Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 2

< 1 July	3 July >

Guide to deletion

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 delete. (X! · talk) · @053 · 00:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sander van heukelom

non indication of notability for this artist. TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST; no indication of recognition in reliable, independent sources. WWGB (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional piece; non-notable. Renee (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Highly promotional; fails WP:ARTIST. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:25, 3 July 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. everyone seems to agree on this one DGG (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Byron

NN ice hockey player TexasAndroid (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. -Djsasso (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior precedent: Examples include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and at least 25 other AfDs for similar players. When/If this player wins a major award or plays in a fully professional league, then this article can be recreated, until then, he is not notable per WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. -Pparazorback (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable; promotional. Renee (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has yet to play pro or otherwise achieve notability, etc etc. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is making the 2nd All-Star team in the Q a notable achievement per WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE? Source. Patken4 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First team would be, according to our guideline. Second team, no. --Smashville^talk 13:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE and precedent. --Smashville^talk 13:48, 7 July 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, WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Thomas Bolton

Non-notable professor. Astronomy who doesn't even have an observatory anymore. Ricky28618 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many sources, clear claim of notability, well written. Not having an observatory has nothing to do with notability, which doesn't dissipate over time. --Gimme danger (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What Gimme danger said. Also, as a member of the Royal Society of Canada (it says here) he passes WP:PROF #3, and his work on Cygnus X-1 is very likely enough for WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Keep. Sufficient independent sources to satisfy WP:PROF. (Besides his meeting of criterion 1, his election to the Royal Society of Canada—not mentioned in the article—satisfies criterion 3.) Deor (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep shouldn't have been nominated, pretty darn clearly notable.--Buridan (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course the subject is notable. He discovered the first black hole. GS tops cites are166, 136,132. Note that prodder is a self-confessed sock, although this does not affect notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Note: Nominator has been blocked indefinitely for abuse of editing privileges so this might qualify for a speedy close, in addition to both Speedy Keep and Snow Keep. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:49, 3 July 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, disruptive vandalism from indef-blocked user. Horologium (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contaminated haemophilia blood products

Just an attack piece. Insufficiently sourced (newspapers are not enough for accusations of this type). Ricky28618 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure who is being attacked, the article is well-referenced with very respected sources and this history isn't really disputed. My only concern is the title. The disambig page Tainted blood scandal lists several related articles and the terminology should be standardized. Maybe the nominator could clarify the nature of the attack and more precisely why newspapers are not enough to support the article. Drawn Some (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the GA review on the talk page, scholar sources are appropriate, not newspaper articles. It's clearly not appropriate to allow attack pages like this. -- Ricky28618 (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite what was said by the reviewer. How is this an attack article? Please be specific. The topic is notable. There are very reliable sources such as major newspapers. If there is untrue information or if you feel the article is POV, clean it up. Also you might consider making sure that a bureaucrat is aware of your other identity if you're going to use a different account to nominate referenced articles on notable topics for deleteion. Drawn Some (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an important piece of history that is discussed in many reliable sources. Useful references would be PMID 11087169 and PMID 9873760 The current article lacks reliable sources and uses statements by lawyers involved in damages claims as facts, but the topic itself is notable. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are discussions about Canada only. That belongs at Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada, not this article. -- Ricky28618 (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try PMID 17679021 and PMID 15479399 as well, there are a wealth of sources on this topic. This is a good historical review. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator has been blocked indefinitely for abuse of editing privileges so this might qualify for a speedy close. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This should not be deleted as an attack article as the facts are well documented. If BBC News and the New York Times are not reliable sources, what are? I'd support snowballing it. Novangelis (talk) 02:18, 3 July 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 Ram Manohar Lohia. Already redirected by Dlohcierekim. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Manohar

Delete, seems to be a nonsense attack page. I can't make heads or tails of this one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hell, if you'd done a Google search, like I've suggested in the past, you'd know better.. More later. Dloh cierekim 22:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this needs to be a Redirect to Ram Manohar Lohia for now. I was researching when, "shazam" the AFD template arrived before I could put on the redirect. Haste makes headaches, I would say. Secondly, a Gsearch for Ram Manohar nets 40,000 Ghits, so there is probably something there somewhere to do with a notable subject. Thirdly, the content was, "The shortest man was Gul Mohammed" repeated incessantly. This is not an attack, especially when a little research shows we have an article on Gul Mohammed that says he "was the shortest adult human being." Fourth, I'd appreciate it if when I delete an article as an attack page (Shot from the hip. My bad.), and then restore with a caustic summary, that I be given time to sort things out first. <after the ec> So the thing to do was redirect to the doctor, the hospital or stub a new article. Or just give me a minute to sort through and come to a decision. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 23:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a yahoo search and it came back as a doctor and a hospital. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as originally tagged as nonsense. Now that I've completed the due diligence checks that were in progress, I find no notability for this title that do not involve Dr Lohia. Not sure the redirect will serve without the last name. Would have gone ahead and deleted again myself, but here we are. Dloh cierekim 23:20, 2 July 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. Tan | 39 00:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shock (1946 film)

Non-notable film Ricky28618 (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course a film by a major studio starring Vincent Price is notable per WP:NOTE. My suggestion is for the nominator to abandon this account before he is blocked as a disruptive sock. Drawn Some (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? Stars Vincent Price, released by 20th-Century Fox, reviewed by Bosley Crowthers in the NY Times. Speedy close. Dekkappai (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major studio film with major stars reviewed in major metropolitan newspapers. Alansohn (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, of course. More important, the user is a disruptive sock impersonating User:Ricky81682. More disruption from one of the same clowns who's harassing me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep via SNOW - is this a joke? -WarthogDemon 23:52, 2 July 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. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Brice (footballer)

I originally tagged this with PROD giving reason that the subject fails both WP:NOTE & WP:ATHLETE The reason I did this was that there were no references provided to confirm that the player had played fully professionally or was of note for some other reason, and that I could find none when I searched for him on Google. The PROD was removed by the author of the article, so I have elevated it to AfD. Trevor Marron (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He certainly exists and plays for Weymouth, which claims to be a fully professional club since 2005, but WP:ATHLETE requires that he "competed at the fully professional level of a sport", which Conference South is not --Saalstin (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the club may be professional but the league they play in certainly isn't. Giant Snowman 12:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that's exactly what I said - the club claims to be professional, but Conference South isn't, and since ATHLETE requires that the league be, he doesn't meet it --Saalstin (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure Weymouth are still fully pro given their financial disasters last year. Anyway, I don't think he's ever played for them so I think delete for now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATH as he hasn't played in a fully-professional league/competition. Recreate if and when he ever does. --Jimbo^[online] 16:42, 7 July 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 close, withdrawn.

Agnitum

Though expanded since last deletion, I still don't see notability or WP:RS. Dloh cierekim 22:35, 2 July 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. (X! · talk) · @504 · 11:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Walsh

Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prior precedent: Examples include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and at least 25 other AfDs for similar players. When/If this player wins a major award or plays in a fully professional league, then this article can be recreated, until then, he is not notable per WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. -Pparazorback (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. — ^Fatal Error 22:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Standard post-Draft article creation frenzy always results in a lot of non-notable bio pages. This is one of them. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DElete. WP:ATHLETE. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE and precedent. --Smashville^talk 13:46, 7 July 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. (X! · talk) · @504 · 11:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles naming dispute

