Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 8

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 7 August 9 August >

Purge server cache

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. Consensus is to keep, with advice for expansion. tedder (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Rabbit

edit
Peter Rabbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating this article for deletion because it appears to be chiefly a rehash of the article The Tale of Peter Rabbit. Nothing is said in Peter Rabbit that cannot be said (or has been said) in the primary article. The Peter Rabbit article is principally unsourced, and includes a duplicate plot summary from the primary article. The "list" of Peter's appearances in other Potter books can be effectively merged into the primary article and Peter Rabbit deleted. While Peter Rabbit fans will probably deplore the deletion of this article and Peter Rabbit is a cultural icon, there is nothing in this article that truly merits a stand alone article. At best, I would like to see Peter Rabbit redirected to The Tale of Peter Rabbit and its content merged where appropriate with the primary article, but, failing that, I support the article's deletion. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I see no reason to delete this article. It is reasonably well written as it stands and can always be improved. It serves as an introduction to an iconic character and also as a handy summary of the various Peter Rabbit books. Markhh (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the Wikipedia deletion policy, article deletion is not based solely on the current article contents. In this case the article quite clearly meet the general notability guideline; even a rather casual browsing of the news, books, scholar links above shows that there are numerous secondary reliable sources to draw from. The character appears in several stories, not just The Tale of Peter Rabbit and there are plenty of sources that deal with the character in a broader sense, not just as an element of that specific story. Siawase (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The two topics are distinct, clear and both encyclopedic, and content overlap is not excessive. I'm tempted to say strong keep but before doing that I'd like to understand the context of the proposal... it sounds like it's really a merge proposal (which I'd also oppose) but I can't see any evidence that it has been previously raised as one. Andrewa (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The Tale of Peter Rabbit. Doesn't really need to be a separate article. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrewa's argument, with a hint of Siawese's. PR is important enough in his own right and this can easily become a good article. Of course the character has a lot to do with the book, but there are plenty of differences also. The bit about PR being licensed, for instance, should receive treatment separately from the book. There's scholarly work also. I don't know if you all can see this, but it's interesting--a scholarly article on Peter Rabbit the icon/myth/image, not the book (W. Nikola-Lisa, "The Cult of Peter Rabbit: A Barthesian Analysis," The Lion and the Unicorn 15.2 (1991): 61-66.). In other words, Peter has plenty of notability, and AfD is not for article improvement. Won't some loving soul turn this into a Good Article, please? Drmies (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy art

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

Original research / neologism. Oscarthecat (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TripleTree

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

Nothing of note about the company. All sources are company's own website. Oscarthecat (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. and recreated as a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I think this book has problems with WP:BK. Nothing on Gnews, Gscholar cites are only from articles written by the author of the book, who I hazard to guess is the author of this article as well (owing to a similarity in name). Contested PROD. RayTalk 06:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete, AfD participants have apparently found no reliable coverage beyond trivial mentions on websites. JamieS93 be kind to newcomers 19:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NXTdim

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

This software add-on seems to be not notable as of yet, after a search on the net. 481 results in Google, with no results in Google News. The only websites referenced are the product's offical sites. In addition, the originator of the article seems to be a SPA, only creating articles that are related to a software company called the Cadac Group. Pax85 (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Broken!

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

An album made by a band before they were (in)famous that did not chart anywhere and is not available for download anymore. –Merqurial (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons mentioned above:

BC13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BC13 Mix - EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BC13 - EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Astronaut (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corecard Software, Inc.

edit
Corecard Software, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dubious notability. Created by single-purpose account. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I noticed this article when someone added unhelpful links to Credit card. I cannot find (and the article certainly does not contain) sources that satisfy WP:CORP. There is no assertion of notability. It's just another another company seeking promotion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 17:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew please note this article is about a business run by a Georgia Tech alumni, Leland Strange who has been involved in the company in one way or another sine 1984. The article helps give background on other articles, VisionPlus was created by this compnay prior to them selling the rest of the business to First Data, First Data this compnay was spun out of First Data , TYSYS lists this compnay as a competitor, and one on prepaid cards the compnay makes products to support that market. There is no mention of any of the company’s current products or discussion of their current sales efforts. The artilce is very similiar to the articles on First Data and TYSYS. If you are nomintaing this for deletion then I suggest you do the same for TYSYS and First Data. Finally please note that it was reviewed by Trevor MacInnis and he said it was OK but needed more links which is why they were added to the other places. If the credit card one was not helpful we can delete it. Noswadmot (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying it should be deleted; this is a discussion as to whether the company is notable enough for Wikipedia. I think WP:CORP is the guideline there. Read that page, and if you can find some newspaper articles about the company and link them here then the article might be kept. The fact that it was created by a Georgia Tech alumni doesn't necessarily mean that the company is notable. I love Tech, but Wikipedia policies sadly do not take that into account :p —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to point out that this article is a cleanup of a previous artilce that was up for quit some time. The previous entry was not very refelective of what I have seen about other organizations and all I am trying to do is make it similiar to artilces about other companies, please look at TSYS and First Data, compnaies very similiar to CoreCard to judge. Here is a copy of the previous text so you can also compare the original entry to the new entry.

CoreCard Software, Inc. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search CoreCard Software, Inc., previously known as Delos Payment Systems, is a privately-held company based in Norcross, Georgia. The company was founded in April 2001 when it spun out of PaySys International (PaySys) prior to the completion of First Data Corporation’s acquisition of PaySys and its COBOL-based product line. CoreCard's largest investor is Intelligent Systems Corporation [AMEX: INS], a major shareholder of PaySys since 1993. Other institutional shareholders include Oak Investment Partners, Advent GECC, Grubb & Williams and Capital Resource Partners. Comprised primarily of engineers from PaySys’ research and development group, the company retained ownership of the intellectual property resulting from PaySys’ efforts to develop a flexible software platform and then re-wrote its industry-leading, full-featured card management and transaction processing software. Previously, the lack of viable and affordable technologies forced card issuers to either continue using in-house mainframe systems that were becoming increasingly expensive to maintain, or outsource this function completely. With outsourcing, issuers had to contend with lengthy contract terms and costly early terminations fees. Issuers also had to accept the lack of product differentiation, with no real-time access to customer data, and sometimes lackluster service. With three decades of ___domain expertise in the card industry, the CoreCard team is committed to providing financial service organizations with next-generation card applications that will help them compete both locally and globally. CoreCard’s value-based pricing and its ability to offer Tandem®-like throughput on Intel®-based hardware ensure that even organizations with as few as 10,000 card accounts in their portfolio will yield a return on their investment. CoreCard is currently providing issuing solutions for BankCard, Debit card, Credit card, Prepaid card, Corporate card, Fleet card, Reward card and Private Label card issuing solutions. Corecard's website can be found at http://www.corecard.com Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoreCard_Software,_Inc." Noswadmot (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay D Clark

edit
Jay D Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable musician. Fails WP:BAND Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus spring

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

I can find no reliable sources indicating this usage. bd2412 T 02:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Percutane

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

Very spammish, and created by an SPA whose username is suggestive of the product's creator. I stopped short of DB-spam because the refs give some suggestion of notability. However, ref 1 reads like a press release, ref2 is unverifiable (paid archive service) leaving only the Herald article. I suspect a notable product would have made a few more news or magazine headlines in the ensuing 9 years, but all the leading google hits (heavily diluted due to the name being a synonym for percutaneous) are for vendors. dramatic (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proximity Butterfly

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

Non notable band. Belongs on myspace. Does not meet WP:BAND Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. tedder (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manel Ribera

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

WP:AUTOBIO, non-notable per WP:MUSIC, unreferenced, orphan Per Ardua (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Hanson

edit
AfDs for this article:
Brad Hanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

DELETE. I initially tagged this as a speedy delete (db-repost) but was later informed that it was not a repost. I'm not completely sure about that, but what I do know is that this article fails WP:BLP, lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications, and is about a completely non-notable subject every which way. The outcome should be the same I think. JBsupreme (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. unless someone actually produces the sources we can't really consider them Spartaz Humbug! 22:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cherie Lim

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

All that I can is one trivial mention, non-reliable sources, and reprints of Wikipedia. She doesn't even have an IMDB page. Her being married to the 6th richest man in Singapore does not show this actress's notability. Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Huge amounts of coverage in The Straits Times in the early 1990s, nowhere else in English. She's probably notable, it's just hard to find Singaporean sources. Noisalt (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This looks like a subject that needs an editor familiar with Chinese(?) to be able to research sources. As a blog, this is of course not a reliable source, but it does give some indication that the subject may have been a notable actress. Based on a search for "林里嫔" given as teh name in the blog, "林里嫔"&cf=all Google News isn't empty but I have not idea what these results mean. I would worry about systemic bias in this particular case. -- Whpq (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not systemic bias.....it's verifiability. If I can't read the source, I can't WP:Verify it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - Although English sources are preferred, non-English sources are acceptable. And for subjects that are not well covered in English language sources, it will be difficult from a verification standpoint, but certainly it is not impossible as there are editors on the English wikipedia who can read Chinese. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eldon Hentges

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

An elected local official who does not meet the provisions of WP:POLITICIAN. Deprodded by the creator who appears to be directly connected to the subject. Crafty (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. ... and redirect. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyjuan

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

DELETE. Non-notable musician with nothing in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources. Notability is not inherited by group affiliation, either. JBsupreme (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Chedid

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

Non-notable autobiography (created by User:Phchedid). Google News only brings one result. After cleaning out stuff like Wikipedia and Facebook, Google only gets 50 results. One of his higher claims, that he is an "Officer of the National Order of the Cedar", gets no results on Google when compared with his name. The article has been deleted three times now and Chedid keeps on bringing it back. Sandor Clegane (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GS search for 'author:"Philippe Chedid"' gives no cites. Must be Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The most liberal WoS search, Author=(chedid p*), reveals on only 4 articles and h-index of 2 – He certainly doesn't make it on WP:PROF #1. Perhaps someone familiar with the Lebanese academic system can comment on whether his position satisfies WP:PROF #6 – that would be the only possibility of passing. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.

Marty Ball (Beach Sport)

edit
Marty Ball (Beach Sport) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No GNews or GHits. Fails for meet WP:NOTE. Certainly a candidate for made up in one day. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Keep as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International parental abduction in Japan

edit
International parental abduction in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research  Chzz  ►  23:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The article could do with more detailed footnotes, but it appears to be reliably referenced, so the simple "Original research" reason given for deletion is not valid here. Nominator could have considered tagging the article as "Original research" first if he/she had concerns. --DAJF (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Footnotes and links added. Will rewrite the article to keep wiki style. Links made to site so it is no longer orphaned. Reason for deletion is not valid. 12:46, 9 August 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.64.103 (talk)
  • Keep: Needs to be wikified and sourced, but if a little care is taken with bringing the article up to spec, it should be included. Billbowery (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work, including additional sources, but given current sources appears to be a notable topic, and that is all we should be judging here. Article is currently written from a neutral point of view, which would be my biggest concern. Keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BMX Sports WA

edit
BMX Sports WA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources cited, probably doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject may be notable (just barely), but the edit history looks sketchy. I see a substantive edit in 2007, then on;y maintenance type edits. I'll understand if this isn't a valid reason for deletion, but when a site mentions an upcoming event in 2008, the article isn't getting any attention from anyone who cares about the content. The single link is interesting - appears to be a real organization, but no evidence of a meeting after February of this year. --SPhilbrickT 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Silver State Trio

edit
The Silver State Trio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musical group, deprodded after seven days, 9.5 hours by a new account, consistent with a known persistent sockmaster. Abductive (reasoning) 20:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. Jclemens (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural artifact

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

Completely unsourced (the one external link doesn't cover this), and has been for two years, despite being tagged. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 20:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? It's nothing to do with television... ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake. I must have pressed the wrong button. :) Theleftorium 14:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a neglected stub. That alone doesn't warrant deletion; if someone finds it and takes care of it, great. For now, there's nothing contentious about it, the term itself is worthy of an article, and it has the potential to one day become a better article. Seb az86556 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, dammit. AfD is a seriously flawed process, if this sort of stuff can show up. Makes me wonder what gets through Speedy...1,040 Google Books hits for the exact phrase "Cultural artifact". A term used throughout the entire social science spectrum from archaeology to psychology, but more widely used in the sciences noted in the article. (anthropology: Richard J. Watts. The pragmalinguistic analysis of narrative texts. ethnology: Rob Amery. Warrabarna Kaurna!. and sociology: Mary Gauvain. The social context of cognitive development.) 'Cultural artifact' as scientific terminology is over 60 years old, as a Google scholar search for the exact term used between the years 1942 and 1955 shows. Anarchangel (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rishloo

edit
AfDs for this article:
Rishloo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band does not appear to meet notability standards. Not signed by a major label or recognized indie, no charted songs or albums, scant Google hits (mainly this article and sites controlled by the band). No independent references from reliable sources. I just can't find anything out there that would supports notability for this group. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was redirect to Max Fisher. feel free to merge anything useful Spartaz Humbug! 22:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Fisher Sherman

edit
Jane Fisher Sherman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Strip out the references to the two (undeniably notable) relatives and one is left with a little more than a very short biographical blurb that is thin on notability and does not seem to lend itself to expansion. The cited sources are not much more than references to her, falling far short of the coverage that typically suffices for WP:Bio. Maybe her work for the Jewish Agency for Israel does the trick, but otherwise I don't see notability here. JohnInDC (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anais Alexander

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

fails WP:PORNBIO, no reliable sources, no other indications of notability Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Belcastro

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

Has been tagged as possibly non-notable for two years. No independent coverage that I can find, probably doesn't meed the general notability guideline. All the secondary links on the page are dead. Noisalt (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the comment above - notability is questionable at best, and the one potential for notability is a dead link. That leaves nothing to support notability, and few hints that notability might be established with a little work.--SPhilbrickT 16:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bera

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

Has been tagged as possibly non-notable for two years. One source is a dead link, one doesn't mention him, one is trivial. Probably doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VV Tikves

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

organization fails WP:NOTABILITY RP459 (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy redirect to Reading F.C. season 2009-10. I am expediating the closure here in the belief that redirecting a duplicate article with an almost identical title is uncontroversial enough to justify a speedy close. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading F.C. Season 2009-10

edit
Reading F.C. Season 2009-10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason for deletion is fairly simple, there is another page of better quality and detail and there is no point in having two pages the same See Reading F.C. season 2009-10 Ajpralston1 (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article looks much better now, I don't believe a merge is needed. Tone 14:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boating Lake Park

edit
Boating Lake Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, probably doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinensis Tea Company

edit
Sinensis Tea Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. A Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources. The author likely has a WP:COI with the company per their comments at User talk:Cunard#Sinensis Tea Company (permalink). Cunard (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was redirect to Monday's Hero. Tone 12:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bock

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

No sources, probably doesn't meet the general notability guideline. He's only been in one band with a WP page (Monday's Hero), but even that's probably not notable. Noisalt (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Monday's Hero. I have no idea if the band is notable, but as a member of the band, the redirect would be appropriate as I can find no individual notability for him. As for the band, it's not up for AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suzetta Miñet

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

Non-notable actress; has appeared in two video games according to IMDB and has no other claim to notability in the article.  Frank  |  talk  22:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, she is most likely an alias. She has no history, pictures, or interviews to be found. I personally believe she is Debi Mae West due to the video evidence that compares both voices, but that's irrelevant. Regardless of whose alias she is, she doesn't really deserve her own article.--Stripedtiger (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the body of work doesn't establish notability. And the speculation about it being an alias is all in blogs and forums. So there are no reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig L. Russell (software architect) (2nd nomination)

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. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Brink

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

May be an important artist, not clear. Sources cannot be found, probably does not meet the general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Watson (drummer)

edit
Jeff Watson (drummer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined a CSD nom for this article because of the implied claim to notability by being the drummer for two notable bands. However, I can't find any indication of notability to build an article with. If such can be found, I'd be happy to help build the article.  Frank  |  talk  23:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources about him other than listing him in the band – only trivial mentions. Fails the general notability guideline. I don't think this can ever be more than the one sentence. Noisalt (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Sully (Avatar)

edit
Jake Sully (Avatar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article about a character in a semi-notable film seems rather unnotable. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_GameZombie_video_game_developer_interviews

edit
AfDs for this article:
List_of_GameZombie_video_game_developer_interviews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is merely a list of content available from this organization, and should be removed as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is already a link from GameZombie to it's web page, which is sufficient. wikial (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think it's sufficient that the official site already lists the interviews, plus they have a You tube library of all this. If this list was something that supported other wiki articles on the subject, then I'd say keep. But it's not a reference list. Possibly add the link to the You tube library into the main article. Also, the number of game designers interviewed could be added to the main article, with perhaps a few famous designers mentioned, but to list every person is too much. Ebonyskye (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The strongest argument for keeping this article is that this library of living, notable video game developers has value to anyone interested in the art and business of interactive entertainment. I agree with Ebonyskye that the list could be enhanced or made more relevant by making it support other wiki articles on the subject. Also, each individual developer interview could be followed by a brief description of the content of the interview, the exact date and game conference, internal links to relevant wiki articles, and perhaps an external link to the interview on the web. Television programs often contain exhaustive lists of episode details. Here is the equivalent for people researching the video game industry. Furthermore, this list calls attention to certain notable game developers for whom a wiki article should exist, but for whom one has not yet been started. Simply providing the external link to the complete library does not sufficiently explain for video game scholars the depth of opportunity for discovery that this rich and growing developer interview archive contains. — CrossfireCT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was redirect to Jack Russel Terrier. I've deleted the other one because it's unprobable. Any useful info can still be merged. Tone 14:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shorty Jack Russell Terrier and Shorty Jack Russel Terrier

edit
Shorty Jack Russell Terrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unreferenced OR Bazj (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shorty Jack Russel Terrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unreferenced OR Beach drifter (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eela Tamilakam

