion. From what I can see there is no significant coverage in reliable sources to justify the inclusion on wikipedia. Rettetast (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:BAND. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article meets WP:BAND, at following criteria: Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.--Lilduff90 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which source is it? Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haugesunds Avis, one of the largest newspapers in Norway. This one. --Lilduff90 (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "the band has yet to see any official releases" plus no national touring as I can see. Geschichte (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2010 (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) 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omegans[edit]

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

Fails to meet the notability requirements. Since creation in 2005, this article has had no improvement, such as adding reliable sources, and has recently degraded into further original research and speculation. Based on a search through Google Books and Google News there seems little prospect that these issues will be addressed in the near future (unless the article is completely re-written as a summary of the use of the concept in works of fiction). Ash (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that there are two very different versions in the history. One is about a stub about an army that will fight on behalf of "Saint Germaine" in a prophesied apocalypse. I presume this refers to the Count of St. Germain. That version was recently swept aside in favor of this, which claims to be about an obscure sect of the Church of England. Books, news, and scholar hits for the term yield nothing that is obviously about either of these notions. The relationship between the two versions is ... obscure. I did find this source, but that would appear to take a strongly contrary view to both prior versions. Most references to "Omegans" are about members of Greek letter organizations like Chi Omega or Psi Omega. Perhaps a disambiguation is in order at this title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:MADEUP Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP 2 says you, says two 21:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a complete orphan, with no category and no reference. I suspect that some one would have referred to the subject somewhere and that some source or external link would have been provided. Certainly the whole story seems improbable. One thing that is definitely questionable is the reference to surnames. I am not clear when these became fixed in Monmouthshire, but at Merthyr Tydfil, patronymics were still in use in the 1760s. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2010 (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) 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Mills[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy WP:NM in his own right. Refs are on other subjects with only incidental mentions or are promotional first party sites. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only a couple of the article's sources appear to mention the subject, and those are only in passing. I can not find any significant coverage; does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 01:30, 30 January 2010 (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, even given the multitude of spurious !votes. —Kurykh 01:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Hagins[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

14-year-old director of an independent film. Has sources, but I don't think they establish her notability. NawlinWiki 17:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~DeleteWeak Delete~~ Keep per Appraiser and Ispy. Her first and third references are not from sources that even hint at notability. Her second source is IMDB whose standards of notability pretty much consist of your ability to point a camcorder at someone. And even there her biography was written by an apparent family member which clearly exempts it from being a notable source. Trusilver 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm actually going to go against WP:CRYSTAL for a very good reason here. I think that as it stands right now, the subject does not have suitable notability. HOWEVER...Both Ispy and Appraiser have noted two resources coming in the near future, either of which would change my mind. As such, I'm not going to push a position to delete when it's clear to me that better sources are forthcoming. And since neither one will probably be available during the life of this AfD, I feel that it would be better to err on the side of keeping the article. Trusilver 20:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm getting closer on being sold. I don't feel that two local newspapers are quite enough to fulfill WP:N, but it's a better claim than there was previous. However, my main argument still lies in the fact that we are declaring her notable based on a film she's making that according to WP:FILM is not notable. I'm open to opposing arguments, but I'm not convinced. Trusilver 03:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's actually "made" as in 2006. There are a lot of fringe sources out there that hint at notability (aintitcoolnews, for example) and, apparently, a documentary is in post-production about this girl. --Ispy1981 07:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just spent a half hour looking for a source on this documentary without much luck. Do you have a link for that? Trusilver 19:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Would IMDb be useful? The film is called "Zombie Girl:The Movie". Here, also, is a link to the official website, which links to an article on Emily Hagins and the film from Teen Vogue magazine [65]--Ispy1981 20:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She won a grant from the Texas Filmmakers Production Fund to complete a feature-length film at age 14, and consequently is the guest-of-honor at a major science fiction convention - a feat not accomplished lightly.--Appraiser 18:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've seen a lot of false information on this discussion so I will take the opportunity to correct some now (I am Emily's mom, so this will not be a keep or delete pitch). Emily wrote, produced and directed and edited Pathogen between the ages of 11 and 12. She won the Texas Filmmaker's Production Fund grant at the age of 12 and was the youngest recipient in the history of the grant program. Her movie was NEVER shown at Butt-Numb-A-Thon 5 or any other Butt-Numb-A-Thon, although Harry Knowles intended to show the trailer at BNAT 7, the tight schedule would not allow even the trailer to run. Emily is now 14 and speaks to and encourages youth groups interested in filmmaking as well as encourages adults interested in low-budget or indy filmmaking. She has also, since Pathogen was completed, written her second feature script, produced and directed three short films, partipated in the last two 48-hour film competitions in Austin and worked on several other local young filmmakers' projects. She believes in giving back to the community and has given time and money to Katrina relief efforts and The Capital Area Food bank. She is an intensely hard-working and passionate about movies...making and watching them. She is hoping, with the proper funding, that she can start production on her next feature in summer 2008 as she is currently in pre-production.70.253.85.61 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Megan Hagins[reply]

Response Thank you for the information. If you see errors in the article in the future, feel free to point them out on the Talk:Emily Hagins page, as this page will soon be frozen when the AfD discussion is complete. And kudos to you for raising such an exceptional young woman.--Appraiser
Response Ms. Hagins, thank you for the information and thank you for your level-headed response to the AfD discussion. I feel that we have reached a consensus barring any other issues arising. I do hope that as you see your daughter in internet publications and print media you forward links to the discussion page. While it seems that your daughter does a great many truly remarkable things with her time, they don't become notable unless someone writes about them...I certainly hope to see a lot written about her in the future. Best wishes. Trusilver 18:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Besides The Austin American Statesman and several articles in the Austin Chronicle, the two most widely read newspapers in Austin, and the internationally distributed Teen Vogue article from the October 2006 issue, there was an article in Rue Morgue Magazine in (I think it was) the March 2007 issue. Numerous online postings on sites such as The Austin Film Society, Dread Central and Aint It Cool News have also appeared (google Emily Hagins, and you will find how many online references there are). In addition, as I finally figured out (I think I figured out) how to cite a book, Emily was mentioned in Girls Make Media by Mary Celeste Kearney as well as some of Kearney's other academic research. Being a guest at CONvergence was a true delight and an honor, but, I assure you, there is a solid foundation of written material about Emily. I am not trying to make the case, whether or not she should be listed in this "encyclopedia" but only to note that, indeed, in addition to my highly biased opinion that she has earned her laurels and is not sitting on them, there has been a lot written about Emily. According to the rules you have stated, this fact qualifies her as "notable". Because I find your rules and policies rather dense and hard to follow, I'll leave it up to the other folks who enjoy dealing with the rules, posting and editing at WP to do the Citations and to determine if Emily belongs here. 70.253.85.61 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Megan Hagins[reply]