This article is about a non-existent dispute. There are people and organisations who either don't like the term "British Isles" or who avoid its use. Such people and organisations are not however, in dispute with any other people or organisations. The absence of a dispute is clear from the fact that there are few, if any, references to it apart from on Wikipedia itself. The article serves as little more than a directory of people and organisations who object to the term. The article is, in essence, a POV fork from British Isles and British Isles (terminology). The article is being used as a vehicle to push a political POV. The dispute is imaginary, residing in the minds of Wikipedia editors. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per my comments above. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering there's 111 different sources and that you have a history of being a one purpose account supporting use of the term that is disputed, I don't think it is that article that is full of POV. Midnight Blue stands alone in this desire to delete the page, despite the consensus on the talk page and I fear the nomination was made just to disrupt wikipedia for the sake of making a point.MITH 19:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is stable and well sourced. There is consensus or even a proper discussion on the article's talk page for the deletion.MITH 20:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this article should be deleted. It's not as though you hear about this dispute everyday on the news. In fact, most of the disputing over the name British Isles, occurs among Wikipedia editors. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is because the term is rarely used officially, now that international NGO's and governments have stopped using the term. You don't hear it on the news regularly because its only used colloquially. However the dispute over the term's use does come up every so often in the media from time to time. That hardly means the whole well referenced article should be deleted.MITH 21:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nay! this article (at the very least), could be re-named British Isles Wikipedia naming dispute. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is the dispute doesn't exist at all in the real world and the dispute was invented here on Wikipedia?MITH 21:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that's a fair assessment. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invented? no. Overblown? yes. Anyways, my opinon remains unchanged. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per my above comments. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has multiple references to the dispute, it can be improved but should not be deleted. The nominating editor has already placed a NPOV tag without providing any evidence on the talk page other than the sort of general and unsupported statements that characterise this nomination which looks to be disruptive. If articles were to be deleted on the grounds that there were not daily news items most of the wikipedia would disappear. --Snowded ^TALK 21:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to the effect that assuming the RFD fails, I think there is a case to consider a move of the material to British Isles (terminology) and for some consolidation of material, hopefully with some conventions on use. --Snowded ^TALK 19:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As said by others above the article is very well referenced. Aside from that rational side of things I am Irish and I would now have no hesitation in taking somebody to task if they said my country is part of this "British Isles". Admittedly no Irish person has ever used the term to me, or in my presence. A few years ago, out of sheer politeness, I would have bit my tongue on the rare occasion that some non-Irish person used it in my presence, even though I would have have been just as offended. In hindsight that gave out the wrong signal. All the best. 78.16.42.63 (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Snowded's comments above. The article should be improved, not deleted. — ^Fatal Error 22:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to say rename it, but having scanned through it I think Midnightblueman is quite correct to point out that there isn't a dispute. It is a widely used term - no-one disputes this. It is known that an unquantified number of Irish people find it offensive - no-one disputes this. But... where are the two opposing parties? English doesn't have an official language authority for anyone to argue with. This article is just a collection of random quotes weakly reinforced with background material from other articles. Unique content (if there is any) can be relocated to the appropriate articles and this opinionated synthesis can be deleted. Compare this article with the Macedonia naming dispute; that's a proper article with relevant sources, this... isn't. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to British Isles (terminology). None of the sources seem to give the dispute the weight we give it. That some Irish people object to the use of "British Isles" is true. However, the article seems to me to be more of a synthesis of sources than anything. I suggest that the bulk of the article, most notably the "Alternative names" section, can be merged into the terminology article, giving general reasons for all of the names (i.e. Ireland is not part of the UK), or specific reasons. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't see any problems! Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 23:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure there a few issues with the article in terms of sourcing but thoseand issues of neutrality or original research are not reasons for deletion. There are enough sources here. --neon white talk 23:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to British Isles (terminology). There is no such dispute named "The British Isles Naming Dispute", at least none that a Google search turns up (all I see is millions of those annoying websites that programmatically scrape other websites and clutter search results). The "Names of the islands through the ages" is mostly irrelevant to the issue of Irish dislike of the name. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Snowded's and MITH comments above. The article is very well referenced and I can see scope for improvement, and further references being added. MidnightBlueMan's rational and reasoning lack merit, and keep. Tfz 01:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a stable, well-referenced article (although admittedly not perfect, if we deleted every article in this state we'd lose most of our content) that would overload any potential merge target. Even if it were smaller enough to merge, I just don't see that that would be benefit to either this topic or that of the destination, wherever that might be. Additionally, I couldn't see the NPOV problem with this article, nor has the tagger elucidated on the talk page beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thryduulf (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't see the NPOV problem? You were reading the right article were you? Even a cursory glance shows that it's about 95% rubbishing the term "British Isles" and only about 5% supporting it. The article is "stable" (whatever that means); so what? Please point us to any non-Wikipedia evidence that a dispute actually exists. That is the crux of the matter, 'cos if there is no dispute, there should be no article. Mister Flash (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The term is controversial in Ireland and this article highlights it. We can't have a brigade of users going around trying to wipe away evidence of the dispute (they think it doesn't exist, but in fact it does exist in Ireland. They also wanted to remove the explanation of the dispute from the main British Isles article. FF3000 · talk 10:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that is simply false. The problem some editors had there is the implied elevation of this issue to a recognized (in reliable sources) "Dispute". Noone has a problem mentioning the moves/recommendations from certain quarters to stop using the term. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No they wanted to get rid of it. There was a fight to keep that too. FF3000 · talk 15:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are around 30 archives over on the British Isles talkpage, there is a rejection of the term by the (democratically-elected) government of Ireland, there is avoidance of the term in all international agreements which the Irish state is party to and there are numerous references from academic and other sources confirming Irish resistance to the term "British Isles". It stretches all credibility to contend that this article, 'British Isles naming dispute', is simply an invention of wikipedia editors. 193.1.172.144 (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Naming dispute? What dispute? Articles such as this bring Wikipedia into disrepute! The idea of a dispute as described in the article is a complete falsehood. Sure there are people who object to the term, like there are people in Argentina who object to the term "Falkland Islands", but we don't have Falkland Islands naming dispute. Yes, the dispute does exist, but only here at Wikipedia. Mister Flash (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I suppose there's always a couple of people in denial. The fact that there's an article, and that Wikipedia has been subjected to edit wars about this term for, literally, years, shows that there is a dispute, and this article, while not brilliant, still meets notability guidelines. The article would be better with less edit-warring, but with blind reversions that delete references with edit summaries of Reverting dreadful edit which introduced unencyclopedic language (even if it was a quote) and blatant over-hyping of dislike of British Isles (by Mister Flash, above), it's hardly surprising the article is of poor quality. --HighKing (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well HighKing, you've hit the nail on the head good and proper, admitting that the dispute is here on Wikipedia. I challenge you to find any evidence of the dispute (that's dispute, not people disliking the term) outside of Wikipedia. You've got to admit it, if there's no such dispute then the article should be deleted. Mister Flash (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Flash, would you ever read the references on the page. The dispute does exist in Ireland, not in Britain, but this is unlike disputes like the Derry/Londonderry name dispute, as in this case we just don't like a certain term rather than fighting over a name. Anyway, Mister Flash, how do you know that a naming dispute over the Falkland Islands doesn't exist when you don't live in Argentina? FF3000 · talk 20:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a soapbox box then, this article, eh? Here we have a bunch of people who don't like something, so they go and write a Wikipedia article about it. Mister Flash (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mister Flash, if the term covers two countries, and most citizens from one of the countries dislike the term, well then it is major (112 references on the page to prove it). May not be major to you, but it is to other people. --FF3000 · talk 14:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but scrutinise the article very carefully for original research. In the event that after removing all the OR there isn't enough left to form an article, merge what's left into the article on the British Isles. Simply disagreeing with the opinion of a minority is not grounds for deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just reading all the comments again, and not picking on yours in particular, but there's something I don't get here. None of those who want to keep the article have acknowledged that there is actually a dispute, far less offered any evidence of it, so why should the article be kept if it's a fiction? Can you explain? Mister Flash (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference four shows this opinion over a diverse number of publications that qualify as reliable sources, so this opinion, however much a minority, it notable. If the overwhelming consensus is against this (hence the lack of any notable dispute), it should be mentioned in the article, but that does not warrant deletion of the the article altogether. WP:FRINGE is a good reference here. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a soapbox box then, this article, eh? Here we have a bunch of people who don't like something, so they go and write a Wikipedia article about it. Mister Flash (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mister Flash, if the term covers two countries, and most citizens from one of the countries dislike the term, well then it is major (112 references on the page to prove it). May not be major to you, but it is to other people. --FF3000 · talk 14:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the motives of the article creators are - if it is an opinion that has been expressed in reliable sources outside of Wikipedia (and it has, whether you like it or not), it passes notability. If the article is biased, you can re-write it from a neutral point of view and nothing more. Oh, and for the record, I think that complaining about the name "British Isles" is stupid and petty, but that doesn't stop the opinion existing. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of opinion out there about how bad "British Isles" is, but as Mister Flash states, that does not constitute a "dispute". I've looked again using Google (not, scientific, I know) seaching for a combination of terms including "British Isles", "Dispute", "Disagreement" and so on. Everything I find has been derived from Wikipedia. Ask yourself the question, is that a good state of affairs? To me it is a strong indicator of the "dispute" being manufactured here at Wikipedia. In fact, that is almost certainly the case. The situation is completely at odds with the core values of Wikipedia, especially WP:OR. If the OR was stripped out of the article you would be left with a blank page. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't count as a "dispute", all that proves is that the article needs renaming into a title that has a word other than dispute. The fact that you found nothing on Google doesn't matter - the references exist, in the text. By all means challenge any OR, but that can be done on the article talk page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what should we rename it to then - Irish dislike of British Isles perhaps? Mister Flash (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one with a problem with the term. The onus is on you to suggest something better. I suppose you could do Opposition to the use of the term "British Isles" if you don't mind a long title, but seeing as the only people objecting to the use of the word "dispute" are doing so in order to try to get the whole article deleted, I've really got better things to do. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or what about the original title, British Isles (controversy)? FF3000 · talk 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "British Isles" Until 1949 a collective title for Great Britain, Ireland, and the numerous islands surrounding the two larger islands, including the Isle of Man. In 1949 the Republic of Ireland left the British Commonwealth and so could no longer be included in the title. (Reference: Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names. John Everett-Heath. Oxford University Press 2005). This article is about a non-existent dispute only if there is no dissent to this referenced "fact" - and it is clear to me that there is dissent. Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its informative and well ref'd. The 'naming dispute' goes far beyond the narrow confines of Wikipedia, a fact which appears to be lost on some editors. Needs work, but what article here doesn't.RashersTierney (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The 'naming dispute' goes far beyond the narrow confines of Wikipedia". No. That's the problem. It doesn't. The naming dispute is wholly within the confines of Wikipedia. Mister Flash (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone even bother to post an "O no it isn't" response here. There are plenty of refs in the article that indicate otherwise. Really do not understand the dogged determination of some editors to have it deleted. RashersTierney (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They would bother for the same reason that you've bothered to offer your opinion on the matter. I can see I'm banging my head against a brick wall here, but one more try; ALL the references point to instances of dislike or avoidance of the term. NONE of the references point to a dispute. Why, because there is no dispute. There is a big difference between someone not liking something and there being a dispute about it. Mister Flash (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all salient material as proposed above by Red Hat -- although I think this is more of a tempest in a teapot than anything else. Collect (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Tempest in a Teapot. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no dispute. British Isles = England, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Ireland is an island divided into 32 counties, six of which form Northern Ireland and the other 26 form the Republic of Ireland, a situation which has existed since 1923. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Irish objections are very well referenced across academia, political life and journalism. Some people are clearly uncomfortable with this, but that should not be a reason to deny this dispute/delete this article. 86.44.22.65 (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was developed partly to keep the naming discussion from dominating the main article. If it is deleted all the content will have to be added to the "British" Isles article. Much drama ensuing. Sarah777 (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Terminology of the British Isles. I don't see why we need two articles on the same essential topic (the use of the phrase 'British Isles', and other terms used to refer to the same or similar concepts). Moreover, this article contains a worrying amount of original research - taking information directly from primary sources and forming them into a synthesis, rather than referencing secondary sources about the dispute. Robofish (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Because there is actually resistance to the term "British Isles" covering Ireland. The term is not accepted by even a significant minority in Ireland. It is, in fact, rejected at both a diplomatic (through government statements) and a popular level (through avoidance of the term). This is well referenced in the British Isles article itself. Ergo, attempting to reduce this resistance, this dispute, to a mere part of the "Terminology of the British Isles" article is an attempt to bestow a legitimacy on that term which it has never earned except through the barrel of the British colonial war machine in Ireland, the land of the Irish people (a fact which is still patently difficult for many Britons to accept in 2009). 86.44.18.40 (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Arguing for keeping or deleting an article is acceptable. Insinuating that people who disagree with your point of view are collaborators in a "colonial war machine" is not. No personal attacks. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notability of the dispute is established by reliable sources. What more do we want? Jafeluv (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to terminology article; very closely related but I see no reason for a split of the topic. Powers ^T 15:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any problem either; not a common dispute today, but sounds familiar. Google seaches are useless here. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others' statements. If there existed any (justified) guidance that the term "dispute" in this context should only be used for inter-governmental disputes, I would support a renaming to "British Isles naming controversy" - but I'm not aware that any such guidance exists. I also endorse Snowded's comments above that "there is a case to consider a move of the material to British Isles (terminology) and for some consolidation of material, hopefully with some conventions on use." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to terminology article. There is no dispute. The number of references is not immediately relevant as many are concerned with why the name was used in the first place. Melcombe (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to British Isles (terminology) or delete as POV fork. Artw (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to British Isles (terminology) , it should be noted that some of the above who have voted to keep said they see a case for a merger, as soon as this AFD fails, someone should probably propose a merger and see what happens. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is clearly and obviously a dispute, one which is patently well referenced in the article. 78.16.184.214 (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it time to close this discussion? There is a clear consensus for keeping the article. I do agree, however, that the title needs to be changed. I think that the original title, British Isles (controversy), is the best option. FF3000 · talk 14:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure it's exactly a "clear consensus". Minus the IPs and combining the delete/merge it was 16:12 last time I checked. However, renaming to something like "British Isles controversy in Ireland" and sorting out the content so it's focused on this topic would probably satisfy most. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(conflict)Comment. As the originator of the deletion proposal I can see that the majority opinion, though not the consensus, is to keep this disgusting article. However, if someone now wants to propose a merge to British Isles (terminology) I would support it. Overall, as Wiki-Ed notes, the merge/delete option comes a close second to the keep option, and many of the "keepers" were concerned about the quality of the article. There is much replication between this article, terminology and British Isles, so as a first step to sorting it all out maybe a merge is the way forward. I'm happy for the current discussion to be closed. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not a controversy about the islands themselves, or indeed a disambiguation point - which is what [[British Isles (controversy)]] would imply. The article is about the terminology used to describe the islands. So, if there is to be a renaming, I'd suggest [[British Isles naming controversy]] or [[British Isles terminology controversy]]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well it would perhaps maake sense for the merge I suggested? British Isles terminology controversy is surely just a section of the wider British Isles terminology? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ghmyrtle. [[British Isles terminology controversy]] is a good suggestion for a new name. There isn't consensus for a merging. FF3000 · talk 21:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im not to keen on that name, i think there is enough support on this page to try a merger proposal once this AFD is over, several people who voted KEEP said they thought it should be merged or that there was some justification for a merger. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:32, 8 July 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. (X! · talk) · @505 · 11:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Lee (adult model)

utterly non-notable. zero signs of significance, generic glamour model with generic pseudonym. Not even a Penthouse Pet, just a "feature" model. Virtually all "references" go to advertising pages for erotica sites failing WP:RS, often not mentioning article subject's name. My original prod removed without explanation by IP anon which has no other edit history. Article now being subjected to repeated spam insertions, completely unsourced, by user self-identifying as article subject and by affiliated SPAs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless better sourcing shows up to prove notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close to Speedy Delete, per nom and the unlikelihood of decent refs turning up. PhGustaf (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In this case, I (Laura Lee) as the subject feel all my references meet the general criteria: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject is published] the references to the websites are specified to the exact ___location to see information or subject, NOT SPAM. My personal website ^[1] includes all the information under Resume area. I beleive as the subject, anyone reading there own bio would like the information to be true and most accurate for those interested as to whom the person/subject is.
- Comment to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I believe that in my industry, we would like to be credited for what we did and how we got there and I dont feel that "facts quoted by the subject" should be an automatic disqualifier. Additionally, I would also like to include information regarding the article published by Palm Springs Life, it's a magazine (not a spa) therefore I referenced the online interview with myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Laura Lee (talk • contribs)

^ "Laura Lee's Official Model Website". Laura Lee. Retrieved 2009-07-02.