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

I believe this article is original research. A google search for "Eela Tamilakam" turns out nothing but this article. As a citizen of Sri Lanka, I have never heard of it either (but that is not relevant here I guess). The article seems to be talking about something similar to, but not exactly Eelam. Even the given references do not mention this name (1st ref from Madras University merely mentions the meaning of the word eelam, and the 2nd ref from tamilcanadian - which is not WP:RS anyway - is about the history of Eelam) The country is not divided into tamil speaking or any other language speaking parts, so there is no way this can exist anyway. "Nagatheevu", which this article says is another name for "Eela Tamilakam" is actually a name for the small island of Nainathivu.[10] This is enough to prove that this article is OR I think. While some of the information given in the article is correct with regard to Sri Lanka or Eelam, we can safely assume that "Eela Tamilakam" is non-existent. ≈ Chamal talk 08:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nagatheepam

Hi You cannot justify to delete the article regarding Nagatheepam previously knowns as Eela Tamilakam. First the name Eela Tamilakam was largely unknown to many non tamils as it was present only in Tamil epics. so i changed the most common name known as. i have added more reliable references in it to justify the presence of Tamils and their kingdom in ancient period. As few Sinhala people started showing their real face in Wikipedia too. now this is the matter of disputes. deleting this article fully may results in serious of debate and dispute. if they want to delete certain part of the article they have to edit that part with valid reasons and citations. Chamal can feel free to talk about this to with me. You can assume Eela Tamilakam can be non-existent but you cannot assume the Tanporunai or Nagatheepam can be non-existant. --BlueLankan 12:16,1 August 2009 (UTC)

If that article is about Nagatheepam or Nagadeepa, there is already an article at Nainathivu and the information should be added there. However, your article seems to be a mix of information about Nainathivu, Eelam and Jaffna Kingdom brought under a single topic that can be found nowhere else but in this Wikipedia article. That is why I believe it is WP:OR. I have commented on your talk page about the accusation you have made. Your inline citations support individual facts, and do not talk about a single entity like a "tamil country" in any name, whether it is Eela Tamilakam or Nagatheepam or whatever. ≈ Chamal talk 03:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(for now):The whole thing may be badly written but you shouldn't embark on a raid when it's barely 2 days old, seems to have some value and is clearly labeled as being "under construction." Advice to the first author/page creator: next time you write something, make it a subpage to your userpage and mess around *there* until you think it's ready for public scrutiny. When you post something half-done into main space, this is what happens. Seb az86556 (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 22:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading With Rover

edit
Reading With Rover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Attention solely from local media with the a trivial mention in a single source from out of the region. Also, only trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources Cptnono (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: An alternative to deletion could be allowing a stub based on this Seattle based company and the couple other similar programs found elsewhere.Cptnono (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support merging what's there (which is really only a mention) into a broader article on the subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Examiner is not RS. The cool thing is that those all mention separate cities. If local attention is given to those in RS the scope of the article can be adjusted to the movement of such organizations.Cptnono (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in the discussion earlier, this was kept because of its relevance to social trends. Please see the discussion page for the article. These other additions are welcome, too. Wakablogger2 (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping it was a mistake unless we can find valid sources (WP:RELIABLE) that go into detail on the social trend. If someone finds those and adds them it should be kept. I have had a hard time finding such sources in a few attempts over the last several months. The coverage is not signifigant from what I have found and does not meet the the level of noteworthiness required for the project. Personally, I do find it interesting and think it would be great if someone could find those.Cptnono (talk)
Here are some links that describe how dogs are being used these days. In the past, dogs were used for rescue or for the blind. In recent decades, however, the social uses for dogs has grown greatly, and the Reading with Rover article is important because it is indicative of that trend and because it is an important part of the culture in Washington State (whose project it belongs to).

[[11]]

  • Dogs for the Blind
  • Hearing and Signal Dogs
  • Assistance Dogs
  • Canine Companions for Independence
  • Assistance Dog International (ADI)
  • Paws with a Cause (PAWS)
  • National Education for Assistance Dog Services, Inc.
  • Therapy Dogs

[[12]]

  • Autism
  • Aspergers
  • Mental Health D/O
  • Dementia
  • Mild Mental Retardation
  • Brain Injury (traumatic or chemical)

[[13]] for children with autism and their families Wakablogger2 (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more, this time from books:

[[14]] A recent growing trend is the training of "service dogs." These animals help physically handicapped owners by fetching dropped objects, pulling wheelchairs up ramps, forcing open heavy doors, and doing other tasks that allow their owners to achieve independence despite their handicaps. - Opportunities in animal and pet care careers by Richard Sandoval Lee

[[15]] An animal may participate with a person in pet therapy at many levels. The most basic function would be to provide companionship and affection, allowing patients to pet and stroke the animal. A higher level of therapy would be the use of dogs that are trained to allow patients to groom them, hold them, and engage in closer care of them. - Spiritual care in nursing practice By Kristen L. Mauk, Nola A. Schmidt, page 261.

Wakablogger2 (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, we still need to have significant coverage. Your primary sources and google book sources are also more along the lines of therapy dogs and service dogs.Cptnono (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those sources indicate how animals are being used in society today, an incredible trend that nobody would have guessed just a few decades ago. Here are some cites from newspapers and TV that talk about Reading with Rover:
[[16]] KOMO news: We all know that dogs can learn to fetch or sit on command, but what about helping children with their reading? That's the concept behind an innovative program in Woodinville that's being featured on national TV....Moose and Becky are at Woodmoor Elementary for Reading With Rover, a program she helped create. It's where kids who have trouble reading read aloud to therapy dogs.
[[17]] The Seattle Times: [The dog's] expression never changed, not even when Nicholas stumbled over tricky words like "guava." ...That's the whole idea behind "Reading with Rover," a summer program for children at the Bothell and Kenmore branches of the King County Regional Library System. The program pairs companion dogs with kids who may be uncomfortable reading aloud. The dogs provide their rapt attention and the children can read aloud without fear of criticism or interruption....Wu modeled the Bothell program after a two-year-old program at the Salt Lake City Public Library called Reading Education Assistance Dogs (READ), which also pairs children with trained therapy dogs who listen patiently as children read.
[[18]] The Seattle Times: Reading with Rover pairs trained dogs with children struggling to read. The child reads aloud to the dog, building confidence and reducing stress.
[[19]] Seattle PI: Bourbon is one of eight dogs that visit Woodmoor on Thursdays under a program called "Reading with Rover," designed to boost literacy skills for children who have difficulty mastering them.
[[20]] nwnews.com: Woodinville’s own Becky Bishop, and her Reading with Rover program are once more the subject of attention, only this time, it’s on a national level....A production crew from the show “Animal Planet” came to Woodin- ville [sic] recently to film Bishop and her Reading with Rover teams of handlers and their dogs. They shot footage in the reading lab at Woodmoor Elementary for a segment on an upcoming documentary, narrated by Jane Goodall, focusing on animal-human communication....Reading with Rover began about five years ago when Bothell librarian MieMie Wu approached Bishop about the idea of having kids read to dogs. Wu had heard about a program in Utah called R.E.A.D. (Reading Education Assistance Dogs), which uses dogs to help kids improve their reading skills and increase their confidence. She set out to start a similar program in Washington and named it “Reading with Rover.”
Even more cites can be found at [[21]]. Wakablogger2 (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is all local. It does not meet the requirements required for an organization to have an article. If the article is supposed to be about more than local add to the therapeutic dog article per the sources you mentioned previously or find significant coverage of a national/international trend. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Cptnono (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the Seattle Times and the Seattle PI are local? What is regional? We don't have a Washington Times... The only other thing is the Animal Planet. I think it's an important part of a trend, the articles in the major newspapers give it press. I give up now. Good luck and I hope someone finds a "regional" newspaper. Wakablogger2 (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is local coverage of a local organization. People as close as Yakima and Portland probably haven't heard a thing. Regardless of that, the article has been here to improve for months but it doesn't like it could be. Even if someone would have stuffed information in it would be better in other preexisting articles.Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OrINAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VXIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4472,599979
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/snohomishcountynews/2001984144_firstbooks21n.html
http://www.seattlepi.com/moore/267929_moore25.html
http://www.newsherald.com/news/city-71015-panama-rover.html
http://www.etsu.edu/coe/cuai/issues_RT/TN%20READ%202002%201.pdf (pages 27-28) — Rankiri (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are all local coverage of different local groups. If someone can make the article about the push for such programs I would not object but so far I don't see signifigant coverage as a whole.Cptnono (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guidelines for organizations (WP:GROUP) state that the subject must be "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale". It goes on to say "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area" Since they are not related organizations, this second part does not allow for the article since it is only of a local scale without significant coverage from non local sources. The information might be better in the other dog related links mentioned above or will have to be worked into an article about the general idea. I think it is a great program and should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia but it doesn't meet the criteria for an independent article.Cptnono (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read carefully. These are the alternative notability criteria for specific types of organizations: The following sections discuss other alternate methods for establishing notability in specific situations. However, the text of the article must be supported by independent sources, and avoid primary research. Note that failure to meet these criteria does not disprove notability if it can be otherwise demonstrated. The very first sentence of WP:GROUP clearly states that [a]n organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did read that. It could also be argued that it is noteworthy enough based soley on GNG. I still feel that this particular situation calls for a deletion. As I have stated, if someone reworks the scope fo the article (my rough drafts have all failed) I would be less inclined to be pushing for a deletion.Cptnono (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Tran

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

Apparently not notable, unable to locate reliable sources. Apparent autobiography or other conflict of interest with article's creator. One of a series of articles attempting to promote "Inspire Magazine." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. I think WP:V comes into play but I was suprised that AUTHOR no longer has the two book threshold. In closing i discarded Sky Attacker's contribution but the lack of external sourcing has been fatal Spartaz Humbug! 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Levin

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

She has been publishing for two years only, with no awards. Not notable. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete she may be notable from the point of view of insignificant and immature creatures who have a lack of understanding of the real world "children", but that is about it. And what little annoying horrors chidren think is meaningless.--The LegendarySky Attacker 22:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please could we keep this a little more serious...VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If her books are published by Cambridge University Press, she's notable. Additional reviews are needed, however. The length of time she has been a writer is irrelevant, and the comment about children's authors being non-notable is absurd. DGG (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being published by CUP does is not sufficient for notability. She has written several of their stories for children as part of an educational programme. We could include all kinds of people published under the CUP, OUP and Longman graded reader series as notable authors if your statement were true.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. There has been no mention about chidren's authors being non-notable. Rather, children's opinions have no value.--The LegendarySky Attacker 05:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you consider the CUP books which form part of a series as being notable, having had 5 independent books published by a reputable South African publisher in one year I think is notable. There are numerous authors included on the database who have had fewer books published with no accolades. Albatross —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albatross555 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy delete. hoaxalicious StarM 23:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deford Community Airport

edit
Deford Community Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No such airport exists. Appears to be a fabrication. older ≠ wiser 22:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nom withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lumino Kinetic Art

edit
Lumino Kinetic Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Propose a merge to "new media art" - the term is no longer in use to describe what Popper originally intended in the 60s, it is now historically-specific. What is found in this article is *NOT* what Popper describes, and is COI with author Mark Allyn who it seems is trying to sell his art under this moniker: http://www.allyn.com/kinetic/kinetic.html Deadchildstar (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sounds good. An AfD isn't needed to propose that outcome though, for future reference. You can propose a merge and solicit input at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard or the appropriate project page or elsewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the nom has explained on the article's talk page, there are likely COI, BIAS and ADVERT. But why not improve the article, deleting the offensive statements and "describe what Popper originally intended in the 60s" and the actual fate of his intentions? The term seems notable enough for a short stand-alone article, with a See Also ref to New media art or whatever. The mismatch between the article text and references is solely because an uninformed and topic-ignorant editor (me) added the refs to refute an OR claim, as a dePROD rationale. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an article on its own - I have a feeling it's not notable/article worthy. It's not a big thing, and the term is not used in current new media discourse. It seems, from the small amount of research I've done on the topic, it was a very specific and short-lived concept/phrase. An article would be quite short, and weak with few or sketchy sources. The same or similar things exist, but they're called different things now. I'm sure someone could improve the article - a Frank Popper expert for instance - but that's not going to be me, and in the meantime, it seems to make sense that it could roll into history of new media. I didn't know about Merge options, as ChildofMidnight recommended, or I just would have suggested that.Deadchildstar (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just read over the article and looked around a bit. 1) I think there's hardly anything salvageable from this current article. But also 2) - my mistake, it should merge with Kinetic Art (not new media) - there is even a heading in that article for "lumino kinetic artists" (with no supporting context on what that is - and only one artist listed!). The Kinetic Art article isn't too bad, other than it needs more inline citations, and there's WAY more information to be found on Kinetic Art as a whole than on this specific sub-genre, given its long history. What do you think? Deadchildstar (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Notability does not expire, if it was notable even for a short while, it is still notable today. The acid test for "article worthiness" is whether the subject has received multiple independent coverage in reliable sources. This is all that matters. Another outcome could be a merge and redirect into a Frank Popper article. I dont have the knowledge nor the interest to delevelop this. If nobody feels comfortable about making those improvement, the article could be pruned and tagged with {{COI}} which I read is your prime concern. But I dont like the idea that a few ill-informed editors delete content, see WP:PRESERVE. Anyway, as a layperson, I would like to see a RS that this Lumino Art really is a subset of New media art before the merge takes place. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I searched JStor, and found a far more recent (1993) article by Frank Popper: "The Place of High-Technology Art in the Contemporary Art Scene." by Frank Popper. Leonardo, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1993), pp. 65-69. Published by: The MIT Press.
In it, he revisits his research from 30 years prior (the 60s) and discusses predecessors to new media art - he refers to it as "High Technology Art" because of the obvious and long-standing problems with the tern "new" media (this is a whole ongoing debate within new media art discourse - is there a better term?). Without uploading the whole PDF, I'll quote the following and you can tell me if it answers your doubts: "That these artists using new techniques participated more than 20 years ago in the first European Light-Art exhibitions establishes some proof of the continuity and coherence of high-technology art and provides an important link with present-day research. If kinetic and luminokinetic art in general can be regarded as a significant starting-point in the context of high-technology art, the specific area of neon art is particularly illuminating as to the continuity of aesthetic preoccupations linked with technological advancement." (Popper).
Also keep in mind that a Jstor search (journals only) brings up 8 references to "Lumino Kinetic" - and more than half are by Frank Popper himself, it's his term. The other articles reference Popper in context of the term. A search for "Kinetic Art" brings up 31 results, and a search for "new media" brings up 235. I'd also agree with a re-direct to Frank Popper, as well as one to Kinetic Art.Deadchildstar (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I'm researching this - one of the external sources listed on the LKA article points to this site: [23] which is published through the Pompidou Centre in Paris. It clearly places "Lumino Kinetic Art" as a subset of Kinetic Art: "There are different forms of kinetic art, including machines and mobiles, as well as lumino-kinetic works involving light and movement." There is no individual entry for Lumino Kinetic Art in their glossary. Deadchildstar (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems I'm talking to myself on this one. I've now researched the crap out of this. No matter what happens to the article, I can tell you that the content of the article as it stands currently has got to go, it's wrong. The term itself is disputed as to it's origins - there was an early cybernetics artist, Nicolas Schöffer, who used the term in the 50s, and then artist/engineer Frank Malina who came up with the Lumidyne system of lighting, and artist Nino Calos working after him who seemed to work with the term "Limino-kinetic paintings." However -