Comment. Actually the sci-fi convention she is guest-of-honor at is a terribly minor one and barely notable in itself. I have a tough time declaring someone notable for making a movie that according to WP:NF is not notable. Trusilver 18:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CONvergence is the third largest non-profit convention in North America. "Terribly minor" my ass. Iceberg3k 02:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just got home from said convention a few hours ago. If that's a "terribly minor" one by your standards (whatever they may be), I'm scared to go to one you might consider important. Shatteredshards 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to agree with the above two here, though not in the same terms as "terribly minor, my ass". This convention has attracted the likes of a Who's Who of sci-fi--Len Wein, Larry Niven, and Marv Wolfman to name a few. Also, Forrest J. Ackerman was a guest of honor at the first one, and you don't get Forry if you're "terribly minor".--Ispy1981 07:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Trusilver. JJL 18:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Hows this: as Per Appraiser reasons. Callelinea 14:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note that this editor has gone down the list of every article nominated for deletion on this day and left the same message. Better. Trusilver 04:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wait~~ Weak Keep I don't know her, but expect to meet her (and possibly interview her) at a local sf convention next week. Being GoH for Convergence, a 2000+ convention, is a noteworthy, though possibly minor, dent in the world. Please wait so that some of us can make up our minds. For the most part, I think Wikipedia should be inclusive and be weighed in favor of any accurate listing. Baron Dave Romm 18:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC) -- further comment: I never got a chance to talk to her (or see her movie) at Convergence, but she was one of the Guests of Honor at a 2500+ convention and I still think Wiki should err on the side of inclusion. Baron Dave Romm 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP The fact that Ms. Hagins has accomplished what she has at such a young age is notable in itself. Her accomplishments are note-worthy enough to have earned her media attention, a state grant for feature film development, and a GoH spot at a convention not in her home state. While CONvergence may not be the largest sci-fi convention, it is one of the largest in the Midwest, and does attract major names in sci-fi and fantasy.--75.72.203.22 04:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note that the previous user has only made two substantive edits beside this AfD, and both of them occurred more than two months ago. Trusilver 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep marginal, but notable, in my opinion. Convergence is a large and well known sci-fi convention. I've been to it every year (8 years), and it's predecessor, Minicon for 20+ years. While it would be no great loss if the article were deleted, consider the positive impact as a role model for other teenagers that the article could be. Atom 23:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note : All of these "admin notes" are a distraction. Why not just state your own opinion, and let others state theirs without trying to rebutt and discount every statement you disagree with. Atom 23:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering the fact that this AfD has been hit by one keep vote from someone who went through EVERY biographical article and blanketed them with cut-and-paste keep entries, and a second person voted keep on this as their only action for months. Combine that with the WP:CANVASS violation (check what links here) and I think it's absolutely important that the reviewing admin knows that this AfD has been seriously skewed. If you have a problem with my doing so, I am more than happy to take that up with you on my talk page, this page is for discussion of the AfD. Thank you! Trusilver 06:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find these sort of comments helpful when closing an afd- as long as they are neutral and factual. Maybe bettest mark them as "comment rather than admin note, but that's just a style thing. Peter 13:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Subject seems notable enough, but the article itself could use some cleanup. Calgary 18:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter 13:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Teen girl makes home movies and shows them at fan conventions like "BUTT-NUMB-A-THON 5". According to IMDB, her most significant movie had a budget of $7,000. Sure, it's cute, but it's not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply And Robert Rodriguez made his first film for ~~roughly four times that~~ (I take that back. Rodriguez made El Mariachi for EXACTLY that amount) and probably went much the same route as this girl. Your point?--Ispy1981 07:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment. The Butt-Numb-a-Thon isn't really a "fan convention", but a powerful film fest in its own right (and with its own Wikipedia entry, natch). Among others, films premiered at BNAT include all three "The Lord of the Rings" movies, "Knocked Up", "King Kong (2005)", "The Passion of the Christ", and "V for Vendetta". Attendees include Peter Jackson, Eli Roth, Tim McCanlies, and many others. It's kind of a big deal. 433 10:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does truly concern me that three of the keep positions here are from people that haven't posted at all or in a long time and seem to have materialized simply for the purpose of trying the prevent the deletion ~~of an absolute non-notable~~. Trusilver 21:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Precisely why does that "truly concern" you? I'm sorry that editing and voting on Wikipedia entries isn't a huge part of my life. I use Wikipedia often, and have done some editing in the past, however the snotty attitude of some folks around here doesn't make spending a lot of extra time doing so that appealing. 433 08:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To answer your question - What concerns me is when a large number of people who have never edited before or haven't edited in a long time drop 'en masse' onto an AfD, it usually suggests canvassing is going on. And it also usually means people who have an interest in the subject, which means that they are often using thinly veiled WP:ILIKEIT arguments and not looking objectively. I'm not saying you are either of these, for all I know you dropped into the middle of this without being prompted to, I'm just saying that when it happens repeatedly in one AfD, it attracts my suspicion. Personally, I would never participate in an AfD I'm passionate about, becuase it would compromise my ability to be objective. This is not a vote, it's a process by which we attempt to form a consensus. Trusilver 19:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "According to IMDB, her most significant movie had a budget of $7,000." As we all can probably name at least a couple movies with million dollar budgets that completely sucked and wasted our time, I'm not quite understanding your point. Shatteredshards 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and comment~~ ~~Weak~~ keep based on CONvergencecon info and fringe sources, as well as upcoming documentary.--Ispy1981 07:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)without prejudice to recreation as this is obivously someone on the rise. It truly doesn't concern me either that an admin who originally voted delete is going down the list and looking for any reason to nullify others' votes. No, not at all. And, BTW, I'm a veteran user. You can check my contribs, find any flaws you like, but you won't.--Ispy1981 22:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not an admin, just someone who gets upset when I see an AfD that is obviously being manipulated. I have seen regrettably few people who are yelling 'keep' without giving any justification for the original problem - assertation of notability. ~~If she were directing "Mission Impossible 4", I would say 'keep' in a moment. But she's not, she has created a movie that is, in itself, not even close to being notable under WP:FILM.~~ For the sake of curiosity I'd still like an answer to this question - "If this girl's main claim to notability is a movie that she's making, how can she be deemed notable if her movie isn't?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trusilver (talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 July 2007

Response I don't believe that I have violated WP:CANVASS or unduly manipulated the discussion. I posted a short, neutral note on the talk:CONvergence (convention) page (the only article currently linking here), on three personal talk pages of Wikipedians I have prior experience with (but no prior knowledge of their opinion on this topic), and a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror, which seems appropriate, given their interest (OK - I did render an opinion on that one - perhaps I shouldn't have). But again, I don't know if Horror Film aficionados would want to keep this or not. I was mainly trying to increase awareness of the discussion. I agree that Pathogen doesn't meet notability guidelines, however I think a relatively brief biography of Hagins is appropriate given the film, several additional short films, her mention in a couple of local newspapers, her invitation to speak at a convention, the documentary currently being produced about her [66], and her mention in Girls Make Media (I hope to find a copy of this for a citation). Her article doesn't deserve the same attention as Nancy Pelosi's, but probably is as important as Arvind, Stephenie Cratz, or Joe Johnson (football), none of which has been targeted for deletion (as of 7/9/07). Humbly,--Appraiser 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any problem at all with dropping a note to people that you know, I'm a little more uneasy about the note on the CONvergence article. I think it's placing a note in a location where you are going to find supporters. I think of it like posting to the White Power article that there's an AfD for Martin Luther King Jr. (okay... I know that was a little over the top, but you get what I'm saying :) ) Overall though, I don't think you violated canvassing either, I would point more toward some tip off that has gone on outside of Wikipedia; especially when it comes to first time users that have come here just to argue against deletion. Trusilver 20:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see my position comments above. Trusilver 20:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who write listy-type articles (myself included) hate to see red-links in their lists, so I thought the people watching the CONvergence article would want to know that one of their BLUE WL might soon turn RED. Yes, it is a biased audience, but perhaps some of the few here who would care if it went away. As for the deluge of interest from first-time contributers, at CONvergence, Ms. Hagins impressed several audiences of several hundred computer-literate geeky people. I attended three of her events that had people crowded in the doorway, because all the seats were filled. (Unfortunately this original research can't be added to the article.) But I wouldn't be surprised if some of them came home, looked her up, and were surprised to see the AfD, and made their first contribution. It is a sample biased by people with some knowledge of her, which doesn't seem unreasonable.--Appraiser 21:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The filmmaker has been covered in the Austin Chronicle and Austin American-Statesman, so that appears to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Also, she has attracted notice from Harry Knowles and is apparently on the radar enough to be invited to a regional science fiction convention, and she was able to get a grant from the Texas Filmmakers Production Fund. I doubt the Texas Filmmakers Production Fund gives out money to just any twelve-year-old who asks. That said, I'm not sure that the article is a must-have for Wikipedia. (I didn't get a chance to see the film at CONvergence; I was too busy getting ready to demolish a styrofoam replica of the hotel.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - as previously stated, she has received notable recognition in newspapers, from the Texas Filmakers Fund and was also a Guest of Honor (and compelling speaker) at a regional convention which drew 2700+ attendees. This recognition, coupled with her youth, make her a very interesting subject worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.--Slindorff 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)— Slindorff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP - Excuse me? Emily was 12 and 13 when she wrote the screen play, directed and produced it and that is not notable? CONVergence, the third largest non-profit sci-fi convention in North America is a minor convention? Getting a grant from the Texas Filmmakers Production Fund is not notable? Excuse me? Wow. These comments are making my head spin. I wonder what your definition of notable is? Dare I say this, and am I going to get jumped on all over for saying it? - Or is it because she is a woman, a teen woman, that you want to dismiss, diminish and devalue her work and who she is? I find the whole question of her "lack" of notability insulting to her as a person, to teens and to women everywhere. Her inclusion in Wikipedia should not even be a question. How many 13 year olds do YOU know that are capable or driven to create such work? She made a 13-year-old's movie. Take a look at Mozart's first pieces - they show his age. Emily's movie shows hers. And when we look at the quality of the work she has created, we HAVE to take into account that she is 13, no, 14 now, and judge her work on its merits, now, at this point in time, as well as what she is showing us she is capable of. You have to be freaking kidding......and yes, this is my first comment on Wikipedia ever, why is that relevant? That I am taking the time to make this comment in the first place should count for something?*sheesh* Fiona in St Paul— 75.161.255.95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

First, they aren't my definitions of notability. They are the definitions of notability outlined under WP:N, WP:BLP and WP:FILM. Second, your suggestion that this has anything to do with her being a woman is baseless. I suggest you read up on WP:NPA before you make any further comments, you are in violation of it. Third, I have twice given my sole stipulation for changing my position and it has been ignored. Finally, if a lack of notability is a reason to be insulted, then 99.9% of the world should feel insulted and send equally unconstructive messages of outrage. There's nothing personal about this, I don't feel she meets notability requirements; and just because she very well may be notable one day, doesn't mean she is now. Trusilver 17:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP - Emily Hagins has most definitely met the definition of wikipedia for notoriety as well as being a fundamentally wonderful person. I would have to disagree with the notoriety portion if people of various states can actually express a knowledge of who she is and what she has done. A lot of people are mentioned in wikipedia who have notoriety and yet if you mention their name to someone, they don't know who they are. Wally Wingert would be a prime example. He has a wikipedia page, has been in a lot of productions (More than is listed on wikipedia) and yet if you were to walk down the street and ask someone about him, they wouldn't know who he was until a reference has been made. I have to state that Keeping the page would be in the best interest of wikipedia's notable future as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tekis (talk • contribs) 19:28, 9 July 2007