Comment. Hullaballo's reference to "SPAs" was not to actual spas. The acronym SPA is used on Wikipedia to denote a single-purpose account. Deor (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it stands currently, the only verifiable information about her is that she's had breast augmentation surgery by a particular doctor who was the subject of an article in a local website. Other than that refs of course are to the tour pages of paysites. Gsearch isn't helpful either. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability found and an interview with a small magazine about her boobs doesn't get her there. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO as is, and I'm not going looking for more sources. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Apparently doesn't meet WP:N,WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as not notable per nominator and previous editors. Sarah 14:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly per nom--BozMo talk 10:53, 7 July 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 by Orangemike, CSD A7 A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Brian

Non Notable subject which claims to be internet celebrity. Most probably self promotion. Speedy and Prod removed by an IP which must be sock puppet of the creator of this article. Hitro 18:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A future youtube show does not an internet celebrity make. Wperdue (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Delete due to failing WP:Notability, leaning towards Speedy for WP:CSD #A7 (declaration: placer of the removed {prod}) --Saalstin (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, my google search did not show any reliable sources discussing him. This is probably because the one project the article says he has worked on has yet to be broadcast. He does not appear to be notable at this time. A new name 2008 (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A7. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:30, 3 July 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. There is no agreement as to whether or not the subject is notable, and there are too many comments to justify relisting again, hence this closure. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Capparelli

As an unsuccessful past political candidate, does not, in my opinion, meet the suggestions for established notability as outlined at WP:POLITICIAN. While the subject seems to have had an interesting life thus far, I don't believe this autobiography provides sufficient evidence of notability. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable both as a politician and as a businessman. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject is not exceptional for any one thing, but has been noticed for several - race car driver, businessman/race car organizer, politician. Overall, the level of coverage is sufficient to warrant inclusion in my opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Honest question: shouldn't a subject be notable according to at least one of the BLP notability guidelines, not merely kinda notable in multiple of them? Qqqqqq (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The guidelines are open to (slight) interpretation, as they are intended to be descriptive rather than proscriptive. In this case, I feel the subject meets the general criteria: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The specific criteria are automatic qualifiers, but not meeting any of them isn't an automatic disqualifier. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Off-topic now, but meeting the criteria isn't an automatic qualifier. Quoting WP:NOTE: Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. Sancho 06:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Couldn't this autobiography be merged into or redirected to Illinois's 5th congressional district special election, 2009? I still don't think a standalone article is required, but this likely would be better than simply deleting. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Subject appears to barely meet the general criteria listed at WP:N and WP:BIO. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - None of the sources solidly demonstrate notability. I think his best shot is on the race car angle if there is anything to demostrate that the races he won were significant. His political career is a footnote. And as a businessperson, there is nothing to indicate notability. Just being a CEO of your own business doesn't count for anything unless the firm is genuinely notable. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 16:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The handful of Gnews hits Thaddeus pointed out don't show me notability. First hit was a minor appointment to a board that pays $20K a year and didn't get much better from there. At this point, I can't find the notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:28, 3 July 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. (X! · talk) · @505 · 11:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mangled Eye Studios

Article about a "small indie game development company" whose first game has yet to be released. It's unlikely that a company in this situation will be notable, and I don't think this one is. The first reference is a press release, the second gives only the name and "No Description Available". Of the external links, #1 and 3 are the company's own, #2 gives a 3-line description, #4 - 6 don't mention it as far as I can see. There are a fair number of Ghits, but all that I looked at have been trivial references, or press releases along the lines of "Mangled Eye Studios announces a preorder program for Dark Salvation". I don't see the substantial independent comment required for notability. If their game takes off, they may become notable, but we are not here to help publicise it in advance. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone else look up notable references for this studio? This JohnCD guy can't seem to find anything and is prone to deleting things for no real reason. The game is available as I have a copy of it on my desk that I purchased. There are plenty of notable references. I would not have created the page if there had not been.

To say that it is unlikely a company in this situation will be notable is a very opinionated comment and definitely not based on any real research by the proposed deleter. I've read the Notable information and the resources I have found all over the internet show the notability of this company. Why is this being singled out for deletion by 1 researchers opinion on the subject matter?

If I redo the article to include more reference links it will be asked to be deleted. If I don't include reference links then researchers ask for it to be deleted cause of no reference links. How does an article need to be maintained or created to be kept on wikipedia? From what I have listed and the research I have done the company is notable in many places. Please do more research. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasWind (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you say the game is "available" but its "official website" calls it "upcoming" and is counting down to a date 25 days away. The article does not show any substantial comment from an independent source, nor could I find any, but anyone who can find some is welcome to add it. JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not conform to Wikipedia's notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, or unreliable sources for that matter. It's a fair comment that the developer is unlikely to be up to WP's notability standards, if the gaming press has nothing to go at except a few screenshots and pieces of concept art how are they going to write anything? I had a look for sources and came up with nothing of any substance, the game is not yet released and the dev seems to be keeping its cards close to its chest. That's fine, but WP is a tertiary source, you heard it here last, so until the game is released or reviewers are given access to it in order to review it there is nothing to build an article with. If the game gets some reviews from reliable sources, then the game itself would be a good place to start, rather than Mangled Eye itself. Someone another 20:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, After reviewing the links in the article and search of the web, the company does not appear to be notable. One unreleased game that has not been reviewed does not make the company notable. To show that the company is notable would take multiple independent sources that discuss the company. Even if reviews are found for this one game that would not make the company notable, it might make the game notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP Niteshift36 (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable yet. May become so after their game is released, but not yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no coverage about this company from reliable sources. This is a s close as it gets to coverage as far as I can find. That falls well short of what is needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 8 July 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Council

Non-notable student organization with no assertion of notability apart from incorrectly-assumed inherited notability of Ivy League; no substantial coverage by reliable third party sources [1]; variety of issues with inappropriate unencyclopedic tone and general self-congratulatory advertising-cruft Madcoverboy (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 02:45, 16 June 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) 00:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of who their alumni are, notability isn't transferred. I'm not seeing the notability of the org itself. The sources are the org itself, some college newspapers and something from China talking about the members getting to travel....but not about what the org is doing. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG as written. I'll add that I've never heard of it, which is only relevant given that I'm an alum of one of the schools mentioned, suggesting that its notability within the group of people most likely to care is nil. Ray^Talk 18:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and note Disagree with failure of WP:ORG, meets requirements as charitable organization. Notability verified through published press in US, China, and Belgium. Concur with remarks on self congratulatory listing of members/officers and recommend removal of those sections only by admins. Concur that content is out of date and does not reflect additional evidence of notability since last substantively updated. The organization is reviewing the content over the next seven days and will modify as appropriate. Origniating author comments. mjh40 (talk) 26 Jun 2009

- It sounds like you are affiliated with the org, is that correct? BTW, the Chinese reference was merely about some of the student members visiting China wasn't it? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the article to completion. I wouldn't say it was "merely about some of the student members visiting China" - it was about an initiative to improve bilateral relations between U.S. and Chinese students. The effort was recognized by both the All-China Student Federation and Chinese state leaders, including Vice-Chairman of the National People's Congress Standing Committee Lu Yongxiang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.239.196 (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 17:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim very sharply. Normally the list of all the officers of an organization is an indication of either promotional intent, or vanity for the people listed, or that the organization thinks itself more important than it is likely to be. There's just enough, though, to show notability. DGG (talk) 02:59, 9 July 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. After reading through the discussion, I can find no agreement as to whether to crash meets WP:AIRCRASH. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Hukou F-5F crash