- Oxford Art Online offers the following sentence fragment as part of a larger list, to the topic, under the larger heading of Kinetic Art: "Frank Joseph Malina (1912–81), Schöffer and György Kepes in that of lumino-kinetic experiment." [1] - I searched through each of the aforementioned Popper articles at Jstor - and there is only a mention in passing of the term - If you go to Google Books, and search within Popper's book "Origins and Development of Kinetic Art," [2] you'll see 3 instances of the word "lumino," two of which refer to Schoffer. - It is an art historical term in the context of kinetic art, Popper states as much in the article I referred to earlier - there is no lumino kinetic art after the early 70s; it stands as a pre-cursor to other contemporary cybernetic, robotic, new media-based arts, and is limited to a very small number of (male) European avant-garde artists (part of the New Tendencies movement) [3]. It is also aligned with Op art in the late 60s because the moving lights were spectacular and psychedelic. [4] - I still contend that an article on Lumino Kinetic Art is going to be two sentences, and it's better served in context of Kinetic Art, which is not such a terrible article. We can just move these references over there, and more importantly, remove the *advertising* off this current page. Why we're showing the article creator's hack jewelry and not some real examples is beyond me. That is all. Deadchildstar (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are not talking to yourself. I'm on the fence, reading, as I simply don't have the knowledge you have. You have, however, just provided the heck of a good input to a completely revised article on the historical use of Lumino kinetic art. I agree that the current content has to go, but with the revised input of yours, the article itself doesnt have to. I will try to produce a draft change tomorrow, hoping that you will provide the specifics on the refs. Thanks. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as keep Although I stated above that I couldnt care less about this topic, I have nevertheless completely rewritten the article based on the excellent research by Deadchildstar. Please check, as I'm a novice here. The content is to be kept, and whether it should possibly be merged into kinetic art is a discussion unsuitable for AfD. Article improvement has no room in AfD either, but I'm very pleased that an AfD nominator has worked so contructively in providing content. Thx. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated it because it was sitting around in PROD going nowhere.... that, and the article was total bs crap. But nice job rewriting it! Though I still think it' an extraordinarily minor "movement" that doesn't need it's own article, this article is no longer deletion-worthy. I'll tweak it a bit too.... Ugh, do I withdraw the nomination? I don't know how to do that. Deadchildstar (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was redirect to One Year War. Redirect for now seems a reasonable consensus, the issues with the other articles can be solved elsewhere,. Tone 12:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation British

edit
Operation British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT violation. Extensive plot information with no out-of-universe context. The fictional event actually occurs before the series begins and simply referred or described by the narrator during the first few episodes. Article was already prodded last month, but was removed without any stated reason. Farix (Talk) 22:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Space Battleship Yamato. Not much content to merge so a redirect for now. Regarding merging the other articles, this is to be discussed on the talkpages, not here. Tone 11:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space Battleship Yamato (arcade game)

edit
Space Battleship Yamato (arcade game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable arcade game. No significant sources available apart from one retrospective fansite page. Wikipedia does not need to have a product page for every video game that ever existed. Ash (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Collier

edit
Adrian Collier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was already speedy deleted once as non-notable. Only notability claim is being an official photographer for the Blue Angels, but there's no references to prove how "notable" that is. Contested prod. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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 think this is an appropriate application of WP:IAR, since the DYK nomination is under way. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification: Technically, what I meant was WP:SNOW. However, because there is now a "rule" against SNOW closures, I am "ignoring" the rule in order to close it. Normally, the 1% chance of an AfD turning out with an unexpected result is enough to wait 7 days, which causes no harm. But letting a DYK go stale is harmful, however small in extent. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No homo

edit
No homo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism. Article has been speedied several times before (and was indeed salted prior to its recreation). Better suited for Wiktionary. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, again, WP:NEO says that neologisms are "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." It also says that although it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society, and thus to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're making my point for me. Phrases like "on the Internet" and "in larger society" are used specifically to make a contrast to reliable sources. Which this article has. Lampman (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete At least one source is non-trivially about the term, but the rest aren't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC) The sources are mostly nontrivial, but I don't know if they really provide enough to make this more than a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please explain to me what does constitute reliable source coverage of the term, beyond five articles in highly reliable publications on the subject. Because I seriously don't know what more would meet the criteria if that doesn't. Lampman (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Of course part of the article is a definition of its subject, just as is any proper encyclopedia article. I disagree with a merge, as this subject wouldn't even merit a parenthetical mention in hip hop culture due to its comparative weight. To me, that move would be akin to merging Surtsey into Europe. I see no policy or practical reason for merging if this subject is in fact notable, which you seem to concede. Strikehold (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The definition here goes beyond explaining what the subject is and wanders into the etymology, etc. of the term (Wiktionary is about terms, Wikipedia is about concepts). As for notability, the cultural aspects part has limited notablility as a part of an article cultural aspects of hip-hop, or perhaps as an article about attitudes to homosexuality in popular culture, but not enough for a standalone article. An article about the term "no homo" rather than the concept it embodies, is not Wikipedia material and should not be more than a redirect to where the concept is discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lampman and Strikehold. Owen× ☎ 11:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The content is fairly encyclopedic and relatively well-sourced, though of course it could use strengthening. The fact that the sources are journalistic rather than "scholarly" strikes me as odd, but that's certainly no reason for deletion. The page is currently an orphan, but there seem to be some pages (e.g. Tori Fixx, Sexual norm) that arguably should have links to this page. Also, the formerly speedy-deleted pages were cited as 'nonsense'; the current page is not that. Cnilep (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sounds like a notable phenomenon and is well sourced. --Alynna (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEO
This page in a nutshell: A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing.
Undeniably meets this requirement. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lampman, Strikehold, Cnilep, and Floydian. The article has context, history, usage and contains valid citations within the text. The New York and Slate pieces are specifically about the phrase, the concept, and it's use. Clearly passes WP:NEO as a reason to keep with multiple WP:RS. — Becksguy (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Oakland to Iceland: A Hip-Hop Homecoming

edit
From Oakland to Iceland: A Hip-Hop Homecoming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In trying to add sources to this article, I'm coming up short. I found a number of passing mentions and press releases, but only two that seem to get us towards meeting WP:Notability. Additionally, I'm not seeing how this meets Wikipedia:Notability_(films). But, independent film isn't my strong suit, so I'm bringing here for discussion rather than prod. (Also note WP:COI issues with article creator.) Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Krhin

edit
Rene Krhin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A played failed WP:athlete, he did made a professional; debut on a official competition. Matthew_hk tc 20:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Mott

edit
Jonathan Mott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable educational administrator DGG (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One difference is that Stephen Reno appears to pass WP:Prof #6. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Ahh, makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Billbowery (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity-based learning

edit
Curiosity-based learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable method; the claimed inventor is not the first to use the rather generic term , according to GScholar; highly promotional article DGG (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G7 by Allen3. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of amateur radio repeaters

edit
List of amateur radio repeaters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory Wtshymanski (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not a directory but a list. Lists are allowed and the scope of this list is appropriate for Wikipedia. Please read the the guidelines here: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists and WIkipedia:Stand-alone lists. --kf4yfd (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Delete - As KF4YFD states, this is not a directory page. This is a legitimate list, well within the scope of Wikipedia. There is absolutely no reason to remove this from the site. It clearly specifies the criteria for a repeater's inclusion, and it's a useful list. It needs to stay. Having seen what's underneath, I'm inclined to agree with Chromacity. This could become a potentially unmaintainable list. Sorry! Thor Malmjursson (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC) edited 11:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the sites below, I'm inclined to agree that this will be unmaintainable and too big a job to be worthwhile, so Delete seems the best option.--Michig (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Repeater lists are notoriously hard to maintain, are out-of-date the moment they're published, and change frequently. There are already plenty of lists far better than this attempt at one on the web anyway; see for example this one (which is publicly updatable), this one, and this one, and this one (which aggregates several other sources). K5EHX alone has nearly 25,000 entries in his database; importing all this data into Wikipedia and keeping abreast of the changes and updates just from K5EHX would be a full-time task. And none of these databases receives regular updates from any of the frequency coordinator bodies. Sadly, I think this effort cannot be maintained at an acceptable encyclopedic quality, and as such the list should be deleted. Chromaticity (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chromaticity. Such information is unmaintainable here. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the votes are in and everyone have a point. This list would become overly large and complicated fast as the number of repeaters is stupendous worldwide. I will find some other way to post such data. Many thanks to all. Delete --kf4yfd (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Speedy deleted G3, and sorry, no lulz from me. NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oswald schwarzkopf

edit
Oswald schwarzkopf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious hoax. I brought it here for the amusement value, and a snow delete. DGG (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vueling Airlines Flight 9127

edit
Vueling Airlines Flight 9127 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non-notable aircraft accident. Nobody was seriously injured, just eight minor injuries on the emergency slide. See WP:AIRCRASH - this doesn't meet any of the criteria given. Simple Bob (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've read the proposal and it's well thought out. The most important point is that information about those incidents that aren't much more than current news will at least be mentioned somewhere. As an alternative to a !keep or !delete, it provides clear directions on where information can be mentioned (such as in a section about the airline, or a type of aircraft problem) as an alternative to a full article; and it results in fewer separate articles than the current WP:AIRCRASH essay envisions. Whether you agree or disagree with Thryduulf's suggestions, they are [[worth looking at. Mandsford (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forex Tester

edit
Forex Tester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to SatNet Radio. Even had an affiliate tracking link as the "official" site. Using Wikipedia for self-promotion and product placement is not the route to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 23:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knuckles Up

edit
Knuckles Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:NALBUM, no independent coverage in reliable sources Dlabtot (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations must be to reliable sources. I see that you are attempting to use jesusfreakhideout.com, as well as a web user submitted reviews on sputnik.com and absolutepunk.net - these do nothing to establish notability. about.com... eh, I don't consider it reliable but I know many think it is borderline... the only real reference you have there is the christianitytoday.... in all, it does not add up to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waves of War

edit
Waves of War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:NALBUM, no independent coverage in reliable sources Dlabtot (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 22:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snuba

edit
Snuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost completely unreferenced. Appears promotional. Powers T 17:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar bowl

edit
Solar bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

seems to be non-notable macbookair3140 (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm unfamiliar with the deletion proces, and have no idea why macbookair3140 would take the trouble to ask for deletion. First of all the Solar Bowl is mentioned in one of wikipedias articles on solar thermal concentrators, but not explained. Second of all it is a distinct, different technology in the solar concentrator with genuine benefits. That is the reason why I created the initial wikipedia entry (under development). I will have a commercial interest in developing the technology, but that is no reason to keep the knowledge from the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunreign (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - on the surface, seems to be a bad nomination. The subject is apparently notable[29][30][31] and the article, such as exists at the moment[32] is sourceable and perhaps sourced. It was nominated for deletion in less than one minute after creation,[33] The article creator admits to a potential WP:COI, being a newbie, and being unfamiliar with process. We all remember writing our first article, right? New editors deserve a little extra slack. Hopefully they will review their "welcome to Wikipedia" package and look to emulate the methods, style, and tone of some of the better articles they can find around here. There are "templates" you can use to indicate that you are in the middle of an article and requesting a little time - I won't point you to them because it's useful to learn the ropes by climbing them. I suggest the nominator withdraw the nomination, watchlist it, correspond with the article creator about any concerns, and consider re-nominating it later if they still believe the subject to be non-notable. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See Wikidemon comment. -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quote relevant to this discussion:

"Most people will never see the differences between high regarded non-obscurity or, the more important, obscurity in high regard"

— Michael Eric Bridgewater, 2007

This does need not apply in all situations, (but perhaps in this one?) Delete--The LegendarySky Attacker 21:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, give that article some time to develop.--The LegendarySky Attacker 21:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Keep. The foundation of the push to delete this article is based primarily on two arguments: (1) it is an old article (by Wikipedia standards) and (2) it cannot be salvaged to meet Wikipedia’s editorial standards. Neither argument has the strength to support a call for deletion. The age of the article is irrelevant – whether it was written in 2001 by Mr. Wales and Mr. Sanger or whether it was written yesterday by an anonymous IP editor doesn’t matter and is not a policy-based issue. The second argument that the article cannot be salvaged is strictly an opinion, and one that does appear to be supported in consideration of the ongoing clean-up efforts by Mr. Wolfowitz (who was cited in the nomination) and the additional editing that began after this AfD nomination was put forth. For expanding the article, a Google Books search for “nude celebrity Internet” puts this subject into a historic perspective regarding the rise of Net culture (including references to using the Net to distribute fake nude celebrities photographs, which is an aspect not currently covered in this article). BLP issues can be addressed with mature editing, which also appears to be going on. As for the lack of photographs, well... :) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nude celebrities on the Internet

edit
AfDs for this article:
Nude celebrities on the Internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OK, this is an unusual one, and needs a longer statement than the usual AFD.

This article is a genuine piece of wiki-archaeology. This was one of the original Wikipedia articles in 2001, and a version from 2004 became a Featured Article (those who say Wikipedia hasn't improved might like to try assessing that against the current Featured Article standards). Many significant figures of Wikipedia's early history - Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, David Gerard... - have been involved with it in one way or another over the years.

But, Wikipedia has changed, and despite the fact that this was one of our better articles when Wikipedia was finding its feet in the early days of the decade, it doesn't really seem appropriate any more. The original article was written before our policies were in place so the authors can't be blamed for its problems. However, although Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has done a heroic job at cleaning it up, the fact remains that by current standards this is a mess of original research, unverified statements, unreferenced potentially libellous statements about living people, and biased statements based on personal opinion ("downmarket", "in high demand"...).

An earlier AFD nomination resulted in its skin-of-its-teeth survival, based on assorted "all these problems will be easy to fix" statements - but in the two years since then, the issues still haven't been fixed. Meanwhile, our standards have risen; what wasn't out of place five years ago, when these articles were considered Featured Article standard, looks very out of place today. The page is virtually orphaned when it comes to mainspace links, and although it has a respectable number of links from non-mainspace pages those are more an artefact of its longevity than of any particular significance, in my opinion.

This is potentially a contentious AFD nomination, because of the article's history - it's one of present-day Wikipedia's last surviving links to the wild-west Bomis days. But the fact that Larry Sanger wrote an article shouldn't make it immune. This may warrant a place in Wikipedia space as an exhibit in the "museum of early Wikipedia history". However, if this article turned up de novo in Special:NewPages, it would probably be tagged for deletion within minutes as a personal essay - and after eight years, I don't think it's going to get cleaned up. (If anyone is willing to have a go at cleaning this up, I'm more than willing to withdraw this nomination.)  – iridescent 16:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Clean it up. Verify claims. Remove that which is unverifiable. There is nothing wrong with this topic or having an article on this subject. Kingturtle (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid topic, though it needs a clean-up. Sources are there aplenty: [34] JN466 17:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Change to Delete, unless cleaned up during the course of this AfD; allow recreation only with proper sourcing (preferably scholarly sources). JN466 17:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep have had a look and found some sources for the existing cases mentioned (took 5 minutes, can people who tag these articles not do this???). I think in order for it to be kept there needs to be more cases listed with valid sources.Mark E (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ridiculous. Who is a "celebrity"? Are you going to include all the porn stars who have appeared nude on internet sites? Or just movie stars caught by paparazzi? What about clips of movie stars who appear nude in films? At the very least we need a third party source (preferably scholarly, as Jayen466 notes) indicating this is a phenomenon worth paying attention to and clearly delimiting the topic. csloat (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and csloat. Pointless. How is this encyclopedic? Just stupid. Lara 18:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move. There's a coherent and interesting topic under discussion here, relating to the demand for and dissemination of nude photos of celebrities who are not pornography actors; but there's no reason to limit it to the Internet. The article already discusses magazines. I say move to Nude celebrities (over redirect) or Nude media of celebrities and clean up. Dcoetzee 19:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up, possible merge if there is an appropriate article on celebrities that this dovetails with. This is a notable subject and we can write about it encyclopedicly. If vandalism is an issue then start doling out semi-protection to quell the tide. Better writing and sourcing will also help curb the non-sense. These nudity scandals or in Madonna's case non-scandal publicity work, are common and are consistently top-selling editions in the tabloid world with nude pictures being a holy grail of sorts for some stalkerazzi's. This has become a sub-genre in films as well. -- Banjeboi 20:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems to perfectly embody the word "unencyclopedic." --MZMcBride (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how anyone can argue it's not a notable subject based on the number of sources discussing the phenomenon and examples of it. The title of the article seems like it could maybe be tweaked. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anyone here saying it should be deleted as it's not a notable subject (although most of those Google hits are false positives). I think you may be misunderstanding the issue here; this isn't a matter of notability, but of verifiability, BLP violation, original research, bias, and indiscriminacy. – iridescent 21:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just delete the parts that are disputed and/or add citation needed tags. I haven't read much past the opening paragraphs, but BLP violations, bias and original research should just be removed.
Am I marked for Wiki-life for having made an edit to the article? I already did work on food and sexuality article. At least no animals are involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, CoM, the almighty pendulum impacts all arenas of society; if you are still alive when the neo-Victorians take over, I'm sure you'll be subject to public character assassination. Enjoy! Unschool 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up Notable subject and we can write about it encyclopedicly. -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless substantially cleaned-up over the course of this AFD as per Jayen466. As it is - as it was before and after the first AFD - it does not adhere to WP:V. Location (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Otumba (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I came across this expecting some prudish arguments, but actually, Iridescent is spot on. This wouldn't survive an AfD if it were a new article, and the fact that it's a former FA is irrelevant. It's a collection of random thoughts; calling it original research actually elevates it higher than it deserves. (And besides, as ChildofMidnight says, not enough pictures.) Unschool 22:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - discriminate and notable phenomenon. Please base this article on it's merits and avoid comparing it to other articles; its status and age have no impact on my decision and this would be my vote had it just been created. Plenty of sources are available, it just needs a bit of cleaning up. Artichoker[talk] 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most definitely. I might be able to come up with some sources that would be useful. Lampman (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and aggressively remove problematic material. Even if that means turning it into a stub, not much longer than the lead. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook
  • Comment. I can conceive some combination of Andrew's and Derrick's suggestions that could make this salvagable. Unschool 00:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anything that can be salvaged from this article can easily be attributed to the respective articles. This is much too arbitrary. Nude celebs on the Internet? This would have been a Jerry Springer show at one time, given the 3 unrelated qualifications it takes to get here. Almost as bad as Cats That Look Like Hitler. Law type! snype? 04:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I usually consider myself an inclusionist, and while this may technically meet WP:N, it's simply not suitable for inclusion within an encyclopedia. I disagree that it's discriminate info; in fact, the topic is extremely vague. Are we describing nude people who happen to have their pictures posted on the Internet? If so, then it does indeed fail WP:IINFO. All salvageable info (doubtful that there's much) can be merged into any combination of the many nudity-related pages. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Nude celebrities - Naked celebrity photos are definitely a notable phenomenon. The article's title is inappropriate because much of the content isn't about internet photos and "internet" photos aren't particularly notable, since an image is just an image and the internet just happens to be the medium by which they are released. Also, I like it, it's useful, and it harms noone, plz dont dekete. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move. I know I don't edit Wikipedia very often these days, but I was around back when Larry and co were editing this article. I agree that the phenomenon is rather independent of the specific medium these days (though the increased ability of ordinary citizens to disseminate material is significant), but the fact that there is such a huge demand for nuddy pictures of celebrities who don't make a career of taking off their kit is surely as least as worthy of noting as many of the untold range of other phenomena that Wikipedia accumulates information on. --Robert Merkel (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The question is whether or not nude celebrities on the Internet is a legitimate topic for an encyclopaedia article. The answer, even after reading the article and the misdirected nomination, would seem to me to be "why on earth not?" Is there a dearth of reliable coverage of the topic? Not by a long stretch. Is there any fatal spam/conflict of interest/self-referential element to the topic that would prevent us ever having an encyclopaedic article on it? Not as far as anyone has claimed thus far. Is it inherently unmaintainable? Having as its subject a dynamic topic that attracts low-quality contributions is no justification for throwing in the towel. Doing so after eight years, which, given that in the absence of a global data storage/electricity apocalypse this particular repository of information is likely to persist in some form for hundreds of years, seems foolishly shortsighted. No compelling reason has been offered to justify deletion.  Skomorokh  12:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think many of those commenting above may have not looked at the article recently: it is, at present, not a list of people, but a discussion of the subject. To say this isn't a notable topic in the light of the sources quoted does not seem to make much sense. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Nods.) Read my reply to ChildofMidnight, above. This isn't a matter of notability, but of verifiability, BLP violation, original research, bias, and indiscriminacy, and I don't see any way these issues can be fixed - over any timescale. – iridescent 19:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has merit but needs to be cleaned up. I really have trouble with deleting a previous featured article even if it was not up to todays standards.... RP459 (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this was a featured article why does it not have a star showing that it was in the upper right hand corner? RP459 (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is no longer featured, so the star was removed. Artichoker[talk] 03:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Keep as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion (Heidi Montag song)

edit
Fashion (Heidi Montag song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this song fails WP:notability (music) because the song has never charted nor has it been covered by lots of artists etc. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Pokerdance; Lady Gaga and RedOne are notable by themselves, thus meaning that the song is inherently notable per WP:NSONGS, specifically "ISongs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Cheers, I'mperator 18:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Montag's version actually was released as a promotional single, it just failed to chart. Regardless, the fact that it was re-recorded by Lady Gaga, another notable artist, assures the song notability per WP:NSONG. As I have stated earlier, this song also meets the WP:GNG.