KEEP - Her age definitely makes her accomplishments notable. If this is a flash in the pan and she doesn't make anything else worth anybody's time or attention in the next few years, she drops from being notable to being a curiosity worthy of a historical footnote in some other entry. But as of now, and for the next few years, she is definitely notable because of the unusualness of a work of art with such unusual complexity and cohesion springing from the mind and talents of someone so young. Omnifarious 00:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - I had heard about this deletion buisness on this page so I wanted to check it out...I was just wondering why Trusilver is so hell-bent on deleting this page? Or at least that's what it seems like. I mean, this is a free online encyclopedia, what harm can it do to recognize an accomplishment that has already recieved some recognition? Oh, and when you said that this article was clearly written by a family member of Emily Hagins...I can tell you that it wasn't because I met the person who wrote it at CONvergence and they had written the article before they had met. However the biography taken from http://www.cheesynuggets.com/ was written by a family member because the site is run by Emily and her mom. Anyway, the point of this is just to clarify some things, I would appreciate it if my questions can be answered as well...but if not, that's cool too, just thought I'd give it a shot and ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GurtrudeSmith (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 July 2007

Comment While not everyone heeds the instructions (obviously), it is generally accepted that you should read the article and the entire AfD discussion before commenting to it. Had you done so, you would have found out two important facts. The first being that I said it's the IMDB.com biography that was written by a family member. The second fact is that Appraiser and Ispy1981 have provided evidence that enough information to deem the subject notable under WP:N will be forthcoming, even if it's not going to be during the life of this AfD discussion. Trusilver 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And as for your question. I don't know the subject, I have no interest in the subject. Which is how it should be - I do not participate in AfD's in which I have any prior knowledge of the subject, to do so means that I'm not able to be completely objective. What you are mistaking for a "hell-bent" intent to get rid of this article is really a "hell-bent" intent to see that Wikipedia policy is properly applied. I don't know who it was, but I have no doubt at all that a Wikipedia editor solicited people at CONvergence to come here and oppose the deletion. I don't know or care who it was, but he knows who he is. I'm tremendously dissapointed that a Wikipedia editor is so willing to break the rules to push an AfD dispute into his/her favor. I am aware that you are new here and have no or very little understanding of our policies, but AfD discussions are not votes. An AfD discussion is an attempt to bring all parties to a consensus. The ability to do that is severely hampered when 8 of the 14 keep positions (counting my own) have been registered by either single-purpose accounts who are here ONLY to contest the deletion, or by users that have not made any contribution for extended periods of time and have come back only to contest the deletion. Personally, I think that this entire AfD should be erased and started from scratch (where I would say 'keep' again, incidentally) just for the reason that this entire thing has been corrupted beyond the ability to come to a coherent consensus. I don't particularly like being flamed by every person who has never participated in the project until 24 hours ago, but I will do it 100% of the time to insure that process is being followed. Trusilver 05:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot comment on whether a Wikipedia editor solicited CONvergence members to oppose the deletion in violation of WP:CANVAS, in a strict sense. I was a 2007 CONvergence attendee and I did witness someone telling others to "go vote on Wikipedia", but I don't know if that person is a Wikipedia editor. And, by my reading of canvassing, it sure seems to lean heavily on matters of cross-posting and talk page editing, which doesn't exactly address the behavior which I witnessed, if that's Trusilver's concern. If the intent is to take WP:PI seriously and ensure the policy is properly applied, let me ask if there are pertinent rules which specifically address that kind of campaigning--unless the canvassing rules were intended to do so, in which case perhaps those can be made more specific.burnunit 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentCanvassing also covers the act of soliciting people outside of Wikipedia to come for the sole purpose of affecting the outcome of an AfD. (or any other consensus for that matter.) Trusilver 03:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm changing my mind on the above comment after a discussion on my talk page with Appraiser this morning. Under normal circumstances I would think that a situation like the warrants another AfD minus the dog and pony show. However, I feel that there never would have been an AfD had the article been as it is now when the nomination was first made. Trusilver 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following Comments were moved from Talk:Emily Hagins by --Appraiser 14:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC) (in order to keep them together)[reply]

Keep! In the book, Girls Make Media, Author Mary Celeste Kearney states that Emily is the first and youngest American teenage girl to make a feature length movie. I think that qualifies as notable. 12.106.2.2 13:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)MD[reply]

Cite it. If you need help, read WP:CITE Trusilver 17:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book was added and cited by Emily's mother--Ispy1981 20:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Emily is extraordinary, not only as a teen but as a filmmaker and as a woman, and deserves recognition of that. Fiona in St Paul

Considering the enormous amount of truly useless trivia on Wikipedia, I find it astonishing that this article about a talented young filmmaker would be flagged for deletion. If you delete it now, someone is going to have to write a new one later, because this girl is destined to be really hugely successful. -Phoenixredux

COMMENT - I did read the entire discussion, and all I was saying was that the Wikipedia page wasn't written by a family member. Thanks for answering my questions Trusilver.

Comment on the whole deal It is my hope that whoever the closing admin is on this looks at the true discussion that has taken place and the consensus among editors who have been here longer than two seconds and not the spammy "Ohmigod, she's a teenager, just like me!" "Omigod, you guys are so sexist!" nature of some of the comments here. This is a discussion forum for the article and for its subject, based on policy and on the merits. If you can't discuss an article's merits without frivolous arguments, you don't belong here. IMDb has a whole sandbox for you to play in.--Ispy1981 20:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the Comment on the whole deal I agree wholeheartedly with Ispy1981. I feel that we have reached a consensus on this if you can dig down and block out the circus this has turned into. Trusilver 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for two reasons. First her accomplishments as a filmmaker at this age are out of the ordinary and have been recognized in a growing number of public arenas. Second on the basis of earlier comments in this debate indicating new evidence is forthcoming. I think if new sourcing is still pending, it behooves us to pause before moving forward with a delete. burnunit 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per apparent majority consensus above and close. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Being profiled and discussed in an independent publication (such as the above-mentioned book) is strong evidence of notability. Iceberg3k 12:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The strength of the sources presented establishes notability. John254 01:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G7 by User:Nancy. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TOP 1 Oil[edit]

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

Is a straight copyright violation added what looks like 3 times now by the same editor. I don't know if there are other variations on the name that have been added. Speedy's possible, but would suggest salt as well, plus some G4 standing too. Shadowjams (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I add TOP_1 for your consideration as an identical page. Anna Lincoln 09:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They've both been blanked at this point. Shadowjams (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And speedy deleted. Therefore this AfD can be closed. Anna Lincoln 10:18, 29 January 2010 (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of BBS software[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOT a software directory. This is an indiscriminate list, as evidenced by what appears to be 99% red links and other trivial and unsourced items. JBsupreme (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio? The entire list is actually referenced from [67], which is a WP:RS for such info. The author, Jason Scott Sadofsky, gets cited on this topic in several books [68]. So, WP:V is met. The real question is: is such an extensive duplication of a list from another site acceptable? Pcap ping 14:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I am not disputing the accuracy of the list provided by Jason Scott Sadofsky, I am sure it is quite reliable. My point is that regardless of whether or not it is a copyvio, we are still mirroring a directory listing of what appears to be mostly non-notable software (as defined by Wikipedia general notability guidelines). Those first two strikes are bad enough. JBsupreme (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyright violation. Also blatantly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. 2 says you, says two 21:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I declined to speedy delete it, as I do not consider it a copyvio. Only part of the specified list was used as a guide to writing, and additional information given. It was used as a source, not copied. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but limit to those having Wikipedia articles or otherwise qualified for one. That's the usual standard, for lists giving a guide to articles on notable Wikipedia subjects are not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N . AfD is not necessary in order to do the necessary editing. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this list not violate WP:NOTDIR in your view? JBsupreme (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite - clearly this should be expanded into a detailed list with a paragraph for each product. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and per Wikipedia:LISTS. Well, I'm not sure it needs to be strictly limited to items with WP articles, but definitely pruned. LotLE×talk 22:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we're starting to get a too narrow view of notability and importance. This is part of computing history, why is there such a rush to delete it? -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's very reasonable position. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per the above. DGG offers a good middle ground; the list does need a bit of pruning, and a smaller list would be of greater value to the reader. A broader list is available at the source cited, which can be noted in the reference. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of whether the article should be rewritten, there is no doubt that there should be such a list for navigation as per WP:CLN and Wikipedia:List#Navigation, as there are more than enough blue-linked BBS software to warrant one. DGG's take on improvements is a good one. In short, edit, don't delete. ^walk victor falk^talk 05:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim down to only include notable BBS software per DGG. Reach Out to the Truth 04:26, 3 February 2010 (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) 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Software event horizon[edit]