Appears to be a non-notable military accident, no civil casualties, nothing to show it is any more than just another military training exercise accident which is not unusual. Was probably news is 2007 but their appears to be no further reports or recommendations MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crash is notable for its relation to Taiwan and Singapore, for the pilot's sacrifice to evade civilian casualties, and for the breaking of Lee Jye's promise of safe training exercises. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article does not include them, two articles from May, 2008, were published on the crash over a year after the event occurred: [2] [3]. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete newsworthy but not wikipedia worthy, no evidence of any historical importance. --neon white talk 00:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Newsworthy but not notable summed it up nicely. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AIRCRAFT, I'm afraid Computerjoe 's talk 16:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the above three that say newsworthy but not notable, please explain. WP:AIRCRAFT has a number of criteria, which one does this article fail and why does it fail that criteria? Although this may not be the most important air crash of the century, I believe it is a useful addition to Wikipedia. The event constitutes a failure on the promise of the Ministry of National Defense to have safe military training exercises, and pushed legislator Hsueh Ling to ask the heads of the MND to step down along with requesting that a budget be passed to replace materiels. Relevant bits could be merged into a number of other articles, but I think even with the addition of summaries to other articles the event deserves its own. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant details into F5F, then delete. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The project's copyright licences do not allow such an outcome. Having your cake or eating it. Pick one. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Look at the mass of references at the bottom of the article. Yes, the crash may no longer be newsworthy in 2009, but please read Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. There is no "historical importance" requirement on Wikipedia, the only requirement is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", which this article has in abundance. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This might be marginally notable, but principally for the assertion in the Aftermath section that it incited a decision "to speed up an overhaul of warplanes". Unfortunately, this addresses a hole in WP:AIRCRASH. Except for military aircraft, WP:AIRCRASH allows for notability if the accident or incident "materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures". While the extant guidance generally excludes military casualties as conferring notability (correctly so, in my opinion), it does have a vague statement to the effect that "It is notable if there are unusual circumstances involved". One could fairly assume that a significant subsequent order – such as standing down the fleet pending inspection or an acceleration of overhaul or replacement – could make an incident notable. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So why does this not achieve notability under plain old WP:Notability? The crash apparently got plenty of coverage, which is good enough for most other articles. Why do air crashes have to meet a higher standard?--Aervanath (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have not said it doesn't qualify under WP:N; however, WP:N doesn't exist in isolation, which produces gray areas. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, while WP:N is a guideline and so is superior to it. However, WP:NOT is a policy and one of its elements is that WP is Not News – and these types of articles tend to be borderline cases in that, while occasionally generously sourced, they tend to have no notable enduring impact that separates them from material that better fits Wikinews. (This is perhaps best expressed by the summary of Wikipedia:News articles: "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact.") WP:AIRCRASH is an attempt by members of WikiProject Aviation to clarify when an article of this type fits the standard of being "notable" news rather than "just" news. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would first like to point out that Wikipedia:News articles is an essay, not a guideline, and I thoroughly disagree with it, as it takes the reasoning behind WP:NOTNEWS too far. WP:NOTNEWS is intended to keep Wikipedia from becoming filled with "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism." An airline crash is none of those.--Aervanath (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, it is an essay; I referred to it in a supplementary way as it better expresses what those working on the policy were trying to capture in the limited space allowable in WP:NOT. And, yes, a news report of an aircraft crash is an announcement in many, if not most crashes; there has to more to it for notability (e.g., the death of Buddy Holly as opposed to a non-notable individual). Since military flying is inherently much more dangerous, so even when there are deaths involved, that does not make it notable ipso facto. Please note that I have not !voted on this AfD; I have pointed out the one thing I see that would make it notable according to my understanding of WP guidelines and such. If an actual change in policy – the acceleration of the overhaul for the aircraft – occurs, then this accident has, IMHO, had a notable outcome. If that has happened (and I mean something more than a promise or direction to do so), then there seems to me grounds to keep; so far, I haven’t seen that it has. If it hasn’t, it may prove best to userfy this article until it does. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict)Probably because since WP:AVIATION randomly took over WP:AIRCRASH from a dedicated task force it has been pi***d about with to beyond recognition. That said, it sounds like the overhaul was scheduled and already underway, so unless there was amajor change I still wouldn't bite under WP:N. We need more information, but it sounds like a keep assuming that comes along, even if I did suggest AfD initially. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The original source (Taiwan premier orders warplane overhaul following another crash) "We need to more actively push for the overhaul of warplanes, gears and equipment," Su said, without giving details. appears to be a reaction to more than one crash and not the F-5 in particular. No indication that the F-5 was grounded or any follow action is mentioned. Has anybody another source? MilborneOne (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news/archives/taiwan/2007513/109489.htm --Odie5533 (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the position taken below that this is fairly meaningless political drivel spouted in the immediate aftermath. Nothing concrete. Delete. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. The claims otherwise are giving credibility to the political posturing on the sidelines with no references to suggest that these calls for resignations or reform resulted in resignations or reforms. The majority of references are within 5 days of the event with one reference some two weeks after the event. --Born2flie (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is probably because those are the most useful references for the article. See Odie5533's comment above, where he gives 2 articles about the event which were published a year afterwards. Also, since when is notability temporary?--Aervanath (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean the two links to the same article by the same author, for the same newspaper, which provide no additional information on the crash or actions taken that would define it as notable by WP:AIRCRASH? Notability isn't temporary, which is why the essay, WP:AIRCRASH, attempts to define notability for Aviation crashes in order to prevent WP:NOTNEWS from being violated by articles about each and every crash. You don't see every traffic accident written up for Wikipedia the same way you see it done for Aviation. My vote still stands; delete. --Born2flie (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The shorter article is possibly a lead in, or summary, or created for shorter publications. Either way, the event is still being discussed more than a year after its occurrence. And this is only the English sources. That the event was even discussed in English, and picked up by The Boston Globe, would seem to me to contribute to its notability. My interpretation of the guidelines and essay is that they are intended to discourage the inclusion of purely news report content, such as a small aircraft crashing in Alaska and no one being killed or injured, yet the event still making local newspapers. This isn't just some traffic accident. This was a military plane crash that crossed borders, resulted in deaths on both sides, appears to have contributed to budgetary changes, caused a legislator to request other officials to step down, and was reported in multiple languages in national and international news sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you should recheck your facts. The airplane was Taiwanese and crashed in Taiwan, in a Taiwan military maneuver area; it didn't cross borders. The Singapore troops were visiting to conduct training of their own, or perhaps to participate in a joint exercise between the two countries. "...appears to have..." is the problem, there are no references defining any significant change to the operating budget, a revision of procedures, resignation of officials, etc.. There were no resignations as a result of the call for resignations...a non-event. There is even an absence of reporting on any repercussions; political or military. President Obama is traveling abroad right now and there is a lot of reporting happening about the trip. Presidents make trips overseas, but what would serve to make this one notable; that they are reporting about it, or that something significant occurs or results from it? I believe a higher burden exists for notability when it is sourced solely on news reporting, otherwise, any event reported by more than one news source could become an article. It is my firm opinion that this article fails to meet the burden for the case of its own nobility from its sources. The more recent news articles simply underscore how little resulted from this crash except for the regrettable deaths of those people involved. That the Boston Globe picked up the story for one day does not suggest notability, rather it implies an editorial decision either on a slow news day, or in the hopes that the story would develop into something more; which it obviously didn't. --Born2flie (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I did not mean that the crash was on a different countries' soil, but indeed as you have pointed out, that the crash crossed borders in the sense that it directly affected more than one country. If Obama is simply going on vacation, perhaps add it to the List of vacations taken by Barack Obama article, or if he is on a diplomatic trip, List of diplomatic trips taken by Barack Obama or U.S. foreign affairs under Barack Obama (WP:POINTY if you go making each of those). I believe any trip taken by the most powerful man in the world is notable for inclusion in some form or another. Sure, a different form of notability exists for news reports. But my interpretation is that this event clearly fulfills any such requirements. Given the length of the article and number of references, there must be a good amount of information on the subject. Given the number alone, and nothing about the circumstances of the crash, I believe it deserves an article. For an event to be so widely picked up I'd consider it notable. Wikipedia is not paper; we have enough room for even mildly notable subjects. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:36, 8 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Bathgate (ice hockey b. 1991)

Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--seems a pretty straightforward case of not (yet) meeting notability guidelines. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sources, and I agree the matter seems very straightforward.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sure this person may not be that notable yet, and I understand there aren't enough sources, but this page has a very good amount of information on the subject. Plus, Wikipedia has articles such as Bob McNeill, who was not a notable player and has only one reference on his page. Nappyrootslistener (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Nappyrootslistener[reply]

Trouble with that argument is it boils down to WP:WAX. Besides, Bob McNeill played professionally.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might also want to read WP:CRYSTAL. To say he might be notable in the future is not good enough. Players drafted as late as he was often never become notable. To create an article about someone they have to be notable now. -Djsasso (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguement regarding Bob McNeill is flawed because he IS a notable player. He gained notability when he played in the NBA. -Pparazorback (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ATHLETE passes if the player has actually played in a game, by my interpretation - the problem here is that he was just drafted, so he really hasn't even been brought in as a rookie quite yet. No prejudice to recreation once he actually gets out and plays a game. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior precedent: Examples include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and at least 25 other AfDs for similar players. When/If this player wins a major award or plays in a fully professional league, then this article can be recreated, until then, he is not notable per WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. -Pparazorback (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Standard post-Draft article creation frenzy always results in a lot of non-notable bio pages. This is one of them. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The player page article seems to suggest notability is inherent which it is not. There are many grandsons or great grandsons of hockey legends to be drafted in the NHL. Steve Vezina, I believe is a great grandson of Georges vezina, though he never played a single NHL game despite being drafted by the winnipeg jets. When and if he plays professionally an article would be okay for creation and he would satisfy notability. beyond this there is no indication as to why hes notable. Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE and precedent. Also, notability is not inherited. --Smashville^talk 13:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Avi (talk) 17:33, 7 July 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. (X! · talk) · @505 · 11:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redmine

The article is written like an advert, no citations, references, no attempt to establish notability

Delete The article is written like an advert, no citations, references, no attempt to establish notability Hatter87 (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many google news results. Given your contribution history, I'd caution you to disclose your WP:COI & to prevent anyone from thinking that you are just making a WP:POINT. --Karnesky (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient mention of product to support notability. Similar examples are at List of project management software. Article is not great, but we have worse software articles. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree the article isn't great and could use improvement, but the software is notable enough and I don't read it as having an overly promotional tone. A lot of articles in the List of project management software read very similarly. --Jerle0 (talk) 22:13, 1 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 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete--mainly a comment. Given that the nomination does not in fact address what ought to be addressed (they should discuss the subject rather than the imperfect state of the article) I would be inclined to dismiss the AfD immediately, with some stern words for the nominator. However, I do not see much potential here right now--the Google News search refered to above delivers, in my opinion, only one single hit that would pass the WP:RS muster, and that is the article from InformationWeek. I am leaning toward delete, until there's more evidence that the subject has notability. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only reason to actually delete would be actual lack of notability, and I just don't see that. In addition to the Information Week article, Redmine is also cited as an important tool in the book on Rails for Microsoft Developers by Antonio Cangiano, and there is also an entire book on Redmine, albeit in Japanese, Linux/Windows対応 by 前田剛. Given that these publishers and authors feel Redmine is worthy of note, I would say it rises at least to the level of some of the other articles linked from List of project management software. It could still be debated whether or not the article is written like an advert or has insufficient citations and references, but there are different tags for each of those. Not WP:AfD. I would support Drmies's initial inclination to dismiss the AfD. Gahs (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cumbric language. It is already mentioned there, so a merge/redirect is a more practical option than deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbric revival

I've classified this as an organisation, although you could argue the article is about the 'network' or website. I can find no evidence of notability, just some blogs, websites, etc. Not only that, I can find no evidence for a 'rediscovery' or even a discovery of Cumbric manuscripts. If that had actually happened, there would be plenty of evidence for such a momentous discovery. What we seem to have here is a small group of enthusiasts (or at least one) trying to reconstruct a language for which we have no records for (with no evidence for his alleged rediscovery I'm discounting the claim for the moment). Maybe at some point it will become notable, but until then we should not be giving it publicity. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I clicked too soon. The website has claims for its being mentioned in several local papers, but they all seem to be a copy of the same article, and I don't think that this is enough yet. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect It may be a viable article in the future, but for now this could be a redirect to Celtic Revival. Seems like the work of a new-ish user who has copied and pasted the material from other Wikipedia articles without checking the references at their source. --Jza84 | Talk 17:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Celtic Revival. Sources have not been provided to confirm the notability of the organisation. Never mind the manuscripts, no neutral, third-party, reliable sources have been provided that the organisation is notable. However, since Cumbric is a Celtic language it seems sensible to turn the article into a redirect. Nev1 (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest a merge to a small paragraph at Cumbric, but then I noticed how new the organisation apparently is, and the lack of sources giving notability. So redirect to Cumbric or Celtic revival, I don't have a preference as to which. Thryduulf (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's already mentioned in the Celtic Revival page and on the Cumbric language page. Moreover, what's described here is only one "wing" of the Cumbric revival movement (if there is such a thing) other versions conflict with their reconstruction. Paul S (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per nom. ClovisPt (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cumbric, which has a short section on the attempted revival. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cumbric language where, as Peterkingiron points out, it is already mentioned. Someone there should look into the possibly COI link to Cumbric Revival Community Network, by the way. I trust it isn't POV? Cnilep (talk) 21:28, 8 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coyame UFO incident