    I would like to know how you think a merge would work. Not only was this released as a promo single for Montag, Gaga's version was featured on both a film soundtrack and a television episode. POKERdance talk/contribs 09:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (directed at Lil-unique1): Montag's version was released officially as a promotional single. And two notable artists recording the song does make it notable. Its lack of airplay and chart performance is irrelevant. Perhaps you should read WP:NSONG again. Also, there are good sources. Unless you would like to argue that Us Weekly, E! Online, and Entertainment Weekly are not good sources for entertainment. POKERdance talk/contribs 19:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How can you say this article fails WP:NSONG when it was clearly recorded independently by two notable artists? Perhaps you need to read that over again. And even if it were to fail that notability guideline, it does pass the WP:GNG as I have previously stated, and general notability > specialized notability, otherwise the GNG wouldn't exist.

    The article may need clean-up and more references, yes, but a delete, redirect, or merge is completely unnecessary, since the song clearly passes the notability guideline for songs. POKERdance talk/contribs 23:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It way passes wP:SONG and WP:NOTABILITY. However User:Pokerdance I would like to point out that you should probably tone down your comments because its coming off as aggressive. Adding comments below each and every user's vote and opinions doesnot seem good-faith to me. you have stated yours and they have theirs. Let the closing admin decide what to do. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I really am torn in this discussion. It is an unreleased song with limited media coverage which failed to chart but then again, some aspects of WP:NSONG, the article comes to terms with. If this article is kept, the accuracy will have to be improved. Example of this is where it states "it was released as her third promotional single in June 2008", where are the sources of confirmed release and tracklisting? Also Amazon is a bad source and should not be used on the article. • вяαdcяochat 07:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (directed at Legolas2186): Well, I'm certainly not trying to come off as aggressive, though I won't deny if I am being so because I do have a strong desire to keep this article so it can be improved much more and am thus very defensive of it. However, isn't commenting on others' opinions supposed to be what a discussion is about? I'm sure you know, but consensus is more than a vote, so your arguments have to be strong. In commenting on editors who disagree with the keeping of this article, it further proves my argument. As I said, I want to keep this very much so that it can be expanded and improved. I will try to tone it down, but I will continue to fight for this article. It has loads of potential. POKERdance talk/contribs 12:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since i nominated the article i am not allowed to vote but i would like to point a few things out. First of all WP:notability (music) point out that a song is notable if it is covered by several notable artists. Lady Gaga is notable but Heidi Montag is not cus she has yet to release an album. Secondly the rules point out that a song should be notable if it has recieved multiple awards or charted numerous times - this song has never done so. Finally the song has not recieved extensive critical acclaims or review and will always remain a stub because it was only ever a promotional release. It clearly states in WP:notability (music) that songs which are released through promo are not generally considered notable. remember that the number of credible sources for this song will be low because it was never properly released. i cannot understand the need for an article of this level of trivialness, it could easily be merged into Heidi Montag's page and Lady Gaga. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: Your nomination was essentially a vote. Your second delete vote was striked because you were making it appear to be someone else making a vote to delete. Regardless of the fact that Heidi Montag has not yet released an album, she is quite notable. She meets criterion #1 and 2, amongst others, at WP:BAND, as having been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, and having had one of her singles ("More Is More") chart on the Hot Dance Club Play chart in the United States. POKERdance talk/contribs 15:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Heidi Montag and Lady Gaga are both notable artists, but in my opinion the song is not. Sure the artists are notable, but the song fails because it has not charted or been nominated for an award even though it has significant coverage. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NSONG exists specifically to address the issues with the notability of songs. If a song has never charted it needs to be covered by several (not two... but more) notable artists. Montag having recorded the song and having released it as a promo is not notable because it did not chart and was not critically acclaimed. A notable artist is not a celebrity but more someone who has had several releases with charts and awards. Heidi Montag falls into neither of those catagories, and producing this article on the basis of Lady GaGa having recorded the song is a waste because she never released it either. there is not enough information to warrant a whole page for this stubby article. WP:GNG exists for general guidelines but where specific criteria apply e.g. WP:NSONGS is available this should be applied as the primary criteria. Lets look at the facts though. WP:Notability (music) states that songs must be: covered by several notable arists, charted on notable rankings, recieved recgnised awards and must only have their own page if there is sufficiant varifiable information to warrant a full page. Of these criteria we are essentially arguing if Heidi Montag is a notbale artist, meaning it fails 3 out of 4 of the criteria for a notable song. Under this information alone it should be sufficiant to conclude that this article should be merged into Heidi Montag. I haven't interpreted anything that isn't already in the wikipedia guidelines. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. The dictionary entries are the prevailing argument here. Tone 13:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exergaming

edit
Exergaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

delete as per WP:NEO. this sounds like a marketing term. the neutraity of the article is questionable. large quantity of OR.

Strong Delete - for above reasons Jw2035 (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French Nation State

edit
French Nation State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. This is an essay, possibly a term paper, and not an encyclopedia article. Fails wikipedia policy on original research andy (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted upon author request (G7). No other other major contributors or objections to deletion. JamieS93 be kind to newcomers 19:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazar Amadin

edit
Nazar Amadin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined the speedy because of claims of importance (lasting impact, national tour), but in trying to reference this article I'm coming up short. Just a single non-wiki ghit, and zero gnews hits. It's possible that language and transcription issues are hindering my search, so bringing to AfD. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cantor

edit
Paul Cantor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author that has written 4 books, none of which have articles. No external sources, no proof of notability. LK (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ni†eCrawler (2010 film)

edit
The Ni†eCrawler (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, I can't find any sources tha tsupport inclusion. wiki is not a crystal ball Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Derek Presents… Sweet Memory Sounds

edit
DJ Derek Presents… Sweet Memory Sounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All that I can find is trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Continental_Airlines#Minor_incidents. While this incident does not have the same impact as a crash with several fatalities, it is still covered in various sources. However, a full article may be inappropriate and since the incident is already covered elsewhere, the reasonable choice is to leave a redirect there. Tone 13:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Airlines Flight 128

edit
Continental Airlines Flight 128 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe that an aircraft encountering turbulence in flight, resulting in no deaths and a small number of injuries is notable. If you look at the debate on incident notability on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability you will see that this would not meet any of the proposed notability criteria. Simple Bob (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The author insists in godlike fashion that the cause is known and that it is turbulence. He will not allow edits to that effect. There are many other possible causes. There should be no implication as to the cause until the official investigation is complete. The type of accident should be "Under Investigation" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.21.246 (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons I rarely participate in AfDs is because I am uncomfortable with the incredible ease so many editors determine certainty in these matters. The article in question is classic. I don't see how anyone can be "strong" delete or "strong" keep. This is not an easy call. I understand User:S Marshall's point about coverage in the media, but you know what? We're all going to see in time that contemporary coverage will not automatically translate into long-term notability. Wikipedia is not a news source, and if we truly were to adopt the standard that SMarshall (and many others) so blithely promote then we will become a news source (and ultimately, a news archive). On the other hand, calling this an easy delete is also not very thoughtful. Something very unusual happened here. It may well be that we may learn something from this that changes airplane maintenance, or something like that, forever afterwards. And really, just having 14 people hospitalized is a very big deal, even without landing in the Hudson. Regardless of the ease with which participants here declare these to be black and white issues (and some, of course, are), I think that many of these articles fall into a gray area. I wish I could come across more people acknowledging that. Anyway, I'm going to vote in favor of preservation, in this case, but I do so without the assuredness that so many of my fellow editors possess. Unschool
  • Well, Unschool, a major benefit of the GNG is that it does enable certainty in many cases. An editor can easily determine for themself whether the GNG is passed, and if it is passed, the editor can create an article with confidence that their hard work will not be deleted. And that confidence is important, because it enables people to write without going through a committee process first.

    That's why, where I see an article at AfD and the GNG is passed, I tend to use strong, clear language to indicate that fact.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments, Marshall; they are thoughtful and clear. But I think that if it was a cut-and-dried as it appears to you, that AfD would be a much less contentious place. Wikipedia guidelines appear at times to be like scripture: Anyone can find support for whatever he is looking for. Indeed, in the very same policy that you use, just a few paragraphs down, it says, it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. To me, that makes it seem clear that we simply cannot yet know whether or not this article possesses notability, since that line appears directly applicable to this event. I still see lots and lots of gray. Unschool 14:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Meets WP:AIRCRASH - Air carrier criteria - It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier. An occurence that results in serious injury or loss of life is an accident by definition. Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - great story but no relevance. Plane suffered turbulence, got diverted. Nothing special here. If it were a case of "airline safety saves the day" (compare Grayrigg derailment, for instance), things might be different, but there's no assertion of anything other than "it was covered in the media". If this incident meets other criteria, those criteria serously need to be reviewed. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It should be remembered that WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not policy, and that it was written with out any exclusions. The essay suggests that we should bypass the specific WP:NOT provision that "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events" (shortcut WP:NOT#NEWS), in favor of finding some way to keep any recent news event. To consider historical notability, let us suppose that there was turbulence on a Piedmont Airways flight in, say, 1967, and some people were injured. Would it be considered important 42 years later? It's not likely, nor is it likely that anyone would write a series of articles about 20th century airplane flights that made news at the time because of turbulence. WP:AIRCRASH is recentism of the worst kind, and it is simply a list of keep arguments. The delete arguments, from WP:NOT, are what should be followed. Mandsford (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. There is nothing historic, significant about this crash. Sure an investigation is underway, but that happens for most accidents in general, as does injuries and whatnot. Triplestop x3 18:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The aircraft was damaged and there was severe injuries reported. Zaps93 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I also just nominated Vueling Airlines Flight 9127 (Discussion) in which eight people (from more than 160) sustained minor injuries using the escape slide - an incident even less notable than this one. --Simple Bob (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the incident is already mentioned at Continental_Airlines#Minor_incidents (note the section title "Minor incidents"). Perhaps one solution is to merge some of the relevant information from this article into that section then delete this article. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was going to give it a weak keep (and a life-threateningly weak one at that) but I can find nothing particularly unusual about this whatsoever. Any incident, no matter how minor, is going to be investigated. News coverage (on the day that it happened) by the BBC and CNN makes it notable? No. Not for me. --candle•wicke 19:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How does WP:NOTNEWS support deletion of this article? If you read the actual text of NOTNEWS, it's talking about "routine coverage of announcements, sports and tabloid journalism". Said policy seems to me to be totally irrelevant to the matter.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The very first sentence: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events", of which the subject of this article currently has none. See also WP:N#TEMP. There's some good discussion of this at WP:News articles. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. I note that it doesn't say "Wikipedia only considers the historical notability of persons or events".

        I'm deeply unimpressed by that News articles essay; the authors' thinking doesn't align with mine at all, so I shall disregard it.

        WP:NTEMP opens with: "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources." Which seems, at least to me, to support keeping the article.

        I can't help wishing these policies and guidelines were phrased in simple declarative sentences. "Grounds for inclusion are x, y, and z; grounds for deletion are a, b and c." Telling us "what Wikipedia is not" is, of course, a lot easier (which is probably why so many people spend so much time saying what Wikipedia isn't), but policies and guidelines phrased in the negative are far from easy to apply to specific cases.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • It remains the case that Wikipedia is not a news source, and there's no evidence that this incident is anything other than a news story. In the days of 24-hour rolling news and online journalism, "was covered on CNN" is no longer evidence of anything. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Incidentally, nice bit of selective quoting there. WP:NTEMP does indeed say "... it does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources." However, in the very next sentence it says "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability". 81.110.104.91 (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ←On the contrary, "was covered on CNN" is certainly evidence of something. It's evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.

    I'm totally opposed to this attempt to undermine the general notability guideline. If we went around disregarding the basic notability guideline and deleting material regardless, then content creators could not check for themselves whether the material they propose to write is notable. They would need to go through a committee process before they started, or risk having their hard work summarily deleted.

    The GNG is there to protect content creators, and I feel very strongly that it should prevail here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm watching the BBC News channel as I write this. It's a week after the incident, and there's nothing there. What has been featuring most of the day is a story from Thailand, it's been running for most of the day. Could this be more of the ongoing feud between supporters of current PM Abhisit and former PM Thaksin? Controversy over the handling of refugees from Burma? No. An elephant fell down a hole. The guideline refers to significant coverage in multiple sources. This in itself implies more than routine news coverage. Remember that a rolling news channel typically operates in a competitive environment, and will choose its stories not so much for their importance, but for their currency and for the sake of beating their opponents. My personal threshold is something that is reported independently of it actually happening, which this hasn't achieved. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This accident will get further coverage in the future. The investigation will be completed and a report will be issued. These things take time - months to years - before they are finalised. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culture.ca

edit
Culture.ca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The site no longer exists and notability was not established for the long term (WP:ORG). The sources no longer reference this dead site so there seems little reason to keep an article on it. WP:BEFORE satisfied as the site has been tagged for improvement for over 18 months but no editor seems prepared or interested enough to justify an encyclopaedia entry for a non-existent website. Ash (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW keep Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon (461–480)