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

I'm having trouble finding any good secondary sources. Other deletion avenues have been met with objections but not sources. This subject does not appear to meet the notability requirements of considerable coverage in reliable sources. ErikHaugen (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Appears to be a confusing reference made by a non-notable person. Does not appear in common use (or even use outside of company names) anywhere Rotovia (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure original research. Though it does seem that the software is taking over, sometimes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Based exclusively on a primary source, with no independent mentions to evidence notability of this proposed concept or term. Google searches using the links at the top of this AfD failed to find any. Pcap ping 19:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pcap. LotLE×talk 23:09, 30 January 2010 (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. (I know I shouldn't comment here, but this runs TV ads in the UK - overwhelmingly notable) Scott Mac (Doc) 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go Compare[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable? Shouldn't we be a bit more ruthless with companies so that WP does not become an advertising medium for all manner of companies? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article could be kept if it changes from a press release/advertisement into a stub regarding the fact there is a small amount of major media coverage about the company and its advertising being apparently "annoying", which the article certainly is Rotovia (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. The AfD notice was removed from this article when it was moved on 30 January and I have just restored it, so it might be a good idea to let this discussion run for a few extra days. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is clearly notable as, rather one of "all manner of companies", it is a household name in the UK, confirmable by cursory searches. The way to be ruthless with such companies is to remove unsourced or self-sourced promotional content and replace it with reliably sourced content, as I have done. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is clearly notability, and the article has clear rs.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 00:20, 3 February 2010 (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 Expanded and sources added (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 18:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-computer tactics (gaming)[edit]

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

Appears to be original research. Article has never had references. Was PRODed in 2007. Barrylb (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The only reference I can find to this exact term is here. However, if you look through GBooks with the query "anti-computer" chess, you'll find quite a few results, most dealing with the concept this article is attempting to describe. The article might benefit from renaming, but I think the content can be supported by reliable sources. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps someone may want to mention it breifly in another article, but fails on its own. Insufficiant references Rotovia (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In chess, this has been extensively discussed in the 1990's (read: no or little online references) to the extent that there used to be a magazine discussing little else than this topic. Since then the idea has slowly become obsolete as there is no successful strategy against the chess computers of today. Still one should find bits and pieces of information in the discussion of just about every strategy game that can be played by a computer, from Civilisation and Transport Tycoon to Backgammon. In its current form, the article is too short and too focused on chess, of course. --Pgallert (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have added six references to the article. All the online reference can be checked as they mention anti-computer strategy, although some references in a minor way. I hope this shows the subject is not original research and resolved the issue of never having had references. SunCreator (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable subject - books have been written about it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now it has been adequately expanded and referenced. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 18:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ditto Bubba73. Grand Mattster 19:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news has just one good result [69]. I see chess sites use this expression though. [70] Does anyone have any sincere doubt this is a real thing, commonly referred to by chess people? Dream Focus 23:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a real thing but I am not sure there is common way to refer to it. For example the book listed above; I read it may years ago but I don't think it says anti-computer but more like ideas and plans on how to beat your computer. Likewise I found this chessbase article in which it refers to it at anti-computer strategies and anti-computer chess. So I think there is common concept but a unclear way to call it. MYbe difficulty in references is due to this also. SunCreator (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2010 (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) 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kin Endate[edit]

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

Delete. Yet another (of many) non-notable hobbyist astronomer, woodworker by trade. JBsupreme (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:N. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:51, 29 January 2010 (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) 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Butt[edit]

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

Obvious vanity page for a person who appears to have no particular notability or importance. The figure skating activities described in the article do not meet the WP:ATHLETE notability criteria of having competed at the "highest level" of the sport; see WP:WPFIGURE/N for further discussion on notability guidelines for figure skaters. I previously marked the article for speedy delete with concerns noted on the talk page, but notice was removed, so I'm doing it the hard way now..... Dr.frog (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Assistant admissions guy" does not come close to being a notable position, and the U.S. collegiate figure skating championship does not meet WP:ATHLETE. A search of the GNews archive returns nothing that appears to relate to this Mark Butt, and I can find no other significant evidence of notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a resume service Rotovia (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nowhere near notable. Several non-notable activities do not add up to one notable one. Hairhorn (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:Athlete and WP:BIO. Aside from his personal or work pages, the only source I found was this blog interview. Even if we say it's an expert blog and constitutes a RS, there is still a COI issue with it. PDCook (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable as athlete or person related to a university. Kolindigo (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable - no ifs or buts about it!. Looks like a case of self promotion to me. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2010 (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 more work with references and expansion, but clearly meets WP:N at this time, clear consensus to keep (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Williams (journalist)[edit]

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

In effect, an unsourced BLP, as with the 60,000 other BLPs to be nominated for deletion. The only reference is an unreliable source about his "outing" and the only external link is his bio on NBC news. He has never received any awards as a journalist, and he fails WP:POLITICIAN as a sub-cabinet official. The deletionists here must admit that we have a lot of work to do, or delete this one, too, and many more unsourced BLPs. The homophobes will love deleting this one. Bearian (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google search reveals that Williams is, indeed, NBC's "Chief Justice Correspondent" and he is frequently called upon to provide expertise on national TV. (The external link to his NBC bio appears to have been used as a source for a lot of the article, for that matter.) Add a few more easily-found sources, subtract the cruel gossip, and we're good. Besides, I don't want anybody thinking I'm a homophobe. Şłџğģő 06:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Changing to Strong Keep. Nom clearly is acting in bad faith; Williams's notability is not in question, but let's vanish his article because nom doesn't feel like finding sources. Yawn. Şłџğģő 07:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge you to find reliable sources and add them to the stub. I am sick and tired of being the only Wikipedian trying to rescue articles. He's not inherently notable. Bearian (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Delete unless it is fixed. Bearian (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. One reliable source was the NBC bio you mentioned, then I mentioned. Give it a read. It's actually extensive enough to serve as this article's far-and-away primary source. (It establishes Williams's position as a senior, top fifteen or so content guy at NBC News. What's inherent notability if that's not it?) Per the aforementioned Google search, there are a bunch more reliable sources. I'll try to improve the article and see if I can get it past the problems you correctly noted.

I'm not as offended by your tone as I could be, per my commitment to ensure I always DGAF. Given your note on my talk page specifically requesting my input, I just wonder a bit about confrontational attitudes. Şłџğģő 07:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it may seem like an uphill battle sometimes, but you're really, truly not "the only Wikipedian trying to rescue articles". Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not based on his personal life, but on his longevity and stature at NBC News. He was a constant presence during the aftermath of Bush v. Gore and on any case the network covers from the AG's office, a pretty high position on the correspondent's table, beneath White House and Pentagon correspondent but not by much. Nate • (chatter) 11:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Williams was very much in the public eye as the DoD spokesperson during the Gulf War, and has had a steady national career as a broadcaster since then. Even if you just confine yourself to the NY Times archive, there are plenty of sources for an article [71] [72], including his outing. Whatever the WP:POINT is behind this nomination, this is the wrong place to make it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only point is that I don't care one way or the other any more, but many editors are intent in deleting rapidly all unsourced BLPs. Fix it yourself; I am tired of doing all the heavy lifting in mainspace. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already over-extended on other articles that I've invested effort in. I'll strive to rescue any of them at risk of the purge, but not any others. As I see it, that's all that anyone can be expected to do. If the powers-that-be decide to delete to unilaterally this article, let 'em. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm conflicted... On face value he seems to easily meet notability (being a veteran journalist for a national network and all) but in this case standard tests I usually perform for BLP are more or less useless. On first glance of any search engine test it looks like he's very much notable but when you look at the hits for the vast majority of them aren't about Mr. Williams but only mention his name in the byline or as the reporting journalist which in my opinion makes those links not applicable to notability (per the example of a company spokesman who's name appears on all of the companies press releases not being notable just because he gets a lot of hits on google). On the other hand I'd assume that there HAS to be something out there that meets WP:RS that actually gives relevent information on Mr. Williams himself that could be added to the BLP. I say give the rescue team a week or so to try and dig something up (I will try as well) and if after due diligence we can't find anything more than his NBC bio that meets WP:RS we merge to NBC News#Personnel Nefariousski (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that a significant number of users here feel that all unsourced BLPs must be deleted on sight, or given two days at most. Why is this one any different? Bearian (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't yet consensus on deleting solely for being unreferenced. Until policy officially changes, being unreferenced is not a valid reason for deletion. If the subject is not notable, then so be it; the unreferenced bit is irrelevant. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta go with Keep. He is a major part of NBC Nightly News, I see him almost every night when there is a US Justice Department story. Being on a national news program often provides notability. CTJF83 chat 18:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment He passes WP:Politician Based off of point 1 considering that the criteria for notability is simply Holding national office (Assistant SecDef qualifies). He passes The WP:N criteria for "Any Biography" off of point number 1 for receiving the "First Ammendment Award" as well. I don't think the issue of notability is in question here but one of whether a poorly written / sourced BLP should be deleted because we hold BLPs to a much higher standard. I tend to agree that if a BLP can't be written well it shouldn't be written at all but am still on the fence regarding whether this particular article can be improved enough to meet BLP standards. Nefariousski (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N per his extensive TV presence, while that may be hard to document it still allows him to pass... -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Keep whether notability would extend to Assistant Secretaries of a Dept. would seem not automatic, but to depend on their function and the extent to which it is public knowledge. I think he probably qualifies. The outing reference needs to be much better supported; not just by the NYT column linked to above DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC) (convinced by arguments below that it should be automatic) DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:N is pretty clear about politicians who hold national office. In fact it even states that "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion". Surely the Asst SecDef can be considered to be monumentally more notable than your average suburban mayor. Nefariousski (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When a subject has Google Scholar hits about his outing 1 2, I cannot see how it is a bad thing that we mention it. And the subject has at least 233 Google Scholar hits. For example, here in the American Journalism Review, Vol. 15, September 1993, it says, "...are the inevitable comparisons with Pete Williams, the former Wyoming radio and television reporter who was Defense Secretary Dick Cheney's chief spokesman. Despite the fact that he was an architect of the controversial Desert Storm press controls, Williams is remembered as a nice guy who understood journalists' gluttonous appetites no matter which news organization they worked for." This constitutes analysis of the subject, and the use of the word "inevitable" means that means that the writer considers him to be unforgettable, and then says that he did more than read prepared statements; he was "an architect" of something controversial. Abductive (reasoning) 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and give it a chance, without prejudice against revisiting this in X amount of time if references really don't pan out. If being an unreferenced BLP becomes an immediate deletion criterion at some point in the future, then we can start acting in accordance with it at that time, but until then we really, truly can't act as though it's already policy. And I'd note that I will viscerally oppose any "delete unreferenced BLPs on sight" policy that doesn't include a "the deleter must make a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is referenceable/salvageable first" clause. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2010 (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. Sandstein 07:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freeways in metropolitan Detroit[edit]