Original version has "alleged" or "believed" in every sentence: current version reports alleged events as facts. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only sources given are a book written by Noe Torres, who is also the prime contributor for the article, and a couple of self-published sources. I tried to find news sources related to the incident, and only found an interview with Mr. Torres. It seems like this article is basically a way for him to expand on and promote his book, which isn't appropriate. -- Atama ^chat 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Doesn't seem to be anything like multiple independent reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage in a way that argues for enough notability to even be mentioned in other articles, let alone have an article to itself. DreamGuy (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There was an entire show on the alleged event on a major cable channel. There have been books written on it. Here's one of the articles with substantial coverage in a reliable independent source [4]. The article certainly needs a lot of work, but the topic is clearly a notable UFO related subject that should be fixed up and kept. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, it sounds like the book may be notable. Maybe we should rename this to be about the book, rather than about the alleged incident, and trim the description way down?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a couple of books. And what about the A&E show about the "incident"? I can't see how anyone would object to someone going in with hedge clippers and gutting it. But there is still enough for a nice little article or a stub on this bit of lore (or coverup, if you're into that kind of thing). ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can clean it up so it's more than a stub, but makes it clear what can and can't be verified I'll happily withdraw. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It should be about the book, because it practically is the book... I mean, this article was written by the same person who wrote the book. Sorry if that sounds a tad bitter, but I'm disturbed when an author decides to use Wikipedia as a place to publicize his books. -- Atama ^chat 19:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards merge to List of UFO sightings because there are sources (hence we should WP:PRESERVE the content) but it's a bit hard to establish notability. I think CoM's source, above, is more talking about the book and the authors rather than the alleged incident.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather have the show and the book redirect to this article than vice versa. Here's a link to the program on this encounter. [5]. There's also this which I can't read [6] but may count for something. The story is notable as UFO legend/ myth/ documented proof of the vast cover-up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DreamGuy Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP per ChildOfMidnight. Just because it may not have actually happened doesn't mean it's not notable. Most of the arguments against it right now are arguments for improvement, not deletion. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep deleting this would be similar to deleting articles on the Philadelphia Experiment. It might have been a hoax/misidentification/mass hallucination, but the subject has been covered in independent sources, therefore meets WP:NOTE, and WP:V, which are the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Needs additional sourcing, but not nearly worthy of delete. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:39, 9 July 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. (X! · talk) · @971 · 22:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This close was overturned to keep at this deletion review. This was apparently an accidental closure and was never intended to be a "delete" consensus.~ mazca ^talk 09:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer tan hoax

per WP:NOTNEWS--"Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. " This was an advertising campaign that received a brief attention from the news media in the Spring of 2009. However, the Barack Obama fly swatting incident received more news coverage. See also WP:Recentism and Wikipedia:News articles. OfficeGirl (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subtle point, but I think the Obama fly-swatting incident is different, because if you read the articles, a lot of them merely mention the event in passing or tangentially...and the media coverage is more about PETA than it is about the incident itself. In this case, the articles are written directly about the computer tan hoax itself and there's not really any other big topics it touches on...the closest would be tanning--but the sources given are more about this hoax than they are about tanning. It's the quality, not number of sources that matter. Cazort (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable due to the unique nature of the campaign; it also received a hell of a lot of coverage in reliable sources not merely tabloid journalism, The Times, The Guardian, The BBC, The Telegraph. If you know anything about journalism, you'll know that these are very reputable broadsheet-newspaper publishers. This scams website demonstrates that it is a unique type of "scam", this marketing blog indicates how notable this is as a form of marketing. So to sum up, clearly not the realm tabloid journalism as the nom suggests, plenty of coverage in reliable sources, plenty of notability in the form of the campaign, the "record" hits received by the site. Big fat keep. – Toon 16:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly had no intention to accuse The Guardian and BBC of being tabloids, but the coverage they gave to the advertising campaign was BRIEF, analogous to the Barack Obama fly swatting incident which also had coverage from major, very reputable news reporting sources. It falls under the category of "current events" but NOT under the category of encyclopedic relevance. Every novel thing that gets "15 minutes of fame" does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia, especially here where the 15 minutes were generated by a purposeful advertising campaign, albeit for a noble cause. Its 15 minutes were over this past spring. Clever and altruistic, but just not of encyclopedic relevance. OfficeGirl (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was featured on the Main Page on April Fool's Day. And notability is not temporary.SPNic (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I strongly support the WP:NOTNEWS guideline, I think it is too much of a stretch to describe coverage of this hoax as "announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism". This was a highly effective campaign that received detailed coverage in high-quality and high-profile news sources, as Toon's sources show. Cazort (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three distinct sources, two of them the BBC and the Guardian, all directly covering the subject-matter in a non-trivial way. Passes WP:N, WP:CITE and maintains a neutral tone. No real gray area here that I can see. -Markeer 22:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Whilst there are many news sources for this event they are all from a few days and nothing beyond that, there is no evidence of any prolonged coverage to suggest historical significance, the size of the news publication is of no relevence, this falls firmly into a news event not an encyclopedic event. --neon white talk 00:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a stretch to argue that the general notability guideline of "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" is not met here, news or not. The only possible quibble would be that the coverage is not significant but looking at the articles given as sources, they're written directly about this topic. I explained above in my comment how the quoted text from WP:NOTNEWS does not seem at all relevant here, as the coverage of this event is in no means routine...it's a quite peculiar event. Cazort (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to state that "they are all from a few days" is blatantly wrong. This Daily Mail article from 11 May, This Guardian article from 29 March and This BBC article from 9 February. So... more than a few days between 9 Feb and 11 May? Perhaps you should do some more looking. – Toon 15:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy WP:NOTNEWS, which says "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." This hoax or stunt has no historical notability, and does not deserve its own article. Also see the essay Wikipedia:Notability (news). Wikipedia is not a directory or archive of every publicity stunt which got a bit of news coverage for a few days. Perhaps it belongs in Wikinews. Edison (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this very solidly meets the general notability guideline. While I tend to be very strongly in favor of keeping routine news and current events out of wikipedia, I think this article is very different. I also fail to see what is lost by keeping a topic like this. It is clearly verifiable. WP:NOTNEWS, as I see it, has the primary purpose of preventing the rapid editing back-and-forth on pages, wasting editors' time, and also, of making sure there is not disproportional coverage of material just because it is current. This is a self-contained topic; there's no issue of disproportional coverage, no issue of wasting time by back-and-forth editing. And I still fail to see how WP:N is not met. Cazort (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The section WP:NOTNEWS that you are referencing is currently under dispute. It would be more convincing if you could cast your arguments in terms of other guidelines that have a more strongly-established consensus. Cazort (talk) 16:15, 8 July 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. WP:SNOW \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Living An Electronic Life

Essay, more suitable for a blog posting. Sigma 7 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Essay...even the writer admits it. Irunongames • play 16:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per No Original Research. JohnCD (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quickly please. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hastily per above. Them From Space 19:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 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. (X! · talk) · @505 · 11:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comic book clichés

Delete - largely a re-creation of the previously deleted list, this suffers the same issues as that deleted list, along with the various other lists of clichés that have been deleted. Specifically, what constitutes a cliché is irredeemably marred by POV and OR concerns. Otto4711 (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super-delete Although we can all cite plenty of examples of things that happen only in comic books, most of it is going to be original research. Some of the examples were interesting -- the "long unnecessary cape", the "grim and gritty avenger of childhood trauma" and the "ability to speak a paragraph in the time it takes to throw one punch", although most of it seems to be an opinion that so-and-so was the original, and anything thereafter was an imitation. Nevertheless, this won't be anything more than a bulletin board. Mandsford (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, especially per prev discussion and consensus. --Junius49 (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 05:34, 7 July 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. (X! · talk) · @971 · 22:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Chesnoff

This was tagged as a speedy. Due to the length and the presence of numerous references, I believe a fuller discussion here is warranted. The subject, an attorney, does not appear to be notable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No appearance of notability. -shirulashem (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this comment requires explanation if it is to be taken seriously, given the nature of the article and volume of sources. Cazort (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BIO, notability exists if the person "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I interpret this to mean that the person has to be the SUBJECT of the published articles, not merely mentioned in them. -shirulashem (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I have a different interpretation of guidelines (I think a subject can be notable if they have received significant coverage across a large number of articles which are written about other subjects but contain substantial material about them), I want to point out that Chesnoff is the subject of this article: [7] about him being a murder subject. Cazort (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep on the basis of a high volume of coverage: [8] (1350 google news archive hits, the vast majority are him, there are a few others about a different man by the same name) spanning 84 to the present, with heavy coverage from 90 onward, work with a number of very high-profile cases and clients. In addition to his legal work, he has been the suspect in a murder case: [9] which is ironic, to say the least. I've only glanced at a handful of the hundreds of articles out there that mention this guy, but many of them seem to mention his accomplishments as fairly substantial. I.e.: [10]. Here's an article (not public access) that describes him in somewhat of a narrative: [11], relating a case in which he was personally involved. This book: [12] reads "He is nationally regarded as a brilliant lawyer who has taken on impossible cases and clients." and then also remarks on the rather unusual situation that he has not once represented a client who wanted to cooperate with the government in order to reduce their sentencing. This case seems extremely clear-cut to me and I think the tag as speedy and the previous comment to delete are unfounded as they do not show any effort to look for or address sources. Cazort (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be careful about what we're relying on as sources. For example, the quote above reading "he is nationally regarded as a brilliant lawyer ..." is from a book written by a friend of the article subject! See this blog post that states "Another outstanding defense lawyer, and friend of both mine and Mickey's [the book's author] is David Chesnoff of Las Vegas." -shirulashem (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that would make it not a reliable source. But the volume of coverage here is overwhelming, I maintain my recommendation of strong keep, and I think it would be very far out of line with wikipedia policy if this page were deleted. Cazort (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DID YOU NOT READ HIS NOTABLE CLIENTS? HE IS EVEN ADVISING MICHAEL JACKSON'S FAMILY[13] It is clear that the delete comment is completely unwarranted. Most of the notable clients are backed with supporting cites. Actually read the references, and you will see that Mr. Chesnoff is one of the most accomplished defense attorneys in the country. Do you think all those major news sites have it wrong too? I think not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

CLICK ON ANY OF THESE LINKS: I don't have time to respond to the false statment that this article is not backed by evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.martindale.com/Chesnoff-Schonfeld-A-Professional/1067665-law-firm-office.htm]