edit
List of Pokémon (461–480) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article starts "This is a selected listing of twenty of the Pokemon species...". The article only has 10 sources - do the math. None of these sources seem to support this selection as they either cover Pokemon in general or other selections such as the "Top 5 Lamest Pokemon". The article thus violates our policies that Wikipedia is not a game guide or indiscriminate catalog. It also seems to violate our notability guideline in that this topic - "Pokemon 461-480" - is not covered by reliable, independent sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - If you nominated one of these lists, you're essentially nominating the entire collection of lists for deletion, which is downright ridiculous because Pokemon is a notable series and the creation of these lists was decided by a very lengthy discussion. Just because an article lacks full sourcing isn't grounds for deletion. Are you suggesting that all the Pokemon articles be re-created instead?--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is still a disruptive WP:POINT nomination and you don't give any valid reasons why one or any of the lists should be deleted besides the fact that it's an "indiscriminate list" (which it isn't because it's clearly about the Pokemon).--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination provides three clear reasons - that the list is arbitrary/indiscriminate; that it is game guide material; and that the topic is not notable. An additional reason is that it is a redundant content fork of List of Pokemon. Your counter seems to be a personal attack with weak supporting arguments of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the notability concerns in my rationale below; also it is not a content fork, as List of Pokemon contains a list of names with Pokémon, while these list articles contain blurbs with 20 Pokémon at a time. Additionally, please stop throwing around WP:NPA; accusing you of violating WP:POINT, which seems pretty clear at this point, is not a personal attack. Artichoker[talk] 19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My desire to delete this article is quite genuine and not some sort of prank. My arguments from policy seem quite strong and are supported by other editors such as User:Sesu Prime whose general position on the proper coverage of Pokemon seems quite sensible. Failing to discuss the merits of this article and resorting to ad hominem insults and insinuations instead is quite uncivil. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've been quietly doubting the need for these lists for a while. A few Pokémon are significant enough for their own articles, but what makes the rest of them notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia? I pose this scenario: if a fighting game series had, say, 50 different characters, would we dedicate multiple paragraphs to each and every one of them? I can't imagine each one would carry notability in their own right, so the answer would be "no", but that's what we're doing with Pokémon, except there aren't only 50 of them, there's nearly ten times that amount!
    Taking 20 non-notable characters and tossing them into a list together doesn't somehow make the list notable. And even if a list does have some notable Pokémon on it, that doesn't justify including the other, non-notable ones. Plus most of the lists are a mess in desperate need of copyediting, and they have been left that way for quite some time. Colonel Warden, I'm not sure if you're nominating this list on behalf of the other 24 lists or if there's something about this one specifically, but I say we should remove them all and just leave the few individual species articles and the basic List of Pokémon page. And Zxcvbnm, you are correct that Pokémon is a notable series, which is why we have Pokémon, Pokémon (anime), Pokémon (video game series), Pokémon (manga), etc. Just because the series as a whole is notable doesn't mean every aspect of it is notable. -sesuPRIME 11:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting rid of the Pokemon (no, I will not add the é to everything) won't do anything, because someone is liable to create the articles all over again. In a list format, it's much easier to maintain, edit, and source. You can't dispute that at least some Pokemon are notable enough for their own articles, so getting rid of the rest makes no sense. Not to mention that Warden only nominated this one because he was angry and he chose it on purpose for its particular lack of sources.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Angry - why would I be angry? We note though that you are the original author of this article. The lack of sources was there from the start as you left it in a completely unsourced state. As there were no citations, please tell us where got the content from? Bulbapedia or what? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm, could you explain your response here a bit? I must admit it has left me a little confused - I don't think Sesu Prime was suggesting every single pokémon article be deleted. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - And I'm going to fire off a whole accusation that this entire fiasco is a case of WP:POINT on the part of Colonel Warden over the re-merging of Blastoise. The lists have received a steady amount of work on the part of myself, User:Bws2cool, User:Artichoker and several others. The reason for the separate lists has been, simply put, there is too much information to put on one megalist and the nominator has been informed of such. Requesting this nomination be closed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why it was nominated, but I think we should have a serious discussion about the validity of the lists. Perhaps this particular AFD should be closed on keep and the discussion about the bigger picture continued at WT:PCP. -sesuPRIME 11:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lists were created as a long-standing merger to keep the information, well, at least somewhere on wikipedia after it was deeemed a bad idea to have 151+ individual articles that would never proceed anywhere, let alone be of Good quality. See here for some of it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be of the mindset that this information needs to be on Wikipedia. Why is that? -sesuPRIME 12:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at every other character list and consider the fact that while the characters aren't notable enough for individual articles, they have been repeatedly deemed notable enough for character lists. It's not a concept unique to Pokemon by any means. Also this is a strange stance coming from someone who used to go ballistic over the lack of an accented "e" in Pokemon...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I still get quite annoyed when I see Pokémon spelled incorrectly (seen my user/talk lately?), and secondly... what? How does my stance correlate to my dislike of misspellings? -sesuPRIME 12:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to check something Sesu. No offense meant.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check what? -sesuPRIME 13:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The lists are notable. As notable as character lists from any other tv series/film etc, plus there is alot of sourced information in the articleMark E (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As that list is just a list and lacking content, I think having content on each makes a lot of sense. I've not checked if every list of 20 Pokemon have their own page, but given the nature of the franchise I think they should. There is plenty of sourcing for much of these, why not "catch them all". Same as a minor list of characters or list of D&D monsters. Hobit (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am working towards getting these lists where they need to be. This is NOT the best they can be. They are pretty easy to fix from one pharagraph to two or three. There is just so many of them, it takes a while, and I seem to be the only one doing anything about it. People like Kung Fu Man are adding sources for those "Top 5 lists" and "foo said this is their favorite Pokémon" so they will have some 3rd party sources, which is fine, but I see plenty of people reverting vandalism on the lists, but hardly any of these editors actually contribute to the lists. I made a Style guide for the lists, if anybody wants to try to help. I wrote it over a month ago, so I probably need to update it a little. --Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to have made three edits to this article - one reversion and two minor format changes. None of these edits seem to address the policy points made by the nomination nor support your claim that this article can be significantly improved. Your style guide indicates that the main source for such articles should be Bulbapedia. This is not a reliable source and so that guide does not conform to our core policies such as WP:V. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that I havent personally helped this article, but I have helped plenty of other articles. There are so many lists that I prefer to do the more important ones first. As for using Bulbapedia for a source, the main information I am getting from Bulbapedia could be gotten from the games or any anime summary site. I am not referencing Bulbapedia for this information. I am just getting summaries of what happened and referencing the actual episode/chapter. But this all doesn't help the fact of notability. I am just saying that the lists can be improved. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to note that alot of the Pokémon that I redo, they already have the Bulbapedia summaries in the article. They might be tweeked a bit, but they are still from Bulbapedia. So I am not the first one to do this. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep: What sets the Pokémon lists apart from the other series is the sheer size of it; ideally there would be one list which contains information on all 490+ species, but articles are supposed to maintain a size of around 40 KB/40 000 bytes (one byte is roughly one character, so if you check the history tab you can see the approximate size of the page). Anything above 70 000 bytes starts to become difficult to load. If all of the Pokémon lists were combined into one "megalist", it would far exceed the size recommendations; in fact, I believe that was one of the reasons for splitting the lists into groups of 20. Ordinarily I would say to redirect them all to List of Pokémon, but upon taking another look at that page it's obvious that it has no useful information whatsoever; in fact, it's far more fancrufty than any of the other lists have ever been. If any page is nominated for deletion, it should be that one. Blake has been doing a fantastic job at adding information to these lists so that they don't seem like a waste of Wikispace. I've no doubt that when he progresses to this article, it will turn out the same way. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While each individual Pokémon may not be whole, the entire collection of them as a whole are notable enough to warrant an article listing them, however, to put the short description of all 493 of them into a single page would result in an article that you'd probably have to PgDn about 50 times to get to the end. That was the reasoning behind splitting them into groups of twenty and creating an article for each of thos groups. To nominate one means you must nominate all of them. But, yes they do have notability, even if a particular group of twenty don't seem to be as notable as others. (Bloody hell, I hate dealing with deletionists who always go by the book... Haven't they ever heard of just ignoring all the rules?) TheChrisD Rants•Edits 16:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this and the other 24 "List of Pokémon (x-y)" sublists to the central List of Pokémon and trim... trim a lot. How is this any different from Naruto or One Piece, which both have spectacularly large casts of minor characters? Just because Pokémon are numbered and there is thus a clearly defined set of them doesn't somehow justify listing every single one - it's still an indiscriminate list, even with such clear inclusion criteria. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Pokémon isn't just a video game series; there's also the anime TV series, as well as the set of movies. All of these are notable. To my knowledge, the vast majority of Pokémon species have already been featured in at least one anime episode and/or at least one movie; these appearances support the notability of the entire set of Pokémon species as a whole, even though several species may not be notable enough to merit their own separate articles at this time. Also, the Pokémon lists are not intended to advise video game players on the best ways to capture a specific Pokémon and/or use it in battles. And finally, as other users have already mentioned, there is a valid reason that the coverage of all Pokémon species was divided into several pages. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the article which contains much unsourced game guide material like "Rhyperior can learn a move that no other Pokemon can - Rock Wrecker. This move is very powerful and leaves the user immobile in the next turn (similar to Hyper Beam, Giga Impact, and Frenzy Plant). As well as this, Rhyperior has a huge Attack stat and has strong Defence.". Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's information that should have been deleted, but it doesn't merit the deletion of the entire article.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither Blastoise nor Deoxys appear in this article and none of your other comments appear to relate to this particular article. Per WP:NRVE, "it is not enough to simply assert that a topic is notable without substantiating that claim." Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's obvious that if this article is deleted, the others would as well, to be consistent. Your comments on Blastoise and Deoxys appear unfounded. I have already asserted that the topic is notable: "many, many Pokémon have some real-world critical discussion on them; just not enough for an individual article" so the list should be kept. Next time please remember to fully read my rationale. Artichoker[talk] 19:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have said nothing about this particular article. Suggesting that many Pokemon are notable is irrelevant. The question here is whether Pokemon #461–480, as a group, are notable. I've not seen one piece of evidence addressing this from you or any other editor. You seem to want to keep this article on the general grounds that Pokemon and parts of it is notable but notability is not inherited and so you have to demonstrate the notability of these particular details. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep WP:POINT nomination per Artichoker. Items in a list don't need to be individually notable. The list has a clear definition and sufficiently sourced information to write a small blurb on each individual 'mon; it just happens that most of them don't warrant their own articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Very notable series, would be a mess to try to combine all the lists into one, the lists just need some fixing up as said above. Knowledgekid87) 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most individual Pokémon aren't notable, the collection of them as a whole are definitely notable enough to warrant an article listing them. Ideally this means that we should have a single list, but Wikipedia has really strong guidelines about pages being too large -- editors get twapped for letting that happen. So separate sublists it is. If there are crufty sentences in the list, that's a reason to clean them up -- or better yet, get out of the way of editors who actually are doing the work, slowly, one entry at a time. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That list is structurally superior. It provides numerous sortable columns, such as the name in differing languages, the differing numbers used for indexing and the primary game attributes. And it is complete. The list to be deleted, on the other hand, is not really a list at all - it's just an arbitrary anthology of non-notable articles, thrown together for no better reason than that they would be more likely deleted if left by themselves and so huddle together for mutual protection. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed - see also WP:SIZERULE. Seems if everything was merged into the one giant list page we'd have a page that is far too large to be usable. I also fail to see how this is any different from any other List of Character article, which is a very standard, long-established, and well-accepted article spinout. 76.124.70.1 (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY SNOW KEEP per Ten Pound Hammer, the otters, the bat and the hammer.--The LegendarySky Attacker 21:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Public housing in Hong Kong. We now have an external consensus to redirect abd merge, I did the redirect so feel free to merge as appropriate Spartaz Humbug! 15:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

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 Close suspended for one week to allow further discussion at WP:HK. I suggest no further articles are nominated pending a conclusion there. Please prod me in a week to revisit this. . Spartaz Humbug! 23:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shek Mun Estate

edit
Shek Mun Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable apartment buildings. 20 English Google hits, 48 Chinese Google hits. Abductive (reasoning) 08:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your evidence is wrong because there are more number of links shown in Shek Mun Estate or [39], which gives more number of the artciles than you claimed. You'd better to think about any valuable topics to contribute Wikipedia, rather than criticizing others' articles. Please don't do these silly things again. Ricky@36 (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those Google searches are done without quotes, and still I see nothing resembling a secondary source among them. According to Henrik's tool, Shek Mun Estate gets 2.5 page views a day. That does not convince me that this housing project is of broad, encyclopedic interest. Abductive (reasoning) 09:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Few people browse it, but it does not mean that it needs to be deleted. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A topic needs secondary sources to justify an encyclopedia article on it. This estate hasn't got those. Therefore I have nominated it for deletion. You and I can post back and forth on this forever, and the closing admin will completely ignore us, because it consists of the nominator (me) arguing with the article creator (you). Obviously, the nominator feels that article should be deleted, and the article creator feels it should not be. Please allow the AfD process to run its course, and if people put forward convincing arguments for keeping it, the article will not be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 09:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added secondary source for it. OK now? Please close this deletion tag. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube and a forum posting aren't reliable sources. Please, please read WP:RS. Abductive (reasoning) 10:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about another one? Ricky@36 (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it just requests secondary sources, I think you just add secondary source tag rather than suggesting deletions. Ricky@36 (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that there are any reliable, secondary sources for Shek Mun Estate, and I don't want people to waste their time on an article if it has no hope. How about I add a reliable source to a different estate article, supporting something the article says? Abductive (reasoning) 10:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see you will help to find sources for the estate article. The only way for you is to find reasons (or excuses) to delete them. If you really help, I think you changed mind and I am very happy for it. Ricky@36 (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I thought I might get that reaction. Please note:
  • I identifed you as lacking adequate sources before deleting your links, not after. Even with the links, it was inadequate.
  • I deleted the links because they were irrelevant. A discussion of rent ceilings (on one source)? There was nothing in the article on that, so it was irrelevant. (And don't put in a discussion of rent ceilings just to justify putting the source back in; that's not a sufficiently significant topic to belong in the article.) Same was true of the other "sources" I deleted. They weren't supportive of the article.
I stand by my statement: No significant coverage in reliable sources. True when I wrote it, true now. Sorry. Unschool 16:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to other editors. Please make sure you actually open up the links that this editor has placed in the article. I deleted four of them as having absolutely no supportive value to the article, and the other two I was unable to open (my current computer's fault, not the links). Anyway, the editor has restored the links, despite my explanations. I'm not getting into an edit war over what I think is an obvious delete, but I just wanted to share this with anyone who, with a cursory glance might think, "Wow--six sources!" Cheers. Unschool 18:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, I don't see why it matters that there are extensive government records. There's government records on every street that has been built in the town I live in, yet I wouldn't be so egocentric as to think that the one on which I live is worthy of a Wikipedia article. Having said that, I think I have discovered why Ricky@36 is so determined to have this article continue to exist. Why shouldn't it, when this exists? Holy cow, I feel like I've picked up a board in my yard and discovered a colony of termites right next to my house. What in the world makes each of these dozens of complexes noteworthy? I'm 100% totally baffled. My initial impulse would be to propose the entire category for deletion, but I'm sure that someone can explain this to me, right. Unschool 01:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it safe to assume that I can now create articles for Amesbury Rosalind Estate, Antioch Towers, Arbor Park Apartments, Arbor Park Village, Allerton Apartments, and Abington Arms, all government housing located in Cleveland? (And that's just the "A"s.) Unschool 01:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can do this. As you said, if there are enough sources, you can do it. Why not? You just restrict your thought. If you want to be a "deletion specialists", I suggest you trying to delete Category:Public housing estates in Hong Kong to finish your "whole target". You can say you (or your "friends") don't know Hong Kong buildings. What is Shek Kip Mei Estate, Sai Wan Estate, Sau Mau Ping Estate, Model Housing Estate, Wah Fu Estate? Do you know them when you are not from Hong Kong? Then they are not notiable and should be deleted. If you are confident, you can ask for their deletions. Ricky@36 (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Government sources are considered reliable independent sources per WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade, given the emphasis that I placed earlier on Ricky needing reliable sources, I can understand you proffering that information. However, an additional subject comes to mind. Yes, government sources are inherently reliable. But does that mean that the subject of such records is automatically considered to be noteworthy? That was my point in my previous post. Since I can find government records detailing the construction of the street I live on, can I not write an article on it, as well as the street I lived on five years ago and ten years ago and forty years ago? And can I not write an article on every one of the thousands of public housing developments in the United States, since plenty of government sources exist on those? That is the question I am now asking. Unschool 04:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you bringing a straw man into this? Nobody is claiming every public housing project in Hong Kong or anywhere else is notable, but those on this large scale are. To answer your question on public housing developments in the United states, in fact, some of them are notable. Altgeld Gardens, Chicago, Stateway Gardens, Robert Taylor Homes and First Houses, for examples.--Oakshade (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade, of course there are noteworthy housing complexes. But did you look at Category:Public housing estates in Hong Kong? Do you believe that there are 188 "noteworthy" complexes in Hong Kong? To read their articles, none of them appear to make any claims at being noteworthy, other than the fact of their existence. That was my point above. Unschool 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge, but don't bluntly delete. I have opened a discussion to figure out what should be done with Hong Kong public housing estates in general at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong. I believe that it is better to discuss the issue in one place rather than have User:Abductive tag one article per day and initiate a discussion with different sets of users each time, using basically always the same arguments without possible alternative outcome than a pure deletion. Yes I believe that the topic of Public housing in Hong Kong is of high importance, one reason being that about half of the population lives in some sort of publicly sponsored housing. I believe that these estates have a value as a set. Maybe we do not need an individual article for each of them, but a simple deletion is not appropriate, and some part of the material will re-emerge anyway in the future when other contributors feel that it is time to have the topic covered. Again, please have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong and contribute your thoughts there. Thank you. olivier (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, olivier, for your reasoned suggestion. Inspired by your post here I have replied to the discussion at WikiProject Hong Kong Unschool 00:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 22:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ensemble (operating system)

edit
Ensemble (operating system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Defunct project that never achieved notability. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 08:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Doesnt appear to meet WP:N, All its references seem to be off its own website. Harlem675 09:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Speedy Keep with a touch of snow. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russia – South Ossetia relations