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

My reasoning is that this list is redundant on four levels. The first is that there is a template already that binds together the subject matter. The second is that the information here is redundant to the information presented about the list entries in the articles on the freeways themselves. The third is that this list could be merged into the article on Metro Detroit similar to how List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan is being merged into the article on Marquette County, Michigan. And finally, information here is also redundant to the content of the lists and articles on the statewide trunkline highway system. Imzadi1979 (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The template handles the need of this page. However, I would like to note that a similar page, Metropolitan Phoenix freeways, exists as a GA and it too has a template. ---Dough 48 72 17:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for several reasons. - (1) By WP:SIZE, this list should not be merged into the article Metro Detroit as that article is already at optimum length. Additionally, the Metro Detroit article has numerous navigational boxes (including the referenced navbox template) within the body of the article. I don't think that this is preferred style.
(2) I don't see the redundancy identified as warranting deletion of this list article. This list provides a summary of information not found in the navbox template (e.g., the names of these freeways within the metro area). This summary cannot be provided within the limitations of a navbox.
(3) I like the format of Metropolitan Phoenix freeways and would like to think that this article could eventually be expanded and changed from list format to more prose like that one.
If anyone wants to create an article Transportation in metropolitan Detroit which covered all modes of transport, this list article could be merged into that. Until then, this list has merit to me. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see then the debates concening List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan and merging it into Marquette County, Michigan. The names of the freeways are already in the nav box, and the table here could be summarized briefly in the Metro Detroit article. In that latter article, the nav boxes all should be moved to the bottom of the article, where they'd auto collapse. Visually, this table here would take up no more room than the table on sports teams in Detroit. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dude, it's the Motor City. Motown. The freeways of Detroit are notable in and of themselves, each individually and collectively. You can't tell a story about Detroit and the burbs without understanding how the construction of the freeway system changed the area. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comparing a list of freeways in a top 20 American city to that of Marquette, the second-smallest metro area in the state is ridiculous. If anything this a good example of a disambig for a complex set of freeways in Metro Detroit. That alone makes it impossible to merge into the suggested redirect target as we'd be throwing in local roads with expressways without any clear delineation. Nate • (chatter) 11:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't compare to the city of Marquette, instead I compared the situation of a list based on a geographic area (Metro Detroit vs. a county larger than the state of Rhode Island). Of course at the time I nominated this list, the Marquette County list appeared headed for the recycle bin, but it has been kept. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Freeways metropolitan Detroit are notable in an of themselves. Its a major metropolitan area in the U.S. Should not be compared with small areas Marquette. By WP:SIZE, this list should not be merged into the article Metro Detroit as that article is already at optimum length. There is no need to delete the article, we can work with it, expand it, and include much more. Let's keep it and work from there. See Streets and highways of Chicago and Metropolitan Phoenix freeways. Thanks. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — given the precedent set by keeping the Marquette County highways list, this list should be kept as well. I fear though that some of the commenters here never understood the comparison, using population size as a sole justification to oppose. The comparison was never about size, it was in fact about grouping together a list of highways based on a geographic subdivision of a state. In this example, it was a metropolitan area. In the other example, it was a county, in fact arguably the largest county east of the Mississippi River. Other commenters here singled in on the fact that the City of Detroit is larger than the City of Marquette, never recognizing that the base criteria for these two lists are the metro area and the county, respectively, even though both cities are in fact the largest cities on their respective peninsulas.

Another argument given was that other stuff exists. This discussion was never about what articles existed for Chicago of Phoenix, it was about this list article. The fact that the other lists exist, for now, is irrelevant. Eventually, this article should be expanded to cover the other state highways in and around Detroit, leading to a rename as State highways in Detroit, Michigan or Transportation in Detroit, Michigan if other modes of transport are covered, but that's another discussion for another day.

Another argument is that the freeways listed are notable in and of themselves.That's great. That's also why they all have articles already. Those articles weren't listed here for deletion, but rather the article listing them.

Given the outcome of the List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan AfD, I ask this this AfD be closed now. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus is that the article is sourcable, however sourcing concerns have not been addressed. This may be undeleted (by me or any admin) if someone is willing to properly source it {sofixit} Scott Mac (Doc) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wilkins[edit]

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

BLP of non notable writer. Viridae ^Talk 06:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Publisher and writer. Plenty of news sources including the radio interview in the article. [73]. WP:BEFORE would probably have been a good idea here. Hobit (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it. Viridae ^Talk 07:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:30, 29 January 2010 (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. without prejudice to a merge to List of power stations in Australia. That can be decided on talk page. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of wind farms in Australia[edit]

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

This page duplicates all entries in List of power stations in Australia (see relevant links/sections within link). I propose deletion or redirection of the article. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles duplicates all entries of the List of power stations in Australia article (see relevant links/sections within link) as well as duplicating the already-duplicated List of wind farms in Australia article (main article for deletion):

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is limited duplication and I would suggest that the "List of power station..." articles be trimmed to include only operating wind farms, which will focus those articles and keep them manageable. Wind farms are highly notable and the wind farm lists will expand a lot over time, and having separate wind farm lists at the state level will accommodate this. Having these separate wind farm lists also means that more precise categorization can be used, and this is helpful to readers. Johnfos (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: As per nomination. Comment to above: Very few such articles exist, making such a list not that prone to be accessed by a reader. Aside that, the contents are small enough to be moved into the parent article (as a matter of fact, its already moved. These articles are just duplicates); increasing the chances of being noticed by both readers and editors, thus increasing improvement. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The articles are not just duplicates. For example, this material from List of wind farms in New South Wales does not appear in List of power stations in New South Wales:

The wind resource potential in NSW is very good, yet this potential has remained largely untapped. As of 2008, in the State only 17 MW of wind capacity is operational.^ref However, Australia's largest wind farm, the Silverton Wind Farm, is proposed for western NSW.

A NSW Wind Atlas has been prepared and this shows that many of the sites with good potential for wind farms are situated on the western side of the Great Dividing Range. While the wind is also strong in coastal areas, wind farms are unlikely to be built there due to existing residential development and national park areas. NSW also has an extensive electricity transmission network, providing relatively good power grid access for new wind farms.

Moreover, the nominator is "voting" in his own AfD; I don't think I've ever seen this happen before, and it smacks of a deletionist nominator who is trying to build up a series of "List of power station" articles at the expense of "List of wind farm" articles which have been around for a long time. There is room for both, with the wind farm lists providing more detail about wind farms than appears in the power station articles. It is this approach which will be most helpful to readers. And I say again that the power station lists should cover only operating power stations, not proposed ones, or else things will become very confused. Johnfos (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnfos. Johnfos raised a good point about why nominator trying to make his voice count twice in the same AfD. It seems like a person trying to vote twice. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. No offense, but it was not meant to be a double-vote. I was simply declining to the comment and proposing a redirect. But i do now very well notice that it does look as such. I completely accept my wrong in that. But, keeping that aside, i dont see why that would effect your decision on the vote. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 18:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rehman: On the strength of what has happened at this AfD and several others, (eg., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest hydroelectric power stations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wind farms in Sweden), it would appear that you are pushing a deletionist agenda with respect to many renewable energy lists on Wikipedia. Please stop. Johnfos (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment make me want to tell three things. First, take a good look at WP:OWN; i now believe which is why you oppose to every change to a page that you created/controlled. Second, nominating three different articles for deletion doesnt make me a deletionist; i have actually created much more, of which you simply call crappy. Dropping all of these to one side, lets not make this about me, or about other articles, as you have done now and before. Now i am, peacefully than ever, backing off from you, hoping to not have any other unnecessary argument. Lets just, peacefully, work on what we are here for. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification. Since 29 January, Rehman has placed deletion templates on at least eight renewable energy articles: [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]

Rehman also placed merge tags on two more renewable energy articles: [82] [83] There simply is no need for all of this. Please stop. regards, Johnfos (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN#Examples of ownership behavior.