[14]q=cache:GU_E3dZYhqIJ:www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/10/19/copperfield.probe/index.html+chesnoff+copperfield+cnn&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [15] [16] [17] ^ url=http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:9tUJpJIcuO8J:www.kocorner.com/boxing/category/Tyson-DUI-Case/+chesnoff+mike+tyson&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us ^ http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/06pl3jD8tf4yg/610x.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.daylife.com/photo/06pl3jD8tf4yg&usg=__aSbRSAraiOanOsEkT8HveluZvBg=&h=416&w=610&sz=44&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=lkkrZvqBY4MlPM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=136&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dchesnoff%2Bmike%2Btyson%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GGIH_enUS258US259%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1 ^ url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/22/lkl.01.html ^ url=http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/4908 ^ http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/media/2008/12/1205_suge_ex_tmz_01-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tmz.com/tag/David%2BChesnoff/&usg=__w2WJXY-Y77h8JsWJlYt1jSrqpzI=&h=300&w=274&sz=27&hl=en&start=10&um=1&tbnid=SiEER2bsiCGhqM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=106&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddavid%2Bchesnoff%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GGIH_enUS258US259%26um%3D1 ^ url=http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pokerroad.com/pokerazzi/5-16-08/phil_ivey_david_chesnoff.png&imgrefurl=http://www.pokerroad.com/pokerazzi/5-16-08/&usg=__0nmDlOWGGiG8ra755c03Z6be600=&h=158&w=185&sz=43&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=al1Ojw5TUbV6NM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=102&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddavid%2Bchesnoff%2Bivey%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GGIH_enUS258US259%26um%3D1 ^ http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/2744-poker-pro-shawn-sheikhan-facing-deportation-to-iran ^ url= http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/feb/05/neb-philanthropist-faces-vegas-casino-debt-charge ^ url=http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/08/if-youre-in-las-vegas-and-in-trouble-call-david-chesnoff/ ^ url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4377933.stm ^ ur=http://www.annadavid.com/articles/chesnoff.html ^ url=http://www.martindale.com/Chesnoff-Schonfeld-A-Professional/1067665-law-firm-office.htm Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chesnoff"

Comment I agree with you very strongly, in terms of keeping the page, and I also think the nomination and comments to delete were a bit hasty and do not address or take into account the huge volume of sources here. And yes, that irritated me when I saw t. But I want to encourage you to keep the discussion constructive. Comments like "I don't have time to respond" can come across as dismissive to other editors. If you edit wikipedia, other editors will waste your time--that's the nature of the beast. 99% of the time, they are not doing it intentionally and it doesn't have anything to do with you. WP:Assume good faith is a good guide. This is important, because we are all sloppy at times, I certainly have made my share of bad or misguided edits or recommendations. Cazort (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps someone would like to rework the article to make it clear that Chesnoff is notable because of his celebrity clients. In rereading the article, I do note that he has represented a number of well-known figures, but this information is buried 2/3 of the way down the text. I would do it myself but I am badly out of touch with pop culture and would probably screw it up. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that someone should try to re-write it. The article also is not WP:NPOV. (e.g., "The firm continues in the tradition of Mr. Goodman and Mr. Chesnoff in always putting the client's needs first and willingness to go to court and uphold the solemnity of the attorney's oath.") -shirulashem (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in total agreement with both of you that this article has serious problems and needs cleanup to be written from a neutral point of view. I do think though that, on the basis of available sources, cleanup, and not deletion, is the appropriate course of action. Cazort (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well rewriting, versus deleting is a big difference. 23:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is attacking anything here. These deletion discussions happen here on Wikipedia all day long and in no way serve to attack or disparage anyone or anything. None of this is personal, and these constructive debates need to remain civil. Here's the bottom line. I have no connection to David Chesnoff. He might be a great lawyer. He might be a wonderful person. He might have represented dozens of famous clients. All of that is commendable, but none of it has anything to do with whether he meets the notability threshold that is necessary to have an article in Wikipedia. That's all I'm trying to say. I hope you don't take this debate as some kind of attack on you as the article creator, and certainly not as some kind of attack on David Chesnoff. -shirulashem (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how else is a trial lawyer to be notable except by trying cases for his clients? DGG (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:ANYBIO- Has he "received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them"? Has he "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"? -shirulashem (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I appreciate the firm persistence of the editors of wikipedia, I have a degree in Journalism and media studies. I think I know a thing or two about citing sources, and determining the "notability" of a topic. I find it funny to even have this conversation. I can say but one thing: "Res ipsa loquitur." I have seen wikipedia pages with much less credibility or in your words "notability." I think everyone agrees. If the purpose of wikipedia is to document "notable" American culture, I think those monitoring the website should allow contributors to be express their feeling of what "notable" is. It is clear from the sources cited (bbc news, wsj, las vegas sun, charley rose, cnn,etc.) and the record of Mr. Chesnoff that the page is satisfactory, and the deletion suggestion must be removed. In the spirit of the law, here are some wikipedia guidelines for notability in people:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

This is an irrebuttable presumption of the notability. This is not temporary notibility as he has contributed significantly to the legal field for over 25 years

[18] Also there is verified evidence, as required

02:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to "I have seen wikipedia pages with much less credibility ...", please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -shirulashem (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not a valid rationale for saving the article. I was tempted to use such reasoning when I was newer to wikipedia...so I think it is important to be patient with new and inexperienced editors. I think a stronger argument to keep (and this is more along the lines of my reasoning) is that past consensus at AfD's has been to keep articles with a much sparser level of coverage in reliable sources--and these still had a consensus of being considered notable. Cazort (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: On balance I think -shirulashem is correct. The notability of the subject is questionable on the grounds he/she has given. Setwisohi (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have a question. At what point does an article stop being threatened with deletion? While you guys are challenging my reasoning, I did not say because x then y. What I did say, was that according to your notability guidelines, this article is sufficient. While I understand that editors here have their own view, I think subjective views that are aimed at the responses of the page's creator are questionable in themselves. Why would someone say " I don't like your reasoning, DELETE! That is so capricious. It is either notable or it isn't. Here it clearly is, even others editors have said so.

- As has already been mentioned, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. There is no argument to be had on that basis. Setwisohi (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My analysis is premised upon the underlying facts, as well the impact Mr. Chesnoff has had on the national legal community. I think the topic of this page has gone in a weird direction. The person who marked it for deletion, has already conceded that it should just be rewritten, which it already has. And it is being added to. It is neutral and exhibits a fair point of view. It is not disputed that he is a notable figure, and editors clearly agree. Do you think all of the notable clients he has had over the years, chose him because they saw a billboard? No, they knew of his successful record through news reports, tv and newpspaper interviews, lectures and other notable attorneys. 19:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Commentextremely wordy comments seem to be making the "keep" side of this article look bad. I think this is extremely unfortunate as, while I don't agree with 90% of his reasoning, I think the topic is solidly notable. I would urge editors to ignore and engage in the comments I made above, about the huge volume of sources...which I think have not been adequately addressed. Cazort (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I apologize to all who may be offended by comments. It was not my intention, and I will refrain from addressing anyone further. Instead I will continue to work on a topic I am passionate about, the law. Thank you. 01:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's ok. I tend to be too wordy in my comments often too. Also, I would recommend making sure you have a single (only one!) bolded recommendation, to make clear to the closing admin that you favor keeping this article. Cazort (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RECOMMENDATION: Strong Keep Dear Admin, I respectfully request that this page be kept. I, as well as others are editing the page in order to clean it up. I was not as well versed in some of the rules regarding the initial post, so please disregard some portions of my earlier posts. I stand by the position, however, that this page is backed by substantial support from well respected sources. The topics surrounding this page have been substantial, and internationally notable. Mr. Chesnoff's legal career has been documented by numerous sources and outlets, and meets all requisite policies of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by • Special:Contributions/contribs) 21:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has a lot of notable clients, but that does not mean he is notable himself. However, the WSJ article which is not a reader blog but editorial material, and specifically calls him notable, [19] is sufficient. The article will of course need some major revision. DGG (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the last post: Established journalist Anna David also did a feature story on Chesnoff. [20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.128.199 (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE READ: Also this is in response to the alleged Chesnoff as murder suspect comment before. He is the subject of the entire article. Please note, the article is in 1996, and the paper refers to him as a veteran. [21] Also, check this one out. [22] and this one. [23] 06:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete This is a truly horrible article as it stands and editors could be forgiven the impulse to send it to the dross pile for that alone, but the individual does merit further inspection. Upon review of the adduced sources, however, I feel that this is a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. I cannot see what he has done himself to pass our notability criteria. Eusebeus (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Deletion, outside of things like copyright violations with legal issues, the role of quality of the article is irrelevant to the question of keeping or deleting--the question is whether it can be cleaned up. To address your question about NOTINHERITED--I want to point out that (1) NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a guideline, and it has been disputed (in particular by me) due to what I have seen as its mis-use in arguments, in cases exactly like this one. For example, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Cynamon, it was argued that a lawyer is not notable if "the subject's notability arises from his actions in representing his client". I think this is an argument that is used in an attempt to override WP:N, to argue to delete material even when sufficient coverage exists in reliable sources to write an encyclopedic article on the topic. And as a side note, I also want to point out that there is one article I showed above that stated that Chesnoff was a suspect in a murder case, and that article was written directly about him. Cazort (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the last post: To classify the article as "horrible" when you do not use correct grammar yourself is truly ironic. Nonetheless, as an attorney representing notable clients, the attorney takes on the client's persona so to speak. Thus, the attorney "is" the client. However, that is not why Mr. Chesnoff is notable. He is notable because he has worked on, and resolved countless notable cases; cases, that he is a part of. To just dismiss the article because the person he works with is notable, is ludicrous. How else could we document notable American attorneys? Chesnoff did not inherit his notability as Eusebeus states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by • 21:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He is the subject of this one too! [24] 01:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This is true, it's not the most detailed coverage, but I think it contributes to notability that someone wrote an article solely about the fact that he has joined the legal team in a particular case. It's that there are so many articles like that that does it for me. Cazort (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup Per DGG. Subject appears to be more notable than your average lawyer, but the article needs some serious cleaning up. Avi (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be created after deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Austin Barry

Delete, being a wife of someone famous doesn't make herself notable Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their is no point of this article. Not notable and no references. Irunongames • play 15:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Noncontroversial - she isn't notable except with respect to her husband. HeureusementIci (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. So tagged. Nothing in here indicates why she might be notable, and a Google book search doesn't turn up anything of interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GBooks shows trivial entries in six books, three about her conversion to Catholicism, one about her death, but all because of her husband. For someone of her times, that should mean not notable. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the overall sentiment here. I was unable to find any substantial coverage...if she was really notable she would have probably shown up in the news at least once and I can't find any mentions there, either by full name or by searching "Sarah Barry" + "John Barry". Cazort (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect to her husband's article. Nothing notable about her. JForget 00:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article was speedily deleted per criterion A7 by Tiptoety at 05:38, 3 July 2009. It was then recreated by Mahsitti at 17:38, 3 July 2009, and the nominator here has opened a new AfD on the article. I've closed the latter AfD as redundant, since this one is still open. If any of those who have commented above want to check the "new version" of the article and revise their opinions, I encourge them to do so. Deor (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The new version is more detailed and sourced, but, as far as I'm concerned, still fails to assert any independent significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked again at the newer version, except one new ref, the others were included in my delete statement above, the new ref doesn't add much to the notability claim either, so I'm sticking with my earlier position. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Merge and redirect into the article on her husband. Avi (talk) 17:37, 7 July 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. Subject is non-notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Harris (train surfer)

Non-notable. Razakel19 (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable also seems to be written like a news article. Irunongames • play 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Might be more notable if he wins a Darwin Award. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to trainsurfing Plenty of room for this somewhat notable event there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to trainsurfing - good idea. Harris is already mentioned there, some of these additional details will improve that article. --CliffC (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't give articles to every idiot who dies doing something fucking stupid. This isn't notable, and, frankly, it doesn't even need mentioning in the trainsurfing page, either. We don't have a "List of people killed by chainsaws" on the chainsaw page, do we? --81.159.67.221 (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doing something extremely stupid and paying the ultimate price is not gorunds for notability in and of itself. WP:BLP1E is not even applicable as the event itself is not notable; sad and tragic, but not notable. See also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Avi (talk) 17:40, 7 July 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 A7 by J.delanoy at 20:36, 4 July 2009. Non-admin closure SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laure louise