edit
Russia – South Ossetia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

pr WP:POVFORK of disputed "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia", South Ossetia is a disputed region currently under Russian control after the 2008 South Ossetia war, no internationally recognized Republic of South Ossetia exists, therefore it would be inappropriate to have an article on Wikipedia describing diplomatic bilateral relationship between Russia and the territory that is internationally considered part of Republic of Georgia. Termer (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Disruptive nomination. It is not a POV-fork. It is an article outlining the bilateral relationship between Russia and South Ossetia; whilst South Ossetia is not internationally recognised, neither is Kosovo, yet I don't see you nominating any of the articles in Category:Bilateral relations of Kosovo for deletion. Here you go, go nominate Estonian–Kosovan relations for deletion, using the same argument, otherwise this needs to be seen as nothing more than a disruptive nomination. Particularly as there is heaps of information in the article outlining the relationship between the two states which would not fit in any other article, and additionally, this article is focussed ONLY on the Russia-SO relationship. Suggest speedy close. --Russavia Dialogue 07:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kosovo? Its independence is recognized by 62 UN member states. This is very much international recognition unlike the Republic of South Ossetia that is currrently recognized by Russia who controls militarily the region and Nicaragua.--Termer (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does international recognition have to do with bilateral diplomatic relations between two countries? As long as they recognize each other, diplomatic relations do exist. Offliner (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment bilateral diplomatic relations between two countries? Exactly! the problem is that the region controlled by the Russian military which internationally is considered a part of the Republic of Georgia...are not "relations between two countries" as a fact but as an opinion. The bottom line, South Ossetia is not a country but disputed territory with whom it's impossible to have "relations between two countries". --Termer (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "relations between two governments" then? Offliner (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very much international recognition? Come talk when it is admitted to the United Nations, which is generally the best litmus test as to whether an entity is very much internationally recognised. Other than that, this is a disruptive nomination on your part. In fact, your very answer has shown that. You won't go and nominate the Estonian-Kosovo article, even though it has absolutely NOTHING in it, yet you delete this article, which clearly shows that there is a bilateral relationship between the two states, and you are claiming there is not. What you are asking WP to do is to take sides on the issue, by expunging an article which is written from a neutral POV, in order to fit in with your own POV. --Russavia Dialogue 08:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, South Ossetia is not a state but Georgian territory controlled by the Russian military. I don't have anything else to add.--Termer (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Termer, do you have a tertiary education in international law and international relations. Are you widely published in that arena? Go and read Bilateralism, as you will soon see that there is clearly a bilateral relationship between Russia and SO, it is just that you don't agree with it, and your opinion doesn't really matter; what matters is what reliable sources say, and the sources clearly show the relationship. --Russavia Dialogue 08:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you brought this up what matters is what reliable sources say Kremlin announces that South Ossetia will join 'one united Russian state' and others speak about the Russian occupation of Georgia (Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly - Working Papers).--Termer (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am glad that you brought it up also, because I now have the opportunity of directing you towards Russia_–_South_Ossetia_relations#Political_ties, where what Kokoity said is already covered - by the way, yet more sloppy reporting from the British press, for Kokoity don't speak for the Kremlin, only for South Ossetia govt, yet The Times says it is the Kremlin saying it in the article. If that article was to be inserted into WP, it would have a big fat SYN and OR tag slapped on it ;) --Russavia Dialogue 08:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding right? Kokoity don't speak for the Kremlin? You could as well rename the article Russia – Russia relations and everything would be according to the facts, not fantasies, and you'd get speedy keep also from me. Happy editing!--Termer (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - this looks an awful lot like a bad faith nomination, aimed exclusively at precluding the article from appearing in the DYK section, now that all other attempts have been exhausted. Óðinn (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I'm afraid I'll have to agree that this looks indeed like a disruptive nomination, as the nominator's argumentation seems completely invalid. Bilateral diplomatic relations between Russia and South Ossetia do exist - the two have recognized each other - and this is demonstrated by the 40+ sources in the article. Offliner (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another Speedy keep. The article is well sourced, and after reviewing the debate here and the situation around this article, it does not seem that this nom was made in good faith. Also, and most importantly, just because another entity does not recognize the relationship, does not mean it isn't there. Russia and South Ossetia do have formal diplomatic relations, which is shown quite clearly in the article. Pax85 (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep the argument is based on a failure of NPOV and a desire that the world be different. No matter how good the case for wishing so, it doesnot affect the present article. DGG (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Take any concerns to the article talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per DGG. The fact that only Russia and Nicaragua have recognized S. Ossetia does not make the article a POV fork of anything. It's a totally legitimate title to cover diplomatic relations of Ossetia. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Most of the county-X-relations-with-country-Y articles are worthless (there just ain't that much going on between, say, Malta and Tajikistan), but Russia-South Ossetia relations actually matter. This should be evident to anyone who's been paying attention to world affairs over the last year. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orly Taitz

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

Prod declined. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS. RayTalk 21:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Earlier AFD nomination for the page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly taitz, which resulted in deletion. Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: That was in January, and so we're looking at this again 6 months later.IncidentalPoint (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the OC Weekly, but I wouldn't click on a WorldNetDaily link if someone pointed a gun at my head and told me to or he'd blow my brains out. And that Daily Show thing was a one off bit, she'll be forgotten. Jon Stewart probably already has. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OC Weekly = free local newspaper. So it's not enough by itself. But I think combining it with the others gives us the multiple reliable sources required by WP:BIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I question the notability of the lawsuit and her idiocy in being "honored" in getting facebook friends.--Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you misunderstood my message. No doubt that the facebook incident would NOT be a reason to make her notable. The question is: is she notable? If yes, then we keep the article, and the facebook incident stays (as it is notable given that the article exists). If no, then we can't merge the information in the article into the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. It would simply not make sense. Therefore, the options should be KEEP or DELETE, not MERGE (I take a redirect to mean a merge). Dems on the move (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She has made a lot more media appearances and gained a lot more noteriety since the initial AfD. Dems on the move (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More media appearances and more alleged notoriety for the same, single event, yes. If anything, you prove my point even more. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from WP:BIO1E: "However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." The added media coverage since the last AfD is clearly an instance of her role growing larger. Whether it is large enough to justify a separate article is what we're discussing here, but it's far from the foregone conclusion you make it out to be. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More media appearances means multiple events. Hence, WP:BLP1E does not apply. Dems on the move (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David, the event (Birther-gate) has not grown larger, though, it is only propped up by a bevy of non-reliable sources. The few RS that do touch upon it only do so to note the overall conspiracy/nutty nature of the movement, they do not give credence to the allegations, and Taits is not the focus of their reporting. Taitz is not the leader of the Birther movement and has been actually condemned by other Birthers for going too far on occasion. She is, ultimately, a bit player in all of this, and unworthy of mention beyond what is already in the main conspiracy article. Contrast her to the likes of Philip J. Berg, who has been involved in several high-profile conspiracy movements. He is more than worthy of his article. "Dems on the move" here does not appear have a very firm grasp on BLP policy. Tarc (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tarc, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I came across her first in an AP article, and then on NPR before coming to her page and seeing this AFD notice. Taitz is part of the continuing controversy and mentioned by reliable sources. Mattnad (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
my apologies i misinterpreted that AFD article, but even so there have been repeated atemtpst to against this article on both its branched article and on the previous AFD and I feel that its unfair and somehwat biased against the subject, since it is clearly notable and covered in multiple independent, prominent sources. quite frankly, i think that this article is an assett and not a liability to Wikipedia as a whole and quite frankly it is as important as the article from which it was originally progenited, regarding Barack Obamas conspiracy theories against his citizenship/eligibilty to the Presidenthood. does that clear it up?? User:Smith Jones 21:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the nomination is in good faith, even though I disagree with the nomination. In my opinion, WP:BLP1E applies to people who have had their 15 minutes of fame, not to people who receive the limelight for a prolonged period of time. The nominator and a few others have a different opinion, and that is why we are having this AfD. Perfectly legitimate. Dems on the move (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I was referring to Smith Jones' comments above. Crafty (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The face of a movement that's a year old and only getting more famous is so far from a "one event" situation. Besides, there's several other sourced issues she's involved with. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her colbert show appearance proves she is notable as a dentist and martial arts expert. riffic (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to other media appearances and citations, she has also participated in at least one NPR talk show. Clearly notable and this issue won't go away for a while. Granted she is known for one thing, but there are so many articles about B and C list people who are less prominent than she. Mattnad (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person accusing the president of fraud seems pretty important. 12.4.17.214 (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or G4 delete. Hairhorn (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a classic example of the type of article we should not have, and a classic BPL1E violation. Appearing on TV does not make one notable. At best this should be a redirect. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rebuttal of presumple - [[WP:BLP1E][ does not revert to this. by your logic, we should delete Barack Obama because hes only notable for being elected to public office which is one event. thats just silly and not what BLP1E sahould be interperted to mean. ORly Taitz is clearly famous, not just for ther birther movement but for the ensuing controversies and the polcitial beliefs and the prominence as a lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court, which is a limited honor granted only to very few members of hir profession User:Smith Jones 23:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The comparison with Obama is inapt. He was elected to U.S. Senate from Illinois (most U.S. Senators have articles in WP), then to the Presidency. First became widely known in his speech to Dem National Convention in 2004. WP's bio on him first appeared in March 2004. --Mack2 (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    precisely. Obama was only first knwon for that speech. if we had been interpreting BLP in the way this is now, we would have deleeted his article then and then had to create it from scratch once his prominence was reestablished. by keeping orly taitz now, we have this article and can keep adding to it based on her current notability as being currently devoloped within the criterion of the laws of Wikipedia, as prexstablished in order to relevant to her career as a lawyer and dentist User:Smith Jones 00:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't delete articles about state senators, and anyway you're getting quite far off-topic: this has little or nothing to do with the present deletion nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories; if by chance there is any content worth keeping, integrate it into that article. Conspiracy theorists generally aren't notable for that, and people who achieve some measure of celebrity are not automatically notable.  Frank  |  talk  01:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps merge one or two bits to the conspiracy theories article. References are all weak (two cites from an advertising throwaway, one from a smalltown paper that was mostly not about her, and her blog), notability is in serious question. The whole "Facebook" graf is spurious, as is the pointer to her non-notable dental practice. Thousands of lawyers are qualified to address the Supreme Court; that's not notable either. PhGustaf (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is crazy! she is CLEARLY notable and she is not only qualifed but has argued this isue before the supreme court, making her THE MOST PROMINENT birther. to tdelete her is to delte the Barack Obama citizenship conspriacy theories aritcle which wuld be a cryinzg shame and a bad id Smith Jones

KEEP! So far, I've seen her on Colbert and Jon Stewart, and heard mention of her on several prominent news outlets. The woman is clearly noteworthy. She is also clearly a whackadoodle, but frankly, I think the fact that anyone could be smart enough to make it through both dental school and law school and still dumb enough to believe what she's saying about Obama, is noteworthy enough on it's own merits. It's enough to make one wonder if perhaps she doesn't really believe what she's saying, and is only doing this to get herself in the news enough (What's that they say about no such thing as "bad publicity"?) to become the Republican Arianna Huffington. Stephen Colbert hinted as much on yesterday's episode when he had them both on his show. As nauseous as she makes me, she's noteworthy, and she's not going anywhere any time soon. B7eema (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)B7eema[reply]

I'm suprised at the debate. Fifty, hundred years from now: student researching the first black president; interesting footnote about controversy re- birth, etc., a bit of background info on one of the more public faces in the controversy wouldn't hurt. Its not like wiki is running out of disk space or anything ... Of course I realize that my view doesn't count (as I'm not part of the Wiki cabal), but geez couldn't the effort being put forth here to remove this article instead be directed at something productive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.165.136 (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your view does count. There is no such thing as the Wiki cabal; on the contrary, anyone can edit it. Everyone's opinion is valued and welcomed here. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be worthwhile to compile a brief list of others who appear in Wikipedia whose article could be nominated for deletion based on the arguments I'm reading here (only involved in one controversy, "15 min of fame", etc.): Roy_Hoffmann, Anita_Hill, Juhan_Aare, Mary_Mapes, William_I._Robinson, Glenn_Kable, Bill_Burkett, Kenneth_H._Dahlberg. Don't get me wrong, the woman is whacked, but that isn't a reason to remove an article about her. Deleting her article at this point doesn't pass the "smell test" for the appearance of censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.165.136 (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a serious difference between those individuals, given their involvement in their situations, as opposed to a lawyer bringing a suit and getting a little media attention in the meantime. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being on TV for a short but highly concentrated ("Warholian"?) period of time should not solely qualify someone to be notable enough for their own Wikipedia entry -- if so, the notability criteria need serious review. Once this whole nonsense dies down, the only information someone should need (or, less importantly, want) to be able to find about this woman in a reasonably filtered encyclopedia should be located in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, anything else is exorbitant. I might also add on an editorial note that, in my opinion, the mere appearance of her name on a site like Wikipedia will only fuel the persistence of this ridiculous story. Above all, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. -- Jeremy Wright (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All conspiracy theoriest and theorists opposing President Barack Obama must be silenced! -Lapinmies 09:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take the bait. You're actually being terribly witty and really clever and using your !vote to object to this AfD, am I right? ;) Crafty (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Witty, perhaps. Pointy, no; WP:POINT is about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and this opinion is not disruptive.  Frank  |  talk  13:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casting a sarcastic vote to protest against the evil and allmighty COLD (Cabal of Obama-Loving Doom) is about as pointy as one can get around here. Tarc (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I personally regard Ms. Taitz's arguments as absurd, but that doesn't make her any less notable. —David Levy 14:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject shows up in enough press of late to meet notability. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep May well be a crackpot, but a notable one, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. We only feed the conspiracies by trying to treat people involved with these theories differently from other articles. Alansohn (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see why the BHO Citizenship Conspiracy Theories page passes muster. It is BY FAR the most biased and defamatory page on the entire Wikipedia. Redirecting Dr. Taitz to that page is an obvious attack on her character. Killigan (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC) — Killigan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies here at all. Here's what it says: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." (italics in original) One event does not mean one issue and she has hardly remained low profile. --agr (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It applies because she's only covered in the context of the birther suit, and she is otherwise unnoteworthy. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- To quote WP:BLP1E, "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." To be quite blunt, this woman is not even remotely trying to stay low profile. She's been all over the media, trumpeting her cause, even filing a "real" birth certificate, and gaining even more press because of it. I therefore think that BLP1E does not apply in this case, and the article should be kept. Umbralcorax (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I despise this lady and the cause she stands for, she has unfortunately been given lots of attention by the media and meets the notability guidelines. XXX antiuser 06:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I already !voted above): On August 3, MSNBC devoted almost seven minutes to an interview with Taitz. This was one example of the coverage she received in connection with her latest court filing in Keyes v. Obama. She's more notable now than she was when the AfD began. Also, on July 15, she and one of her clients, Alan Keyes, were interviewed by Lou Dobbs on his radio show. [41] JamesMLane t c 09:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The arguments under policy have already been made -- she's high profile, therefore not under BLP1E (which is, of course, a policy designed to avoid casting false light upon a private person who doesn't want to be in the public eye...a policy goal not exactly applicable here). I'll add only that she's (unfortunately) famous, and that fame is a strong indicator of notability -- if for no other reason that people are likely to come to Wikipedia looking to learn about a famous person. (Like I did. I was pretty shocked that I couldn't find information about Taitz here -- I was looking for information about her, but only got information about the controversy.) When someone searches for a famous person and finds that they aren't listed on Wikipedia, there's a certain "WTF?" moment that happens -- not to get too global, but I think those "WTF?" moments are generally bad for the project. Sure, we can explain it by saying to the person searching "no, you don't understand, she may be famous, but BLP1E." But the normal searcher will say "BLP what?" That person in that situation could certainly be forgiven for thinking we promote policy wonkery over common sense. So I'd keep the article -- generally we should have articles about topics that people are going to search for, and (based only on my own personal searching) I think this is one. --TheOtherBob 12:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:N (does anyone dispute that?) and in my opinion this isn't "one event" nor does it meet the letter or spirit of BLP1E as A) it isn't a single event IMO and B) this isn't an essentially low profile person. Hobit (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article subject is undeniably not "low profile," therefore BLP1E argument does not apply. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think BLP1E applies here, and she clearly meets BIO and GNG. john k (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has attained enough notoriety to warrant an article and does meet the requirements of BIO. Brothejr (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only important as part of the Birthers story. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:BLP1E is still more than applicable here...again, absent Birther-gate, Taitz is a dentist/lawyer-by-mail who wouldn't get within pissing distance of Wikipedia's notability. Hopefully the same, tired, flawed arguments against 1E policy from the DRV won't reappear in this relisting. Tarc (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone argued against 1E policy. To the contrary, many people made the point that it simply doesn't apply. Quick thought experiment -- what is the purpose of our policy on Biographies of Living Persons? What makes a "living person" different -- in WP terms -- from, say, a dead one (or a tree)? Am I wrong that we have this policy to avoid causing embarassment or harm to such a person (and potentially committing libel)? In particular, am I wrong that the goal of Biographies of Living Persons Section 1E is to avoid a particular type of tort claim known as "false light," wherein someone who is not otherwise famous suddenly has their life publicized without good reason? Assuming I'm not wrong about that understanding (and I doubt that I am), then the reasoning behind the "low profile" element of the policy makes perfect sense -- it's not a peripheral element or an "exception" (as I think you put it). Rather, it is simply the case that someone who casts light upon themselves (by actively seeking fame) is incredibly unlikely to legitimately claim that they were harmed by publicity -- to have a so-called "false light" claim. Therefore we need not worry about unreasonably publicizing details of their life. Therefore BLP does not apply. Quite simple, really. We might legitimately argue other policies -- and maybe you're thinking of some other policy when you're citing BLP1E (based on your comment, I have to think that's the case). But applying BLP1E to someone who spends their time actively courting fame...just makes no sense. --TheOtherBob 18:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As was stated during the deletion review, to point out that Taitz would not be notable "absent Birther-gate" (as you have done continually) is to say that she wouldn't be notable if not for the thing that makes her notable.
      It would be reasonable to argue that this thing doesn't make her notable enough (which I strongly disagree with), but interpreting BLP 1E as a rule that an article's subject must be notable for more then one reason is flat-out incorrect. (TheOtherBob explains its purpose above, and I'll note that he's an attorney.)
      Seriously, why do you think that 1E is part of the "Biographies of living persons" policy? Is it only okay for a deceased person to be notable for a single reason? —David Levy 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and build with care. Everything that needed to be said is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 31. BLP1E is irrelevant, one issue is not one event, Taitz is not low-profile, decent sources exist to build a reasonable article. And more than anything: the contempt most of us feel for Mrs Taitz should not factor into the decision we make about keeping this article. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - being famous for one thing is not the same as being famous for one event. BLP1E should not be used as a blunt instrument to delete articles - it should be used to delete articles about people who we basically have no sources for except articles that mention their involvement in a single event. This is clearly not true for Taitz, who has had profiles written about her, who appears on the news constantly, and so forth. An okay analogy might be to William H. Ginsburg, who is basically notable entirely for being Monica Lewinsky's lawyer for a few months in 1998, but who has an article (one considerably smaller than the one on Taitz currently is). People may not like it, but Warholian figures do qualify as notable under our current policies, and rules designed to protect the privacy of ordinary people who get caught up in major events should not be used to delete articles about fame whores we don't like. See also Joe the Plumber and Levi Johnston - Taitz has, if anything, courted fame much more aggressively than Levi Johnston, whose deletion notice was rejected on the basis that he wasn't "low profile" enough for BLP1E to apply. john k (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow I don't think being an attention whore should be a consideration for BLP; wanting to be notable does not make one so. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
but with all the coverage (and meta-coverage), she is. riffic (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but you're missing the point -- you've got it exactly backwards. That she's an "attention whore" removes the concerns addressed by BLP -- she's obviously not harmed by the existence of a WP article if she actively solicits attention. Is she then also notable? Once we're comfortable that the article would not harm a living person, BLP has no opinion. (But that's she receives significant coverage by reliable sources strongly suggests that she's notable.)--TheOtherBob 20:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not missing the point, which was that self-promotion should not be championed when deciding notability. Tarc (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely missing the point. No one is asserting that Taitz's self-promotion makes her worthy of an article. We're saying that it doesn't make her unworthy of an article. And at the same time, it eliminates any possible concern that Taitz wishes to maintain a low-profile existence. —David Levy 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A person seeking attention does not automatically qualify for an article. BTW, calling here a "attention whore " is not exactly the polite way to put it and such phrase should not be used here.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Again, no one is asserting that a person seeking attention automatically qualifies for an article. We're saying that a person seeking attention isn't automatically disqualified from having an article.
2. I didn't use that term. Did you mean to reply to someone else? (Your message is indented directly beyond mine.) —David Levy 20:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(After edit conflict). My apologies, David. My comment was in reply to the whole thread above.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying.  :) —David Levy 21:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc's use of "attention whore" just confirms that this deletion discussion is distorted by people's contempt for Taitz's cause, motives and modus operandi. I share that contempt but I don't see how it's relevant. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, Tarc was responding to a comment in which John Kenney used the term "fame whores." But yes, I agree that some of the sentiment in favor of deletion appears to be fueled by personal dislike of Orly Taitz (which I share as well, but which is entirely irrelevant). —David Levy 21:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like this puts you on my trustable NPOV "high-list". With other words, you're on my watchlist by now, (in a good sense).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For "real" coverage. If it wasn't bc of WP I already would've forgotten about her.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you define real coverage please? As WP:N doesn't have such a requirement other than "non-trivial" I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for. Hobit (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She was on "The Colbert Report"? I really have to see this to see the magnificence.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My arguments at the DRV for the nomination apply with equal force here. I won't recapitulate at length what is already available with one click, by a summary is appropriate. WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:BLP1E cut strongly against articles for people whose notability stems only from a single event. The arguments for BLP1E's inapplicability are not persuasive, and even if they were, SINGLEEVENT picks up the slack. When both are taken together, they overwhelm. Taitz's notability rests entirely on her involvement in litigating the President's citizenship; "event" can and should be read broadly to deem that one event. Just as playing in one baseball game is one event, no matter how many pitches one throws or balls one hits during that game, filing multiple lawsuits that are functionally identical is also one event. It's the game that is the event, not the plays, and Taitz's can be covered adequately at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. She is not independently notable and doesn't merit her own article.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say that they don't cut that strongly. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. No this person isn't an assassin, but there is large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. I personally think there shouldn't be that coverage and that the whole thing is silly, but the coverage is there in spades. Hobit (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has sufficient background information on the subject, who has been increasing her notability in American political circles whether we like it or not. --Tocino 03:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy delete as hoax. ... discospinster talk 20:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asla (singer)