Stopping further responses to avoid any more possible unnecessary non-related argument. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really was hoping not to have to bring all this up. But when I saw Rehman take List of largest hydroelectric power stations to AfD yesterday (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest hydroelectric power stations) I knew something had to be said. (As far as I'm aware I have never edited "List of largest hydroelectric power stations" and have not participated in the AfD, so ownership is not an issue.)

AfD is a last resort, usually after there has been a lot of discussion about what the options are for an article. Even if that discussion reaches no consensus that still doesn't automatically mean that the article should go to AfD.

As for the merges that Rehman proposed both have been resolved now, with the help of other editors, and the articles are not to be merged. Johnfos (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2010 (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. this is a "weak" close. All that has been verified here is "it exists" - there's no independent sources showing notability. We don't AGF with WP:V. So delete, without prejuduce to recreation IF sources are given to assert notability. If recreated with a sourced assertion, then don't delete as a repost. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defacto.am[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A Google search turns up a few references, but none in English. AGF that a national news service has some degree of notability, I would not advocate deletion. Warrah (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —Milowent (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Site does exist, and has been cited as a source at least 23 times on the English wikipedia. The name appears to refer to the "de facto" independent status of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. I added it to the Armenia related deletion discussions so maybe we can get an armenian expert to weigh in or find more sources (if they exist).--Milowent (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable "news service". JBsupreme (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The majority of the deletion !votes were based on the speculation in the earlier version. Removing the speculation would seem to address those concerns. For future reference, it might be better to try and address a content issue on the talk page before nominating for AfD. Ged UK 15:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean presidential election, 2013[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL: Candidates in Chile do not usually announce they will be running until a year prior to elections, thus this is extremely premature; especially considering Chile completed the 2009-2010 elections this past Sunday, Jan. 17th.--Neon Sky (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Disagreed, does not meet WP:CRYSTAL criteria (see #1 under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball"). Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Partially agreed, though that is no basis for deletion. There are candidates that campaign much earlier than one year before the election (i.e. Sebastián Piñera). Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - To make a list of candidates three years in advance is a stretch. ~~I do not have an issue with the topic of elections,~~ (Actually, I do have an issue, considering there is nothing more than an event date that can be added at this time.) ...however the subtopic of including candidates is not prudent. The articles seems more of a list of assumed candidates than a topic on electoral process. If it is not deleted, it may grow to mimic the current elections article, which would be a grave distortion of the truth. --Neon Sky (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In regards to the WP:Crystal, it clearly states Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. To say there will be elecetions is highly probable. To say who those candidates might be is not. --Neon Sky (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Verifiability: There are currently no sources or press to support this,
- Comment - Disagreed Article could be improved. Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV: Four of the five candidates you list and link to are center-leftist,
- Comment - Disagreed. It's just that that there are more candidates from the left than there are from the right. It simply reflects the reality of Chilean politics nowadays. Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a political shift in the country right now. Pinera has to form his office, the country is going to enter a significant transition; elementary political science here. As for there being right-wing notables, there are; however if I name them I would be subscribing to your logic and I just don't agree we can speculate three years in advance. Anything can happen. --Neon Sky (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no content other than a generic infobox and internal links to politicans.
- Comment - Agreed. Article could be improved. Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am new to Wiki and this is my first time requesting a deletion so if I did something wrong or am missing information, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks. Neon Sky (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The above is dialogue between the author and person contesting article. Please vote below the line. This will help avoid confusion. Thank you. --Neon Sky (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 02:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 02:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the community believes this should be deleted as premature, I wouldn't contest it. Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baf09 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All that's in here is a list of "potential candidates", which is WP:CRYSTALBALL at its very worst. To put it in perspective, the most recent presidential election in Chile was only six weeks ago (December 12, 2009) -- and the runoff election between the two top candidates was this past Sunday January 17, 2010). Mandsford (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd add that people who have written "agreed" might want to instead say "delete" (i.e., they agree that it should be deleted) and those who say "disagreed" might want to write "keep" (i.e., they disagree that it should be deleted), and that a reason should be given. Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one has written agreed, it's Pristino, the author of the article in question who is agreeing or disagreeing with the critiques. --Neon Sky (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Way too early as Mandsford noted.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to make it simpler to follow, I've taken the liberty of prefacing comments as comments. In addition, bold print, like ALL CAPS, should be avoided, is. One can put a comment in italics for emphasis. Although it's not really a vote (and we use the odd term "!vote" for that purpose) I'm assuming that Neon, as nominator, would say "Delete" and that Pristino, as the article's creator, would say "Keep"; and that if I interpret Pristino's agreed comments correctly, it's more along the line of "Si, pero..." or "Yes, but...", something along the lines of "the article should be improved instead of deleted". Note that if you've posted without being logged in, it shows up as an IP address number and not a name; and that if you say "keep" or "delete", it helps to explain why you feel that way. Mandsford (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nominator.--Neon Sky (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is going to be odd for me, but I'm leaning in the direction of keeping the article but keeping a close eye on it. We've usually have articles for the "Next [insert country here] general election"...this tends to be common enough that I'd call it a convention of sorts (there's already an article for the next German federal election, for example); it's not like we're listing the 2021 elections on here, after all. With that said, I do think that if an article is to be kept, then candidate listings need to be kept under control. The article offers no sources for these candidates being "potential" candidates, and that is something that needs to be watched carefully to prevent abuse of Wikipedia by political groups attempting to gain free publicity/notoriety.Tyrenon (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ok, I've stripped out the candidate speculation and I'll do my best to keep an eye on this one. Right now, it's just listing a date and it could use a source or two on the dates (I'll tag it as needing sources), but it's no less speculative than the one on Germany...or, for that matter, the detailed article on the 2014 US Senate elections. Even if we're just saying when elections would legally be scheduled for, I think a stub on this point is well within what belongs on Wikipedia.Tyrenon (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisted as needing more discussion after being stubbed by Tyrenon. Sandstein 05:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub (the election is notable, it's the next one, and this is what we know about it so far) with only sourced, factual statements of interest, candidacy or other relevance as they come in. Galatee (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2010 (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. —SpacemanSpiff 06:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GameClub[edit]

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

Unsurprisingly, I can find no coverage of this Philippines-based video game fansite in reliable sources. No other evidence it meets WP:WEB. Another editor's PROD was contested without comment by the author. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Founded in August 2009 and it's already the most popular? Very unlikely. No references. Pcap ping 16:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete fails WP:WEB by a mile, the first sentence is especially odious, a sneaky attempt to sound like a claim of notability without actually being one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already edited it and put reference. Please remove it from deletion.

Majestic27 08:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: No, you have a string of links to gameclub.com. Wikipedia:Notability (web) asks whether the site "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." In other words, has the website been the subject of significant coverage in newspapers, books, magazines, or other reliable sources? (On a different topic, please do not blank this page or remove the AfD template from the article again. Neither will stop this deletion discussion from taking place. Thanks.) Glenfarclas (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2010 (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) 00:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Field Army insignia of the United States Army[edit]

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

As per Category:Wikipedia image galleries and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery, this article is an image gallery that should actually reside on Commons. The appropriate gallery has been created at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Field_Army_insignia_of_the_United_States_Army. Thus this article has been listed for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Buckshot06 (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination and precedent. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Great topic for a Commons page, not so good for Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too short content, the article is mostly images. Qajar (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2010 (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) 00:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sallah Ukhmed[edit]

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

Person is as non-notable as her husband, Jûtien-Gustave DuRoi (also here at AfD). Nothing on Google News or Google Books, and the regular internets have nothing but Wiki copies, it seems. It saddens me, but Sallah is not notable. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources proving notability of the subject. Google Search result for the Arabic transcription of her name "سلاه بنت جميل العقية أخمد" is not helpful. In my opinion, it is impossible to find any convincing evidence for the existence of her single, "Hazah Lakim Ghaniyma!", or verify her connection with "al-Watan al-Arabi" and her publishing activities. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks--yours was the kind of expert opinion I was hoping for. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2010 (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) 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Livemercial[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This an advertorial and appears to be written by an employee of the company, the sources are dead links and the company is greatly exagerating the amount of people working there and what they actually do. They are well known as e-mail spammers and this page should be removed from this great site we call wikipedia Ihelppeopleatgmail (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livemercial Svick (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unambiguous advertising: a pioneering company in the Internet video marketing movement....listed as one of the top 5,000 fastest growing private companies....fully integrates ordering and customer service. Though not really relevant, the claimed sources are all local (Valparaiso, Indiana) or related to Internet marketing, and do not establish business notability. They're in the Internet marketing business. Yeah, they're going to try for a Wikipedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Article on a business entirely sourced from local newspapers. Fails WP:CORP. A google search for the supposed Forbes article titled "Livemercial Expands Internationally" found only this Wikipedia page; the link indicates it was just a press release through Business Wire anyway. Pcap ping 16:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2010 (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) 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GhostSlayer[edit]

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

Non-notable downloadable Wii game for which I can't find any coverage in a reliable source. PROD removed without comment by the author. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL & WP:NOTE without prejudice. No clue as to when game will be released mixed with lack of notable sources. Many WiiWare games have articles and it's possible that new sources may come to light as the (eventual) release date draws near. I'm not remaking in such a case. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2010 (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. Ged UK 15:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Franklin Haynes[edit]

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

I can't find much on this guy from Google, nor does he seem very notable from the article. fetchcomms☛ 02:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did a little searching and found that he really was quite an influential figure. I have added content and references to the article. He was important enough that, as recently as 2008, people were doing presentations about him at religious conferences. [84] --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PetroChem Wire[edit]

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

Non-notable company which does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Article contains no sources that offer significant coverage of PetroChem Wire, and none can be found.