Fails WP:NOTE Rmosler | ● 14:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, no references No point in keeping it Irunongames • play 14:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I edited the page to remove unverified content per WP:BLP. Article admits to be about an unpublished poet. No other establishment of notability. -Verdatum (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A7. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:56, 3 July 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 WP:CSD#G12 (copyright violation of this news article. I would have !voted to keep — I'm pretty sure that political secretary for the PM of Malaysia is enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN — but we need an independently written article, not a copy-and-paste job. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Ei Sun

Essay form and may likely fail WP:NOTE Rmosler | ● 14:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essay like, not wikifi'd and no references Irunongames • play 15:24, 2 July 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 by Orangemike CSD A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U-ternity

Band appears to be either a hoax or fail WP:MUSIC. No GHITs or GNEWS hits for group and individuals listed in article. Moved to AfD because CSD removed by apparent SPA. ttonyb1 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete probable WP:CSD#G3 hoax, but anyway WP:CSD#A7 - absolutely no indication of importance or significance. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A7. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:57, 3 July 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 none of the proposed references proposed at the end possibly come near meeting the RS requirement). DGG (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Linux Show

Non-notable trade show/conference, fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find a single reliable source to verify notability. All I can find is press releases. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources available Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[[R[reply]
Reliable Sources:

Moved the Sources I had here to Discussion Page. Itnet7 (talk) 05:12, 8 July 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. The keeps didn't adequately address the issues with the sources that the deletes had. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheckymagazine.com

Marginally notable website, written as an advert by the publisher, Bmckim (talk · contribs). The article has been in pretty much this state since it was created in June 2007 and is still an orphan except for the publisher inserting links about himself. Toddst1 (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article could potentially be saved, but would require the initial author to stay out of it due to conflict of interest concerns. The article's current sources are articles that cited the subject website themselves, so some research would be required to neutralize the point-of-view. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep No indication that nominator has followed all the preliminary alternatives to deletion. -- TheGriefer (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- blocked sockpuppet J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I deprodded. There are adequate secondary reliable sources to show notability. It needs editing to keep it neutral, but it's certainly not unsalvagable. Fences&Windows 00:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Fences&Windows 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are in per Fences, and appear sound. Needs a good wash and brush-up, of course and the author seriously needs to note WP:COI. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources provided do not meet WP:GNG standards showing multiple incidents of reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage. Sources prove the site exists, not that it's notable, and certainly not that it is notable enough to have its own WIkipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 16:24, 30 June 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 00:02, 2 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 00:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I found some RS using Wikpedia Reference Search.. There are obvious coi concerns however. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks as if the article already links to reliable sources covering the magazine in some detail. It does need work, but AFD is not cleanup. Tim meh 14:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though there are second/third-party sources which mention the website it doesn't appear to meet General Notability as it appears to be trivial coverage ("a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site"). Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see it was flagged for rescue so this AfD could be "swarmed" but the references added are the very definition of "trivial" as Panyd points out. Significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources is needed for the topic of the article to be notable and that just isn't demonstrated. Timmeh, you apparently didn't click through to actually check the resources to see if they were trivial. Drawn Some (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good faith, Drawn Some. I tagged it; would you like to accuse me of disruptive behaviour directly or will you stick to being snide? Let's try [25][26][27][28] + numerous more brief references. Fences&Windows 00:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: Doing a search via McAfee, I learned that ten (10) other wikipedia entries link to the SHECKYmagazine.com entry. (Not sure how McAfee determines this, but I just thought I'd throw it out there, as some folks say that a lack of other entries pointing to the entry in question is a sign of illegitimacy. And, conversely, ten other entries pointing to the entry in question might contribute to the legitimacy of the entry in question.) Full disclosure: I put it up there in the first place, so I am naturally biased.

70.18.178.158 (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The exact number of articles that link to a given page can be found by using the "What links here" tab in the toolbox on the left of the screen. Only one actual article actually links to the page in question, the rest are list pages for various deletion categories. --Leivick (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... I first thought this article might be saved, but when I looked at the other link (in Deadpan), it's so self-serving it isn't even funny; it lists the author of the article (and of the website) as someone who is a "notable" deadpan comedian. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jade Ewen. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Ewen discography

Insufficient number of releases for a separate discography, content may be returned to Jade Ewen without unduly increasing its size. Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Jade Ewen. Three singles (and a music video) does not justify a discography. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jade Ewen per TFOWR. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per TFOWR. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per TFOWR. Cs-wolves (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment according to this diff the AfD notice was replaced with a cleanup 'plate by User 81.104.129.242 on 20:46, 3 July 2009. I have requested this user, at talkpage, to present their point of view here.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've restored the AfD template. I guess the editor must have missed the instructions saying "do not remove this template while the AfD discussion is ongoing". Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted a second time see here, this time by User:Greenock125 (talk | contribs). I placed an AfD notice on that user's talkpage on 2 July since they seem to have created the article on 3 June. The notice directed the user to this discussion. I've restored the AfD on Jade Ewen discography and ask other editors to track further changes.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted a third time, two minutes later by Greenock125. I will attempt to restor the AfD template.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Greenock125 never participates in discussions or takes heed of messages left on his talk page.–Signalhead ^< T > 19:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back, not sure she'll ever have enough for a discography. Esteffect (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per nom, no need for separate discography at this point. Rlendog (talk) 16:20, 6 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Nguyen

dismally fails WP:ATHLETE, we don't create articles for junior sportspeople. sounds like his parents wrote this article. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Article seems to have a POV and the lack of sources or major tournaments seems to indicate he isn't notable. But being the number 1 under 14 player in Canada could possibly assert notability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Asserts notability as Panyd says, but doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. HeureusementIci (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed completly non-notable athlete.--Marcusmax(speak) 02:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi (talk) 17:41, 7 July 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 g3 hoax, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highway to Hell:The Series

Search yields nothing regarding this, highly unlikely a television series with such prolific developers would sit for several months with only a handful of edits and not be linked to by any others articles whatsoever. It's a hoax alright, just not a blatant enough one for CSD. treelo _radda 12:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 12:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 12:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. There are no results for this show on Google. The leftorium 13:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Searches turn up nothing relevant. A hoax indeed. Sarilox (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes embarrassing Doroli (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to exist. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete, I can't find any sources either.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:01, 2 July 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. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Berwin

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. nothing in google news search[29]. LibStar (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the Google News search link. Also, a regular Google search turns up only 53 results. From the looks of it, she doesn't receive any significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore fails WP:BIO. Tim meh 15:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage of the actress or of the shows/movies she has appeared in. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – in addition to the above, I also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. All I found was a Variety article that mentioned her in the cast list of And When Did You Last See Your Father?. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:11, 9 July 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. (X! · talk) · @972 · 22:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aunt Jane's Nieces in Society

I don't think that this book is notable, because I cannot find "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent" per Wikipedia:Notability_(books). Please notice, this is an ebook and not printed (AFAI can tell). Hence there is no ISBN, which is a threshold requirement of the notability guideline. 龗 (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It was published again in 1995 and has 2 ISBN numbers: ISBN-10: 1419108247 ISBN-13: 978-1419108242. Seems to be the subject of a lot of literary commentary. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — L. Frank Baum's works are currently undergoing a resurgence of republication and critical re-examination. Even works that were formerly considered secondary or obscure participate in this trend of re-evaluation. Ugajin (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this was published in 1910 as an e-book then it must certainly be notable, and the whole history of computing will have to be rewritten. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I believe that L. Frank Baum falls into the "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable" section of the Wikipedia:Notability (books) page. Sabiona (talk) 15:32, 6 July 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 21:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet Holland-Rose

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. hardly any third party coverage [30]. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ENT Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly sourced and very little coverage, nothing substantial. BioDetective2508 (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Club Penguin. (X! · talk) · @972 · 22:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Press

Book publishers are generally pretty notable but I'm having problems finding any references to this one outside of self published resources such as blogs or wikis. Club Penguin book list linked from the article shows either Grosset & Dunlap or Ladybird as the publisher. RadioFan (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, barely passes WP:V. Urge resisted. Abductive (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Club Penguin. A Google News search turns up no related results, and a regular Google search turns up no secondary reliable sources independent of the subject. It looks like there may not be much or any useful information to merge, but a redirect would be appropriate in any case. Tim meh 15:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Club Penguin. Club penguin is a large enough phenomenon (lots of articles about it and a large following) that this information is worth keeping, but it doesn't deserve its own article. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Club Penguin. Looking above, it looks like it's just a phrase for indicating that's it's a CP book. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 16:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. -- œ ^™ 08:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because:

[Wikia] Wikia is compatible with the Creative commons 3.0 Share - Alike license. Wikia is where I got the base for this article.
I have spent a lot of time on this article, the Snowball Press and i would be very annoyed if it was deleted - i am human too.
Creative commons 2.0 Share-Alike License Licensing used by Wikia - Link - [31]. On wikia's page, it clearly states that their terms are covered by CC 3.0 -by-SA 'Except where otherwise specified, the text on Wikia sites is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License 3.0 (Unported) (CC-BY-SA). The Snowball Press article had not been specified by Wikia and is therefore compatible with Wikipedia.
Search for snowball press on google and 1,610,000 results come up so it is a large enough c

Comment:

That isn't why it's up here.
If that logic was always followed, then Wikipedia would be filled with junk about "fictional character who wear fingerless gloves"
Same as No. 1.
See WP:V

YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 13:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having a compatible license doesn't make it a reliable source. As a wiki, Wikia is by definition a self-publish source which cant be used as a reference.--RadioFan (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is a real publisher, i believe and has its own stock.MiloSoft (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you provide a reference to that?--RadioFan (talk) 15:40, 5 July 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 - the information should probably be covered in the league season article. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Premier League 2009 Fixtures & Results

The articles contain an indiscriminate collection of information, thus violating WP:NOT#IINFO. The single matches listed in this article have limited (if any) notability, thus violating WP:NOT#STATS and WP:N. The articles do not cite any sources, thus failing WP:V. Finally, the results are sufficiently displayed through an results table within the respective main articles. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar issues:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible delete, this is utter trivia. The main season article (eg Thai Division 1 League 2009) is sufficient. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that this violates the policies that Wikipedia is not a webhost and it is not the news. On the other hand, I look at 2009 Atlanta Braves season #Game log and I see the exact same abuse-- someone's personal scorecard to follow each game as it happens. Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Firstly, the results table in Thai Division 1 League 2009 would be sufficient when completed. I also feel we should merge all Div 2 pages (the separate season article for each region) into a single season article for the whole of Division 2 - there's no need for each regional division to have its own separate article. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep Other pages have results built into them and keep the general pages cluttered, spreading it out the way i have done makes it less cluttered and easier to read. An exampole i will give is this [[32]]. All cluttered on one page.

One of reason i would keep is why have some pages linked to clubs for seasons such as [[33]], and the rest of the clubs. Whats the difference? We have many pages for individual clubs and 5 0r 6 pages for a whole country.