edit
Asla (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)


  • Delete - clear hoax. I ran through most of the stronger claims, just to make sure, (eg 2006 VH1 Fashion Awards, Maxim's Top 100), and, unsurprisingly, all proved to be false. Of course, having the nickname "A-Hole" did ring some of its own alarms. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, and the part "Consisting of her most personal friends HauS of AsLa (often abbreviated: HO-A)" which made me guess the spoof part. Greenleaf (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. While some articles do not need peer reviewed sources, those, that deal with scientific issues, such as health, do. If this is to be a serious article, it needs relevant basis. If those are found, the article should be written again. Until then, no article is better. Tone 13:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health effects of wind power

edit
Health effects of wind power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. This appears to be a legitimate article at first glance but, following extensive Talk page discussion, it has become clear that it is actually without peer-reviewed medical sources and is mainly original research and media hype. It promotes a theory and book by Nina Pierpont. Sister article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind turbine syndrome and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Pierpont. Johnfos (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits have reduced the emphasis on Dr. Pierpont, since, as Johnfos notes, this is an important subject that entails much more than just her work. --Kerberos (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the article limited to human health effects? Because I saw a news program on controversy over farmers who believe their livestock are being adversely affected. That subject is definitely notable. There are lawsuits over it. Is it already covered in another article along with bird strikes and other issues? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the article as it stands is limited to human health effects, and we have Environmental effects of wind power which comprehensively describes impacts on birds and other animals, and it also describes the more general debate about wind power use. Environmental effects of wind power is a good and solid article in my view. Johnfos (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge. The article is not currently supported sufficiently by reliable sources to stand on its own. Suggest merging the text that is ok with one of the parent articles mentioned above. Johnfos notified me on my talk page of this discussion, but did not ask me to vote a certain way. Cla68 (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see. Pierpont's book is supposed to be in print later this month. There may then be reviews in relevant medical journals. Meanwhile, the article is already steering more towards simple loss of sleep, which is a recognized health issue. Furthermore, one person's "media hype" — as in the list of news citations (which no longer includes specifically local stories of health complaints) — is another person's "notability". There is no doubt that this is a major issue in wind turbine siting and deserves its own article. --Kerberos (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Kerberos is an anti-wind single purpose account (see [42]) - rst20xx (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - the article as it stands appears to have major WP:UNDUE problems - for the article to stay (or be merged) they would need to be addressed. Artw (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge. This is essentially the same article that was deleted before; news articles about a soon to be released self-published book do not make this more notable than it was. This deserves a couple of balanced sentences on Environmental effects of wind power and nothing more.Tspine (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Recreation of previously-created page; gives WP:UNDUE weight to what is essentially an extremely marginal viewpoint. --Aquillion (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable subject. Issues of bias or undue weight can be sorted out via editing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable subject. Issues of bias or undue weight can be sorted out via editing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We've already been through this once before on the several related articles. Any alleged health effects or other ill-effects of wind turbines should be covered in the main article. This is nothing more than a POV fork as well as advertisement for an upcoming non-scientific self-published anti-wind turbine book by someone who doesn't want their view ruined. This is like creating an article "Health effects of flouridated water", by its nature POV. Drawn Some (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, be on the lookout for a bunch of sockpuppets/meatpuppets to show up here. Drawn Some (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV and factual accuracy are matters for editing, not deletion. --Kerberos (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well what I'm trying to say is it's a POV fork, which is a matter for deletion - rst20xx (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By its nature, the subject of health effects, like those of environmental effects, history of wind power, wind turbines, and wind farms, not to mention the numerous individual articles about wind energy companies and facilities, deserves its own article separate from the main article for proper treatement. You seem to think that just acknowledging the well documented issue (which really exists and is a growing concern) is evidence of POV. --Kerberos (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that the focus on the pseudoscientific research of Dr Pierpont is evidence of POV. Her research has no scientific rigour.
The research in the book purportedly provides scientific evidence for the condition, but in fact contains a study of 38 individuals from 10 families, who were living near wind farms and approached the author to complain about their symptoms, before then being surveyed. Only 23 of the 38 individuals were actually interviewed; further, Pierpont tells us that, “One family member was a baby born a few days before the family moved out, so there is no data for this child on sleep or behaviour during exposure (which was in utero). Thus the sample size of subjects for whom we have information about experiences or behaviour during exposure is 37.”
With such a small and biased sample, it is difficult to take the results seriously. There have been no peer reviews of the research in reputable scientific journals. A handful of scientists are quoted as having endorsed it, but that is all. This makes for very poor research, and some of the claims made therein are surprising to say the least. For example: “An additional core symptom is a new type of internal or visceral sensation which has no name in the medical lexicon. Subjects struggled to explain these sensations, often apologizing for how strange their words sounded. A physician subject called it “feeling jittery inside” or “internal quivering.” Other subjects chose similar words, while others talked about feeling pulsation or beating inside. The physical sensations of quivering, jitteriness, or pulsation are accompanied by acute anxiety, fearfulness, or agitation, irritability, sleep disturbance (since the symptom arises during sleep or wakefulness), and episodes of tachycardia. I call this sensation and accompanying symptoms visceral vibratory vestibular disturbance (VVVD).” 11 individuals reported such symptoms, and suddenly the disorder has its own name.
It is possible that some people living too close to wind farms experience problems related to the levels of noise coming from them. But any further conditions have not been properly researched at all. The listed symptoms are similar to those that would result from chronic sleep loss, and it seems could more easily be caused by mass hysteria amongst individuals already sceptical of wind farms before turbine installation, than be caused by the actual turbines themselves.
And yet this article, like Wind turbine syndrome and Nina Pierpont before it, has been created, by you, primarily to push this book (though it has now been slightly defocused away from the book). Hence, POV fork. Noise issues were covered adequately in Environmental effects of wind power, and that is where they should return - rst20xx (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence, about a case where the residents didn't live close to the turbines, is not adequate coverage. And health effects, which are widely reported,[43] do not begin and end with Nina Pierpont. --Kerberos (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special Herbs: The Box Set Vol. 0–9

edit
Special Herbs: The Box Set Vol. 0–9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE. This is a non-notable box set / album of which only 7500 copies were made. JBsupreme (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authentik Artists

edit
Authentik Artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested on the grounds that "Authentik Artists is a significant label, with a well-respected team and artist roster." Problem is, Google News doesn't back up this assertion. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was re-userfy and move protect. I have been sending this user messages over and over again explaining why the person is not notable yet, and his creation of a new article now is totally inappropriate. But I don't have any problem with letting the user keep it in their userspace to dream. No prejudice, though, against someone starting an MfD to delete the userspace version. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note: Since the user created the page by doing a copy-paste, rather than move, the version in userspace was still there. Thus, rather than moving the mainspace one, I just deleted it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarey Savy (Singer/Songwriter)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Sarey Savy (Singer/Songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Constantly recreated article lacking references to support WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Lacks GNEWS and GHits of substance to support notability. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator --B (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Marley

edit
Rohan Marley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Son, husband, father. But WP is not the Social Register. (See also WP:NOTINHERITED.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. When nominated for deletion, this article was primarily about a celeb hubby and dad. However, it did also say: He played pro football in Canada for the now defunct Ottawa Rough Riders. [...] He is currently the owner of the Tuff Gong Clothing line. Neither of these putative assertions of notability was sourced, but anyway merely "playing pro football" (without any elaboration whatever) for this or that team hardly seemed like an assertion of substantive notability (it didn't even assert that he'd appeared in a match), and owning a "clothing line" (company? trademark?) didn't either especially as that "line" didn't itself have an article. So he looked like a nobody to me. Well, it seems that playing pro football does confer notability and anyway there's a substantive amount of news coverage of him doing it. Good work Zagalejo. -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Speedy Delete as offensive nonsense. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bake a Cake With My Nigga Joc

edit
Bake a Cake With My Nigga Joc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google search shows no reliable sources for this supposed "song"; this is most likely a hoax. I tried to nomiate this for speedy deletion, but it didn't work. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn and Merge. I know that there is a template to add to an article when the result is merge, but I don't know what it is. I wouldn't merge it myself because I usually suck at merging. Joe Chill (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Heights Elementary School

edit
Royal Heights Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All that I can find is trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 22:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead In The Water

edit
Dead In The Water (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable film; fails WP:N and WP:NF. Deprodded with note of "contest prod - film won a couple notable awards & was reviewed by several reliable sources (see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0235333/externalreviews) - add referenced claim of importance; add cats; will trim excessive plot section & expand ASAP", however IMDB is not a reliable source and the "notable awards" are one film festival award and a minor DVD award. The reviews linked at IMDB are not reliable sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage can be found under its Brazilian title: [50]
ePinions is NOT a nationally known source nor is it a reliable source. They are user submitted reviews. Film reviews are just as reliable and unreliable as any other source. The film, again, fails WP:NF. A Film Festival win is not a major award nor notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Acyually, Epinions is a nationally known and accepted source, themselves oft quoted by numerous relaiable sources [51]. Not all their reviews are simply "user submitted". One can easily confirm if a review is from Joe Sixpack or from a nationally respected reviewer. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the epinions review was an editorial review, not a fan review, but I could be wrong. (I am well aware the site allows fan reviews - I am not that dumb.) Let's just throw that one out. Apollo movie guide is certainly well known and reputable, as is Reel Film Reviews. Here's a review from trade publication Video Business and one from Allmovie.com].
Also, how exactly can someone's opinion of a film be unreliable? It can't! That is why NFILMS uses the language "has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" instead of "has received full length reviews by two or reliable sources." NFILMS also specifically states that, while there is no clear consensus about which film festivals are major that a major film festival award can establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ePinions is purely user reviews, they are not editorial reviews. Anyone can join and post reviews. And yes, an opinion can unreliable. ANYONE can post a opinion about anything, that doesn't make it reliable for Wikikpedia purpose. "nationally known critics" = reliable sources and REAL critics, not a user site that just happens to have national coverage WP:FILMS does not override WP:RS or any other guideline or policy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already said to discard ePinions so I don't know why you are still arguing about it. An opinion can't be unreliable in the normal sense of the word, which is why the nationally known clause exists. For purposes of film, as you said a nationally known critic is the equivalent of a reliable source. Again, I don't know what you are arguing about here as I am certainly not saying a fan review at a well known site is a "national known critic." --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if you had bothered to look above or below your own comments, you might have noticed User:MichaelQSchmidt's attempts to inflate the importance of ePinions by doing exactly that. --Calton | Talk 05:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And with respects Calton, if you had yourself bothered to look at the timecodes, you'd see my comments were made after his, and in response to an earlier assertion by the nominator, as ThaddeusB is correct in that were are allowed to consider the reviewer himself. Had a epinion review been offered that had come from Joe Sixpack, rather than from someone who is themselvves a nationally recognized, respected, and oft-quoted reviewer, my comment would have made little sense. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the specific review from Epinions is from respected reviewer Daniel Fienberg, who also writes for such as Television Week, Baltimore Sun, Daily Record, Daily Pennsylvanian, and many others... and is himself quoted by still more RS. His opinion matters. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As was already noted above, the reviews you point to are not reliable sources. Some random ePinions review? User submitted and not reliable. Reviews have to meer WP:RS the same as any other source, as I think you already know. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As was pointed out above, I did not pull a random, user-generated review, and specifically shared in the edit summary the pedigree of the reviewer whose work is being quoted. Or are you saying a nationally recognized reviewer's work counts only dependent upon where he offers it? That would be akin to saying Roger Ebert's opinion only counnts if it is in New York Times. If a reviewer has a recognized and accepted reputation, then it is his opinion that matters... not where it might be found, as not all RS have been so qualified in RS, and the reviewers have been quoted in sources that are RS. Context... context. If Joe Sixpack gives his opinion and then Roger Rbert gives his opinion, it is the reputation of the individual (or lack) that gives or removes credibility, not where they offer it. In this case the "reliable source" is the individual who has created his own reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Ebert has it, Sixpack does not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prove the ePinions person is the same national critic quoted by the other sources, while keeping in mind that ePinions does NOT vest any profiles, names, etc. Users register and begin posting and can write pretty much anything in their profiles they want. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my good faith in the name and the context. However, since you doubt that this review was actually written by Fienberg, I have removed it from the article and placed it on the article's talk page for discussion. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Devine

edit
AfDs for this article:
Alex Devine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO (one nomination in entire finished career does not satisfy second prong) and general notability guidelines. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of them significant roles nor significant films. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strictly speaking, PORNBIO is neither a criteria for inclusion nor exclusion. It is simply short hand for determing if something is likely to be notable. The only inclusion criteria, is always, coverage in reliable secondary sources. This article fails ent, as Chuthya and KevinOKeeffe have explained, fails PORNBIO, and has no demonstrated significant coverage in reliable secondary sources Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Plenty of movies, notable events and info. Just nobody bothers to put them down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.136.39 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Richard Bachman (disambiguation)

edit

The result was Delete WP:SNOW JHunterJ (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bachman (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambiguation page with only 2 entries - hatnote on primary page points to only other person. PROD was contested. ThaddeusB (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tunday Akintan

edit
AfDs for this article:
Tunday Akintan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Artist does not meet any criterion of WP:Band. -- Ankimai (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lots of references, but nothing which established notability. Indeed, one would guess from reading the webpages on which he appears, that they are all either self-written or based on Wikipedia. It's all circular, and leads to my thinking to delete. Unschool 22:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus. Coverage does seem to exist in apparently reliable sources, but there are reasonable points made that these sources may not actually be independent. The answer to that dispute is unclear; but in the absence of a consensus either way we shall default to keeping the article. ~ mazca talk 00:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BY2 (band)

edit
BY2 (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Despite considerable discussion and prompting between myself and the author of this article, there has been no attempt to prove notability or verifiabilty except by reference to press releases from the record label or to fansites or blogs; contra to WP:BAND musician criteria 1.
Also a previous article on the same subject By2 (duo band) was deleted in April under CSD A7. I haven't re-proposed on the same grounds as WP:BAND musician criteria 5 may apply. NtheP (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it shows info well abt the musicians and also, collabrates a summary and main points frm all over the news. ppl may find this useful. keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinglun (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having looked at the news sources quoted they do seem to be just press release type stories issued by a record company and don't establish notability of subject. NtheP (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I reviewed the sources uncovered by Paul Erik and they represent significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. They may be a bit fluffy in style, but that's rather expected in entertainment reporting. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - that's fluffy as in bone idle and just reprint the record company press release :-) Despite being the proposer of this deletion I'm really pretty neutral about it and if those articles are enough for WP:V then fair enough I'm not going to argue. NtheP (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - I don't see how they even appear to be press release reprints. -- Whpq (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply - if you don't you don't. Perhaps I'm just to jaded and cynical but they have record label puffery all the way through them to me. The first two especially have numerous quotes from Billy Koh - who just happens to work for their record label NtheP (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was redirect to Mitch Hedberg. Redirect for now, history is left so the merge can be performed. Tone 13:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Shawcroft