Notes: the creating account, User:Petrochemwire, was blocked for COI editing. User:Boulderpr account was then created and after removing a prod on this article, was blocked for COI. User:Jgkeener account was then created and removed a second prod on this article. According to http://www.boulderpr.com/clients/, PetroChem Wire is a client of Keener Communications (aka Jim Keener). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:46, 29 January 2010 (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity as an entropic force[edit]

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

A proposition not going into anything further than like the beginning of an essay, could be merged into gravity perhaps. fetchcomms☛ 02:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deletion, proposition is adequately covered in Erik Verlinde (the proposer). Given that it is early days for this proposal/hypothesis, it would probably be unwise to extend it into the gravity article Peterxyz (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Erik Verlinde is not the only person to have ideas like this, so it is not right that the info should only be in the article on him. The findsources links at the top of this AfD page are misleading - search for the phrase without the quotes - this article isn't about an exact phrase - the title is just a descriptive title. It shouldn't be merged into the Gravitation article. All that should be in that article is a link in the Recent Alternatives section. Charvest (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Currently a stub, but could easily be extended. Those who state this is a new theory miss relevant background. The concept of entropic gravity goes back to Jacobson - PRL 75, 1260 (1995). JocK (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is reasonable to have a separate page for this theory. It's already linked to from gravity. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because I say so. 124.198.164.79 (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2010 (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 close, the article has been moved to incubation and its redirect deleted. Non-admin closure. -- Glenfarclas (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Ribbans[edit]

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

Page moved to incubator for discussion UKRefugee (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2010 (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) 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davin Griffiths-Jones[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. nothing in gnews [85], which is very surprising as the article makes a number of claims that one would expect to be reported in the media. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article links to the wrong ACE award, the one he was allegedly nominated for is this one, info on website only goes back to 2002. Article also claims "nominated for the Australian Entertainment Mo Award for Best New Talent in 1999," there was no such category of Mo Award in 1999 [86]. Whole thing smells fishy, but even if the claims were true, two nominations (not wins) for relatively minor awards does not equal notability. Wine Guy Talk 11:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, having checked sources he was nominated for the John O'Keefe Encouragement Award at the 1999 Mo Awards, not, as the article mistakenly said, the Best New Talent. - Bilby (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and maybe WP:PROMO. Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does appear fishy as you say, nothing on google news.Off2riorob (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing fishy in it, as all of the coverage he's had was in local press, which Google News doesn't index. That said, it was only in local press, with only a couple of very brief mentions in major publications, both of which were in reference to buying a house. While it could be argued that he scrapes through with WP:ENTERTAINER, (WP:MUSIC doesn't apply here, as he's a dancer and actor), I think that would be stretching it a tad, as there haven't been that many notable roles claimed. The only bit which makes me pause is the Dance Teachers's prize, but as it only got local coverage I'm inclined to see it as too minor - although perhaps someone more knowledgeable about dancing (pretty much anyone) would be able to confirm that. - Bilby (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your right its not fishy, I was thrown by this link but it really is him. Off2riorob (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how that link would throw someone. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2010 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Brolly[edit]

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

Non notable local councillor whose only claim to fame is being Mayor of a small council (pop:34,000). WP:POLITICIAN does allow "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.... A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." This type of in depth coverage is lacking in Brolly's case and she has not held any kind of statewide office. Valenciano (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She's gotten involved in a fair number of reported disputes[87][88][89][90][91] it seems. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not sound like a major local political figure. RadManCF (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references mentioned. Certainly notable as a politican; possibly also notable as a musician. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - not notable through being a councillor or mayor. Some press coverage, but mostly just quotes on local matters, some which mention her as a parent of Joe Brolly. Few, if any, could be described as "in depth". Does not appear to have received any significant coverage of her music. Warofdreams talk 00:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per the references mentioned. Notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject got just over 1000 votes. Article make no claim of notability; article reads like a disjointed collection of minor news blurbs. Abductive (reasoning) 03:44, 29 January 2010 (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. —SpacemanSpiff 06:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Takeyasu[edit]

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

Fails notability and WP:BLP due to lack of reliable secondary sources detailing the person. Contested prod. Izno (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blp with no sources plus not even an assertion of notability plus no sources findable by me (let alone ones that would establish notability) equals delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 02:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this is rescued somehow, please leave me a note on my talk page. JBsupreme (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all of the above (even Bali ultimate ;) ). Fails notability. Airplaneman ^talk 22:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete : I have found a couple of reliable sources for some material, such as theUS patent office and the beatmania series on the Konami sites. I am having difficulty with ReR refs as per his other AKA's also but am sure that this can be corrected fairly soon tonight. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the website of this person's employer nor the US patent office are reliable sources to establish notalbity for a wikipedia article. Ever.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And did I say they were ? Chaosdruid (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said don't delete and then mentioned two irrelevant sources that do nothing to advance the discussion. You also said they are reliable sources. They're not. Please read wikipedia's policy on reliable sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can always start a new [helpful] copy in your userspace. As it stands now, the article plainly fails WP:N. I would be willing to look over the sources you find for the article, but none of the current citations indicate his notability (and imdb and vgmdb are not reliable sources to boot).
Re Bali: Don't be bitey, please. --Izno (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bali's response was quite fair as well as informative. Sometimes you have to use bold to get your point across. JBsupreme (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said they were reliable, I did not say they established notariety. The Wikipedia:Notability_(music) states under the "other" section:-

4 Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre.

I used IMDB and the Konami refs as proof that he was notable in the computer game music genre and the vmbd to show his works. I cannot stress enough how I do not speak/read Japanese and so cannot use any possible japanese refs.

Thanks for the bitey bit as I am indeed feeling very bitten and bali was more rude than bold - I appreciate that it may fail notability without further sources as I cannot read Japanese I cannot establish much detail on his Japnese musical career.

All I was asking was for a hold of a couple of days or so and that is not that unreasonable. It is rather daunting for editors to try and stop the wheels of deletion at the best of times. Feel free to userify it if the delete is not stopped.

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

imdb and vgmdb cannot be used as reliable sources (I would invite you to search for imdb on WP:RS/N's archives). The patent is an interesting cite, but it only proves existence, and not that the man is notable.

Re Japanese refs: A problem we run into on Wikipedia. Drop a note on WT:WikiProject Japan to see if they can help any.

As for a hold, this AfD doesn't end until the 5th. You have plenty of time to get some help. :)

Re JB: 1) Using bold can be seen as shouting (I much prefer italics to show emphasis to make sure people don't take me the wrong way), and 2) I felt there are other problems than the bold in his statement. I just left a friendly reminder anyhow. --Izno (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is everybody ignoring WP:MUSIC ? You are all quoting quoting WP:BIO and WP:BLP but these do not cover musicians...Chaosdruid (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do apply. WP:BLP is the content issue, and WP:BIO is the notability issue. WP:MUSIC is just a subset of WP:BIO - generally by default at AFD, when dealing with people, we refer to BIO for notability, or one of the more specific pages. In essence, BIO already asks "are there awards, significant reliable coverage?", while MUSIC goes into a bit more detail about charting singles, etc. Still, BIO is the primary one, and it'd be fine to refer to either.