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

Seems destined to remain a stub (has been one for nearly three years). All searches return only info regarding her being the wife of a notable comedian...Notability is not inherited. SoSaysChappy (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. notability requires multiple references so by policy this falls to delete Spartaz Humbug! 23:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaelic Club

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

Non-notable and uncited. Search for cites brings nothing back on the club itself. Jwoodger (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Article meets speedy deletion under spam.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article doesn't support notability for the club in itself, in my opinion, but could still be used after a merge to the Irish National Association of Australasia.  florrie  11:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When the topic is the in-depth subject of a reliable source, it passes the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. In this case, the source is the highest circulation newspaper on an entire continent.--Oakshade (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't dispute the notability of the SMH, but to me 266 words (excluding title) is hardly "in-depth".  florrie  02:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but there's no denying it's not "trivial" coverage, ie a passing mention or directory listing.--Oakshade (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a topic has received significant coverage by a reliable source, it is notable per our guidelines, specifically WP:NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but what is on offer is not significant in my view. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AtomineerUtils

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

no indication of notability per WP:GNG Jujutacular talkcontribs 23:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can someone please explain what criteria this page needs to meet to be retained? I have tried to follow the same format as for other similar pieces of software. Let me know what's wrong and I'll happily do what I can to adhere to whatever rule it is that I've broken?! Just deleting it out from under me without giving me a clue as to what I did wrong is not very helpful - I'll only continue to make pages that are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.84.66 (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have been given a clue twice. Read WP:N. 16:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't want to waste my time or yours re-submitting something until it achieves acceptability. Rather than clues, I was seeking some guidance - not on what is wrong with this page ("notability"), but what (if anything) could be done to gain approval. I'm not expecting a headline appearance on the BBC news any time soon, so what is a source you will find acceptable/realistic? How many references are needed to prove notability? Presumably I should add a references section and link to the sources (or should I post them here?) e.g. Is this a notable source: [[60]] (search for Jason Williams - it's mentioned about half way down). Or this? [[61]]. Thanks, and apologies if I'm wasting your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.158.100 (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Notability is generally established by demsontrating that this subject (in this case AtomineerUtils) has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. In the links you provided, we have somebody's personal page (nota reliable source), and a directory entry on MSDN (reliable, but doesn't really establish notability as there is no indication of rigorous editorial oversight in the coverage).
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. One two three... 07:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First houses in Mid-Levels

edit
First houses in Mid-Levels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability: nothing that indicates why there should be an article on this subject. Admitted original research (see talk page). Sophitessa (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Property development is key to the history of Hong Kong and to help understand current land use. These pages show early history. In future, I intend to show how each lot has been redeveloped over the years. Can we rename these pages "History of Mid-Levels" and its sister page "first House on the Peak", "History of the Peak". These are intended as sub-pages to show the context of the exisiting buildings that are of interest. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anneliseconnell (talk • contribs) 06:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia. So the content would have to be rewritten into an article. If you want to do that I'm sure an admin will userfy the content for you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that original research is not accepted on Wikipedia. Articles must be referenced and verified by reliable thrid-party sources. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research for policy guidelines. --Sophitessa (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. Retitling is an editorial decision to be followed up on the article talk page. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critics of the New Deal

edit
Critics of the New Deal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am not sure as to the purpose of this article. It doesn't seem like an encyclopedic page on its own; at most, it looks to me like name-dropping, most of which (about an half) gives no context, and the rest gives no sources. I don't think the list could be accomodated in the New Deal article either, as it would break the flow of text/prose. Therefore, I suggest that the article should be deleted: not because of its content, but because it's not really a good concept for a Wikipedia article. Sceptre (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Diamond (doctor)

edit
John Diamond (doctor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

BLP with no external sources. Seems mostly promotional. B (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand... three out of the five sources are external. There is no "sales pitch" on the page - all of the statements are factual or historical and do not make any qualitative claims. So how can I remedy the issues you see in the page? I'm new to Wikipedia editing and have been lambasted by coi (my fault due to poor name choice) and so forth and it really feels like nothing I could do to the page would keep passing editors happy! I know, I know - don't take it personally. I didn't think there'd be such a learning curve - I haven't even gone on to another article yet this one has required so much attention. Well, now I know. And any help would certainly be appreciated. Thanks, AKDiamond (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The problem isn't that the article is promotional, is that it doesn't establish notablity through the third-party sources generally accepted for Wikipedia. Vartanza (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the "acceptable" third-party sources? Price-Pottenger is certainly well established; Lynne McTaggart, the author of another source, has her own Wikipedia page; and AK (Applied Kinesiology) is the premier kinesiology journal. I'll see what I can dig up, so please allow some time for me to do so. Thanks, AKDiamond (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a strong book endorsement by the president, at the time (2000), of the Society for the Arts in Healthcare, or the president, at the time (2000), of the Theosophical Society in America? Kinesiologists, with maybe two exceptions, don't get mainstream press coverage - that does not necessarily mean that they are not notable in their field. I think your criteria for what constitutes a notable source may be a little inappropriately applied in this case. Please address this. Thanks, AKDiamond (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This help his case at all? AKDiamond (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability by virtue under established criteria. There is no basis to create new criteria.
  • Point me to the list of sources that Wikipedia considers notable then. (I can certainly point you to a thousand BLPs that have no external sources at all.) It would be nice for one person to address the questions I have asked! Or is the policy "delete first, answer questions later"? AKDiamond (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not sure he is notable as a scientist, but he is more generally as an author. From GN Archive searching on "John Diamond" music, after ruling out a number of other people, I find are the following references. 1. The music critic Schonberg in the NY Times "Keep away from the musical note "C," warns kinesiologist Dr. John Diamond in a new book. He says that anybody exercising to music ..." NY Times 2. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribun 3. LA Times 4. Marie-Claire 5 And a fascinating article in Sterophile That's just one aspect of his work, but I think it's enough DGG (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for those links, DGG. Perhaps somebody can tell me this: Do these sources need to be quoted in the article now, to address the "notable external sources" complaint? Or is the fact that they exist enough to address that? If they do need to be added, I would be grateful for some help from somebody who has access to the first three links. Thanks, AKDiamond (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the article's primary author (though it's probably clear from looking at this page). Dr. Diamond is certainly notable as an author - his book Your Body Doesn't Lie is currently at #39,708 in Books on Amazon, and it was written in 1979, showing the perennial influence of his kinesiological writings. I know that he became known, around that time, on the talk show circuit as "the Doc who knocks the rock" - even once having an on-air argument with Meatloaf. Unfortunately I'm not able to find these earlier materials (thanks to DGG for finding some related articles). Any help or suggestions would be appreciated - though I do not think deletion is warranted, the article could certainly use improvement. Thanks, AKDiamond (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ar-

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

Article is unreferenced. The nav box on the article suggests that it is an IUPAC prefix, but I searched the online copy (e.g. [62]), and there was no reference of it anywhere. A quick google found nothing either. It is the responsibility of those submitting articles to justify their existence and the authors have failed to do this. This article was deleted on wiktionary for presumably the same reason. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, wiktionary:ar- is probably going to get deleted (again) if it cannot be verified.[63]- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I added those there. I would imagine it would survive, but even if it doesn't that shouldn't affect the wikipedia article either way.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time (TV series)

edit
50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One-time special countdown show. Never repeated, no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, sources do exist (such as GSN's web site, TV Guide and IMDb). Also broadcast elsewhere, such as in India. --Ckatzchatspy 20:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

India Resource Maps

edit
India Resource Maps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure what the subject of this article is intended to be - the title is ungrammatical and unclear, and the content is already covered in Natural resources in India. A prod notice was removed without any explanation and the article creator and sole contributor Sreejithcv (talk · contribs) has not responded to a request to clarify the article's scope. Abecedare (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. If anone wants to merge the content, let me know. Tone 13:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hapes Consortium

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

Article about a non-notable fictional government from the Star Wars universe. The article's content appears to be a simple cut-and-paste from Wookieepedia. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, just to check -- what with the license change and all, what's the rule-of-thumb about e.g. this article, which is a copy-and-paste I'm sure from Wookieepedia (another CCASAL site)? --EEMIV (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Catterson

edit
Liam Catterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable autobiography (written by User:Liam Catterson). His "show" (Liam's Adventures) appears to be just some YouTube thing. He has no IMDb page, and nothing on Google news. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley's Toy Money Complete with Game Of Banking

edit
AfDs for this article:
Bradley's Toy Money Complete with Game Of Banking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game. First AFD closed with no discussion whatsoever. It is almost one month since I created that AFD and hope for more discussion this time around. Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is this a Keep or delete? Can you please clarify? Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just struck my third comment -- the first two still stand, so keep.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for clarifying!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thread was removed as "trolling"

Strong Keep: I have heard of it! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Joe Chill (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is obviously notable! Thats what! - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does I have heard of it! show notability? Joe Chill (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell? It seems like you're trolling this AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Let's Chill, Joe. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I have heard of it and believe it to be notable. Please do not remove my Strong Keep. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it be. It does no harm as the closing admin will probably not see this as a valid reason to keep and it will probably just be disregarded.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Söderberg

edit
AfDs for this article:
Ole Söderberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Bio and WP:Athlete — Preceding unsigned comment added by RM-Taylor (talk • contribs) 00:03, August 8, 2009

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

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. WP:ATH is the relevant criteria here, if this is met later, the article can be brought back. Tone 13:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Jones

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

Fails WP:GNG because after a good faith search all I could find are trivial mentions and a few feature stories but all by Scout.com's team sections which will cover really anything about their school. Giants27 (c|s) 15:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I searched Google News and found little more than brief notes regarding injury reports and roster changes, mostly from the Miami Hurricanes website and a few local papers. The most interesting thing I can find is that he got knocked out in a brawl after the 2005 Peach Bowl, which at best would warrant a redirect. Did you have something more substantial? Location (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Google News search turns up around 200+ references. WP:ATHLETE is a guideline and not policy, and is inclusionary not exclusionary. This article matter meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO regardless of not having actually played a down of professional football--Zta ♠talk♠ August 8 2009 ♠Nastia ♠
    • Please only vote once. And that's common knowledge that WP:ATH is a guideline, thus it wasn't mentioned. Google news hits also do not show notability, "significant coverage" does, i.e. articles fully about the subject not just passing mentions.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Port Augusta Re-Imagines

edit
Port Augusta Re-Imagines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:N, gnews search yields nothing [68], google search mainly some directory listings as an event and limited coverage like this [69]. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A one-off event, nothing in the content indicates sustained ongoing notability. It will be forgotten as soon as it finishes. WWGB (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a single event that doesn't seem to have garnered much attention, even locally. Anything sourceable or significant can easily be accomodated at Port Augusta, South Australia.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwis Against Seabed Mining

edit
Kiwis Against Seabed Mining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG, hardly any third party coverage [70]. this article has existed for over 4 years yet hardly any improvement. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The organisation is not getting any national news coverage of late but that is no reason for deletion. Also, a Google news archive search does not necessarily give a full coverage of news. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
my reason for nomination is not lack of recent coverage. in fact google news goes back to about 1850. you have not actually provided any evidence of coverage as required for WP:GNG, so that weakens your keep argument. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No but a lack of notability is. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
many non government organisations/lobby groups/clubs can get 6 mentions in newspapers...but these articles more refer to this organisation being present rather than discussing "Kiwis Against Seabed Mining" in any depth. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unfortunately, the Keep proponents avoid actual policy reasons in their statements. Despite Awickert's assertion, existence /= notability. In order to sustain an article, reliable sources discussing the organization in detail cannot simply be alleged to possibly exist somewhere out there; they must be produced. Without them, the article must be deleted.  RGTraynor  06:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, existence can be verified WP:V which is not the same as being notable WP:N. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Together World Tour 2009

edit
Escape Together World Tour 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tour list and almost nothing more, no sources seem to be non-trivial. Tours are almost inherently non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Article just needs a bit of work...it's a notable tour by a multi-platinum artist...not to mention that tour is in support of a #1 album..also, the opening act for the tour are several high profile acts and the tour had some press on sites such as People Magazine etc....--Ikkomuitnederland (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--84.25.117.15 (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Selena Gomez#Music. JForget 21:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss and Tell (album)

edit
Kiss and Tell (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From WP:NALBUM, "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." POKERdance talk/contribs 23:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing my vote from delete to strong delete. Since I nominated this article, it has just grown into a major WP:CRYSTAL violation, discussing tracks that may be or may not be on the album. Also, hardly any of the content has to do with the album; it seems to be more about Gomez as a recording artist, which is already discussed in her article. POKERdance talk/contribs 02:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD is missing step 2, the discussion should be relisted and a page made. I'm an IP editor so I cannot finish the process. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Those articles you mentioned, are high-profile projects and/or are receiving significant coverage in reliable sources, and thus meet the WP:GNG. However, this is neither. Sure, there are reliable sources (Amazon.com, E! Online, MTV, and People), but they only confirm the release date and other minor details, and one of those references is from last year and is not about the album. The rest are from unreliable sources, such as an Oceanup-reminiscent blog called Disney Dreaming.

    Since this article fails both WP:NALBUM and the WP:GNG, just wait until either, (1) the complete track listing is confirmed by Selena or Hollywood, or (2) it receives more coverage in reliable sources. See WP:CHILL. POKERdance talk/contribs 00:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete it! The album was confirmed by a couple of websites (Angry Ape, Ace Showbiz, Her Myspace, Amazon, Ocean Up, Just Jared, Pop Justice, and many other websites have confirmed the album) and also confirmed by the singer's official Myspace page. And the release date for the album is set for September 5th so you can't delete it now. And it may not be updated all the way but that's part of the article you leave the article and update it later until it get's more sources Well I think I answered all your questions. Now I suggest you get rid of the Nomanation for Deletion. User:Sprite7868|<User talk:Sprite7868 04:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC

  • Welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid argument here at Articles for Deletion. If something does not pass notability guidelines (like Kiss and Tell does not pass the notability guideline for albums because no reliable sources have confirmed the tracklisting and release date), it may be removed from Wikipedia until it meets those guidelines (in this case, when the tracklist is confirmed by a reliable, third-party site). Also, the article currently says that the album will be released on September 28th. If you have a reliable source saying otherwise, be bold and edit the article saying what the confirmed release date is! :) talkingbirds 01:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (directed at Sprite7868): Your argument failed completely the moment you implied that Angry Ape, OceanUp, Pop Justice, and Just Jared were reliable sources. Those are gossip websites and in most cases can not be used as a reliable source for information. The release date may be set, but until we get an official track listing confirmed by Gomez or her record label, this article fails WP:NALBUM. The world will not end tomorrow. POKERdance talk/contribs 03:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (directed at Pokerdance): Those are just some examples of the websites. I couldn't find any reliable sources so I put some examples of unreliable websites I'm trying to help you get this article undeleted. So can you just bare with me on the album. I'm sure they will come out with a tracklist sooner or later.User:Sprite7868|<User talk:Sprite7868 10:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC
  • Comment: If there are no reliable sources, what is the point of keeping this article? You just claimed you couldn't find any reliable sources on the album, which essentially means this article consists almost completely of unverifiable content. When they come out with a tracklist, recreate the article. Until then, it should be deleted, or at best redirected to Selena Gomez. POKERdance talk/contribs 19:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (directed at Pokerdance):Now you can't delete it I couldn't find anything about a tracklist but I did manage to find a video review/review on E! Online with Marc Malkin. He did a review with Selena Gomez who said she was coming out with the album. So ask yourself is this reliable enough and can I take down the nomaination for deletion. Here's the review article. I will put the reference somewhere on the article page for you to look at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprite7868 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as it seems like that the album will come out in september but until then there doesnt seem like enough information and credible sources to keep the article open. Plus Selena Gomez is yet to be come a notable artist. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: The problem here is that the album is not notable. Gomez established notability as both an actress and singer quite awhile ago. I don't understand your crazy terms of what makes a musician notable (you claim that Heidi Montag, who receives massive coverage and has released at least one charting single), but perhaps you should take a look at WP:BAND. Gomez already passes on the point that she has at least one charting single. However, that's not the point here. I just wanted to let you know the major difference between your belief of what establishes a musician's notability, and Wikipedia's, since this also seems to be an issue here. POKERdance talk/contribs 18:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.oxfordartonline.com/
  2. ^ http://books.google.ca/books?ei=sbN-St7JBpeIyQTHwKi4Cg&client=firefox-a&id=T7hPAAAAMAAJ&dq=Origins+and+development+of+kinetic+art++By+Frank+Popper&q=Lumino#search_anchor
  3. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=c8ZbINFYdVoC&pg=PA204&dq=%22lumino%22+art&lr=&ei=Y7t-SoG3FYOIygSYnaTfCg#v=onepage&q=%22lumino%22%20art&f=false
  4. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=lfXljzVwkJcC&pg=PA291&dq=%22lumino%22+art&lr=&ei=AbV-SqKFKpmSywSK5tjACg#v=onepage&q=%22lumino%22%20art&f=false
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_8&oldid=1142645525"