FWIW, Takeyasu is more of a composer/producer instead of a performer. MUSIC applies to both, but moreso used with performers for some reason. Best, JamieS93 16:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Bali. Not seeing any reliable sources that show any true notability. Jack Merridew 23:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There apprears to be a lack of reliable sources. Stormbay (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Stormbay says. Imdb for example, is not a very good source to use as a reference.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 06:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Searching under the Japanese spelling "竹安弘" might produce better results. SharkD Talk 09:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having searched the usual venues, I cannot find reliable sources to satisfy WP:BLP or meet WP:BIO notability standards. JamieS93 22:55, 1 February 2010 (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) 00:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tetsuya Fujii[edit]

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

Delete. NN astronomer, fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the notability guidelines. Connormah (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sourcing or notability here. --DAJF (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search for "Tetsuya Fujii" Astronomer -wikipedia -forum brings 56 results, mostly wiki echoes. Absence of Japanese page wiki page is also unusual in this case. Materialscientist (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2010 (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. Nominator later !voted weak keep; so this is effectively a withdrawn nomination. (non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saunaka Risi Dasa[edit]

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

Article about a director that is not notable and has no reliable sources that attribute notability to the subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Please note that there are multiple spellings of this name. Per user Gaura (thank you), please also use the name Shaunaka. I must add though, that even with the information provided by this new search, I still feel that this individual is not notable - but yet the director of a notable institution. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are plenty of sources to verify claimed notability. executive member of the Northern Ireland Interfaith Forum, Director of OCHS that publishes Hindu Studies Journal[92], also one of the directors and a member of ISKCON Studies Institute, of ISKCON MED (Ministry of Educational Development).[93] Please note that according to the iskcon.com and other reliable third party sources he is also a director of ISKCON communications Europe [94], [95]. I guess the fact that his name is spelled sometimes Saunaka Rsi does not help (I have added alt spellings to the list above). He is one of the european leaders according to [Bhaktivedanta College] site [96] and is often referenced such as at Euro-GBC site.[97] Unlike others in recent AfD there are actually completely independent and not self-published sources to support his notability: As a director of OCHS and an executive member of the Northern Ireland Interfaith Forum:The Hare Krishna movement: forty years of chant and change‎ - Page 247 by Graham Dwyer, Richard J. Cole. He is also cited in other notable publications [98], [99]. Wikid ^as© 10:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added RS to the article.--Gaura79 (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sources provided by Gaura. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 18:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmila Ford[edit]

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

Member of a board, not notable and no reliable sources attribute notability to the subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Member of a board of Hindu studies is not enough claims for notability. Not a Hinduism scholar herself. Seems to be an administrative or honorary member as the wife of Alfred Ford. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a couple of passing mentions in articles about her husband, but nothing remotely amounting to significant coverage of Sharmila. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a scholar. MiRroar (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- Merge to her husband's page -- Alfred Ford as per ATD policy. This individual does not have sufficient notability or sufficient material to have a separate page. Wikid ^as© 11:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Wikidas. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass our bio notability guidelines, and there really is nothing to merge to her husband's article (even otherwise a bad idea). –SpacemanSpiff 08:42, 3 February 2010 (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Movie Cars Database[edit]

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

The only sources are from 2006 when the site was founded, with no substantial coverage afterward. A brief flurry of coverage from around the foundation does not translate to full blown notability if the site never got any coverage from third party sources after its foundation. Prod declined with a proposed merge to IMDb simply because it ~~shares a founder~~ was inspired by IMDb -- not a good idea in my opinion given the tenuous connection. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sites don't share a founder. Rather, the merge requester said that the founders of this database were inspired by IMDb. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which would make the connection all the more tenuous and the merge all the less plausible. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There were plenty of links that could be used as third party sources, until the Nominee removed them. ----DanTD (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically, nobody cares about this stuff (I sincerely hope...) so it's not notable. Chutznik (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Being "inspired" by something notable does not equal notability. Alexa rank is a really unimpressive 61,130. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. The name really rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it. JBsupreme (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This site passes WB:WEB IMO because it does have substantive coverage, delete votes should be made on the basis of WP:NOT#NEWS. Polarpanda (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2010 (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seat configurations of the Airbus A380[edit]

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

This is a redundant list as information is given in the respective airline articles. It can be noted at Airbus A380 that there are seat layouts with higher or lower density, but such a seperate, confusing list is just not needed. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC) edit: Furthermore, there is a nearly infinite number of possible seat configs, therefore this list is never-endable. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There would appear to be enough editors who care about this to keep this page encyclopedically referenced and updated enough to be useful. I see a steady set of edits since 2008. For that matter, there's a likely argument that a series of pages like Seat configurations of the Douglas DC-9 would usefully collect and centralize information that would otherwise be splattered over a whole lot of individual airline pages. (That's the argument that pulled Visa requirements for Mongolian citizens out of Mongolian passport, with a long set of edit wars and reverts resulting in a so far mostly fruitful conclusion on Talk:Passport. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Per Ed Vielmetti. smithers - talk 02:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable or encyclopedic and this not a travel guide - better suited to a fan boy website like http://plane.spottingworld.com/ or http://wikitravel.org/ MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Airbus A380. Seat configurations do not pass WP:N, and it doesn't seem to warrant its own article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for several reasons including per MilborneOne's and Per aspera ad Astra's arguments. The article is an orphan, a grand total of three articles link to this, of which two are "see alsos" (with one of those being added since this debate was opened). The "steady set of edits since 2008" total nine, of which four are just clean-ups (format/spelling etc.), one gives us the row layout for Air France (and should be treated with suspicion - how can there be nine seats in a 1-2-1 layout, 343 seats in a 3-4-3 layout, 80 seats in a 2-2-2 layout, or 106 seats in a 2-4-2 layout?) and one informs us that Malaysia Airlines' seating config is "To Be Advised"; in other words no substantive changes to the article since 2008, it is inaccurate and well out of date now (no mention of Air Austral and its two all-economy aircraft ordered) and is not really being edited to improve it. As for Edward Vielmetti's suggestion that each aircraft type should have an article like this, I agree, in that we should either have a seating article for all types, or have none at all - and favour none at all. Stating the obvious now, within the constraints of the design it is the airline that chooses the seating configuration, not the aircraft manufacturer, and if one wants to find out the seating config of an airline's aircraft surely s/he would go to the airline article or the airline's own website. It wouldn't have occurred to me to go looking for a WP article of this nature to find out this information for any aircraft type. Imagine trying to do an article like this for the DC-9, A320 or 737; the seating article would be impossible to maintain and would end up bigger than the aircraft type article. Perhaps we should have List of Boeing 737-800 operators that choose a 180-seat configuration, List of Boeing 737-800 operators that choose a 174-seat configuration and so on - and please don't even Think about running that up the flagpole as a sensible or viable suggestion. YSSYguy (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- maintainable, notable, referenced, what is not to like. Above argument is contradictory: "article is an orphan, a grand total of three articles link to this". Last time I checked linking to an article makes it not an orphan. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reading through the deletion arguments, I don't see the problem:
- What's confusing about it? Can't that be fixed through editing?
- That the same information can be found scattered across several articles doesn't mean that a list that collates related information into one article is "redundant".
- The article isn't about possible seat configurations, it's about ones actually used by airlines flying the A380, meaning it has about 15 entries. It might eventually have, good heavens, a few dozen entries.
- Merging into Airbus A380 isn't viable, as that article is quite lengthy as it is. A brief mention of the range of layouts in that article, with a link to this "main" article on A380 seat configs is consistent with our organizational style.
- "Not notable/not encyclopedic/not a travel guide" -- I don't see it. This is concrete information about how the various airlines have outfitted their A380s, and it appears to be well-sourced. List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries strikes me as more fanboyish than this list -- though since it's appropriately sourced and organized, I wouldn't think of deleting it either. I did at one point move the production list of A380s to PlaneSpottingWorld, since its sourcing was very sketchy. I wouldn't say the same about this article -- the sourcing could be improved, but it looks like it can be completely reliably sourced.
- "Out of date/inaccurate" -- unless it's impossible to correct the information, that is never a reason to delete an article.
- Other aircraft don't have seating config articles -- WP:WAX. That we don't have an article on something doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article on something.
--Father Goose (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A subject covered in the popular media. Surely covered by specialist interest groups. Needs editing of course. The table is too wide. Is too focused no NOW, ie is not written to be timeless, but this will improve by itself with time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per MilborneOne and YSSYGuy. This article is non-notable. The notable fact about A380 seating configurations is that the aircraft can seat so many people. That is covered in the root A380 article. Whether or not the passengers sit 2 abreast or three abreast is not notable. If someone needs information like that, they visit a site the specializes in that, like Seat Guru. Not Wikipedia. Would the article need to cover every possible configuration of the aircraft? What about special cases where they remove a seat or two for some reason, does that need to be included? Just because you can list something doesn't mean you should. What about List of Airbus A380 seat fabric options? I don't think that article would be any more notable than this. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A devil's advocate response to DGG: What about List of Airbus A380 food options, or List of Airbus A380's with WiFi, or List of Airbus A380 ticket prices? Those are all things people care about (and definitely more so than my seat fabric example), but they're not appropriate for Wikipedia. The people who are interested in the seating arrangements of the aircraft will find that information in the places they are looking for it, such as a specialized site like SeatGuru or the airline's website where they are buying their ticket from! Finally, the List of Airbus A380 routes was deleted for just this reason; Wikipedia isn't the place for this type of information. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some degree of detailed coverage for topics of this sort is appropriate, & I think this is about right. Most people care much more about how many seats are in a row than in the color of the upholstery. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is complete invention! Do you have sources? Abductive (reasoning) 19:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Modify.I created this article to keep the A380 article free of details and to put the references in a "visual" form, as there was some controversial "discussion" on this (on the A380 article). But I think too, that the information goes too far for a WP article. I think it could be changed to "List of Airbus A380 operators" (as the List of Boeing 747 operators, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_747_operators) taking this from the List of A380 orders and deliveries and include 4 columns for passenger counts in First, Business, Economy plus and Economy class. One specific characteristic of the A380 is the flexibility on this topic, but the details should be let for other sites. Cirrocumulus (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good approach to me.--Father Goose (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query. Can somebody explain to me how this isn't completely redundant to the Airbus A380 article? The Airbus A380 article even has the same images. Abductive (reasoning) 00:29, 4 February 2010 (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.