On the point about merging pages, well thats just a joke, as that comment is by someone who clearly doesn't know the makeup of Thai football. Each league is an entity of its own.Druryfire (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Jmorrison230582. Giant Snowman 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, just unnecessary Spiderone (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know people want to delete this page, but what is the difference between this and say this [[34]], this also has results doesn't it? Or is that page worthy because its more famous?Druryfire (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also one active user on the page User talk:Goy spur hasn't been told about this potential delete, if you want a fair argument then surely you should contact the user?Druryfire (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jmorrison230582 - league season articles are way enough. --Angelo (talk) 07:24, 6 July 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. Given the age of the article and the larger issues that appear to be ongoing it was probably a bad idea to bring this to AfD at this time. I will make no determination as to what should happen to this article for now; it appears to be in the process of improvement (again, as part of a larger issue than just this article). Whether it ultimately winds up being merged elsewhere, made a redirect, simply deleted or survive as a standalone article I do not know and I cannot say at this juncture, but I urge all involved to allow the article building/discussion process to continue before throwing this one at AfD again. Shereth 18:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic deformation in solids

(1) there are already articles deformation (engineering) and deformation (mechanics) waiting for being merged, we hardly need a third, disconnected article. (2) unencyclopedic. (3) this is a one-man show and likely to remain so. (4) the material inserted here has previously been deleted from other pages, see the ongoing discussion on Talk:Glass Transition.

Correction: The work was removed from consideration (by me) on one other page, so as to avoid a potentially irreconcilable dispute regarding page content. It was suggested to me by a senior group editor and fellow member of WP:Glass that I create an independent article. It has since been suggested that these articles might possibly merge some day in the distant future, after such a time when tempers and emotions have managed to quiet themselves.

Thus the article was created, and has since been largely supported (with editing recomendations) by the majority of that same group of editors and contributors -- all of whom I would look forward to working closely with in the near future in order to reach a group concensus on what constitutes a workable form of the article for the longterm benefit of Wikipedia and its more technically advanced sector of readers. -- logger9 (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too early by far for considering deletion The article has clearly been made up substantially of material deleted from other pages as you note - but that is not a valid reason per se for deletion. This is one of those very few cases where WP:PRESERVE has any validity. Does it need extensive work? Yep. Again not a reason per se for deletion. "Already articles" would apply if the information were in those article -- the first has a very cursory treatment of plastic deformation, the second none at all. Thus this article clearly stands apart from those two cited as reasons to delete this one. Is the article ill-written as it stands? Yep. Is that, per se, a reason for deletion? Nope. Is the topic notable? Clearly yes, as it is not claimed as a reason for deletion and the putative number of cites to be properly added is huge. "One man show" is not a valid reason for deletion. Most articles up for a total of a single day are "one man shows" and this is an extraordinarily weak argument for deletion. In short, no reason properly furnished for deletion. Collect (talk)
"Is the article ill-written as it stands? Yep." All right, let's focus on that. In my view, and from my experience with the other contributions of this one man, I think the current article is uncurably ill-written. Uncurable, because as soon as you try to remove paragraphs that are off topic, or as you try to replace sections by a more concise summary and a few links to relevant articles, you will inevatably run into an edit war as I did on glass transition. Therefore it is preferable to slowly collaborate on stubs like the two existing deformation articles, instead of accepting in bulk a valueless and uncurable contribution like the present one. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Valueless" ?? "Uncurable" ?? How in God's name can that possibly be considered as constructuve input here ?? ~~And who made you the new judge, jury and executioner of anything I have ever contributed to on Wikipedia ? What have YOU contributed here, except unending insults and slander to me personally ?~~ -- logger9 (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask everyone to behave civil and to stop personal accusations here and on other WP pages. There are WP (conflict resolution) pages specifically devoted to that. Forgive my boldness, but I strike through offense. Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems, too early. The article was one day old, meaning you need arguments comparable to speedy deletion to bring it here. That said, after 5 days (I'm rewriting my old comment) I don't see any improvement, which is worrying. Yes, the article looks like a dumped text, but this means little as many editors write off-line (i.e. not in sandboxes) first. The author has been cooperative these days, and I do hope he will make this article readable. Materialscientist (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user has been cooperative these days ?? He has been invited to defend his contributions on Talk:Glass transition - instead, he declares that he is fed up with having to defend himself, and that he prefers working on "on a new article" - this one. He has been given advise by several of you how to write in a way more compatible with what WP intends to be - yet he re-pastes his old stuff literally, including absurdities like

"Mechanisms of attenuation of high-frequency shear and longitudinal waves were considered by Mason and his coworkers at Bell Labs with viscous liquids, polymers and glasses. The subsequent work of Litovitz, et al. in the Physics Department of The Catholic University of America led to an entirely new interpretation of the glass transition in viscous liquids in terms of a spectrum of relaxation phenomena occurring over a range of time and length scales.[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84]" -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~I am truly curious why this "predator editor" who doggedly follows and openly attacks every syllable of every word that I print on Wiki beleieves this paragraph to be "absurd " ????~~ -- logger9 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For an encyclopedia, this is an absurd paragraph. ~~You say you are an associate professor at a four year college. Do you teach any courses related to this?~~ Please try to write texts for a general audience. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Are you familiar with this work ? Have you read these stacks of papers, and thoroughly reviewed them ?? And if not, then who are you to judge ???~~ -- logger9 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's excessive to have 23 sources for a single 2-sentence paragraph in any piece of writing. I assume this is what the other editors above are getting at. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Will edit accordingly. Thank you !-- logger9 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the above quote, I did and do urge Logger9 to (i) avoid potential promotion ("at Bell Labs" etc.), (ii) avoid excessive referencing in his every article, not only this one. (iii) try to write for general audience. My first attempts aimed at getting rid of wrong statements. This does not mean the author should keep the complex and obscure writing style. This problems does remain. Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider "at Bell Labs" as promotional, but as a customary of writing review articles for colleagues in the same research field. That is also why I asked if Logger9 does any teaching of this subject, or whether he is a research scientist. Articles on wikipedia should have educational use. Lecture notes might be a suitable starting point, but the style of many review articles is too esoteric to benefit even physics undergraduates. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep but move to Plastic deformation. Plastic deformation is different than regular old deformation. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 15:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Plastic deformation" is certainly the better lemma - but do not move, please, before consensus is reached about deletion - otherwise it becomes too confusing. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the new target for Plastic deformation being Plasticity (physics), I no longer support a move there. I am not ready to say "Delete" or "Merge", but concerns of POV forking brought up below are troubling, and I am not sure that this article should be kept as is. I would like to see more layman-scale material at Plasticity (physics), so if a merge is possible there I would support it. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is meant by "lemma?" Paula Pilcher is about the only editor who uses the term. Edison (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Headword /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a copyright violation, some section of some academic paper starting with unlinked footnote numbers starting at [48]. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be fully referenced as soon as the edit freeze is released on "glass transition" and I can access my original text. All of it was written by me. There is no copyright violation. You will find this amount of collected literature compiled nowhere else. It took me literally years of time in the UW Physics Library ot put it all together. Feel free to try and find it all compiled in this form elsewhere. You will be wasting your time. -- logger9 (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
That same text is here. You are trying to circumvent an administrator's measure. That is a good reason to delete this copy (and maybe also to block you for disruptive behaviour). The text you put here is about glass transitions, not about deformations of solids. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was suggested to me that I create an independent article from the Glass transition, that is your grounds for deleting my work ? I don't think so ! -- logger9 (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what is stopping you accessing the text of Glass transition? Click here and access away. pablo_hablo. 22:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That version of the article does not include the majority of my work. But I can see now how it can be accessed in its original form. Thanks for the tip:-) -- logger9 (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I told logger9 several times to formulate his articles in an accessible way, and at least the introduction is much improved, compared to his earlier articles, hence, I think logger9 did learn something. - Paula Pilcher is too aggessive at this point in time, despite being correct in some details. Paula Pilcher should co-operate in a constructive manner.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 06:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- It is not per se constructive to add more and more text. In the interest of correctness, verificability, maintainability, and readablity, it may sometimes be more appropriate to remove paragraphs that are off-topic, or to replace long bunches of text by short summaries and links. I tried so in glass transition, and it did not work. Logger9 reverteddeletions, removed off-topic tags, did not answer to talk page arguments, and finally evaded discussion by moving his entire essay here. Substantial improvements are not possible without a massive cleanup (just READ the article to the end !). From past experience, however, it is absolutely clear that Logger9 will not tolerate such interventions without staging a new edit war or/and moving the contents to some new place. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is an excellent one and the treatment is well-written and sourced. Deletion would be contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Warden is a member of the Article Rescue Squadron; the adjectives are just a way to further its cause. "Well-written" does not necessarily mean that he read this article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The excellence of the topic for our purposes may be seen by its extensive coverage in numerous books. I have read the article and consider the writing to be of good quality, albeit not yet in our usual house style. The sourcing is also commendable. Your reference to the ARS seems to be some sort of ad hominem incivility but, in so far as it's relevant, my patrolling activities cause me to see great quantities of poor quality articles which do merit deletion. This article is nothing of the sort and the nomination is quite contrary to our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody doubts that the topic is important. Call it excellent if you want. Plastic deformation is certainly an interesting subject which merits to be covered better in WP. However, you actually prevent experts from contributing here if you come in defense of someone who is abusing the heading to dump pet material that is mostly off-topic. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden will admit that he and I do not always agree -- but here I rise to his defense. Poorly written articles may well be improved -- especially if they are given more than a day to be worked on by others. I, in fact, do have a science background, and was not affronted by the article. And as for off-handed comments about the ARS, my position is quite clearly not influenced by that group one whit. We are left, however, with no actual reasons for deletion other than a claim now that "experts will not work on articles which are too poor" -- a position I find quite antithetical to WP policies. Collect (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. See above and below: There is at least one strong formal argument: this article has been created to circumvent an edit block under another heading. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, the point is not that the article is too poor. The point is: the text is mostly off-topic, it's loquacious, partly wrong, bordering theory finding; and from past experience we can be sure that any attempt to improve the text by removing the most blatant nonsense will inevitably to a repetion of the edit war we have had on glass transition. Any attempt to improve this article is doomed to be a waste of time as long as the original author keeps intervening. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which rather sounds like a routine content dispute -- which is not a valid reason for deletion. It might be properly at WQA, I suppose, but not AfD. Indeed it sounds as though you would auto-delete any article written by this author whicgh is not a valid function of AfD at all. Collect (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion is here [35]. This appears to be an attempt to evade article protection and I don't think that is something we should allow. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having read through the issue at ANI and elsewhere, its just one editor determined to delete something without proper discussion, or listening to what other editors are saying on the proper talk pages. If something does not belong in one article, then you can move it to another one more appropriate for it. Dream Focus 14:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of the content here is only remotely related to Plastic deformation, which is now a redirect to Deformation (engineering). It is absolutely inappropriate to move this piece of academic writing here, and it is disruptive to evade article protection. I commend Paula Pilcher for fighting the issue. Many other knowledgeable people have given up on enwp. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that AFD is not cleanup. You only nominate something for deletion as a last resort. Discuss things on the talk page of the article. And it being too technical sounding in nature, is not a reason to even consider deleting something. Dream Focus 14:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, you call it "technical" because you think it's your fault if you don't understand it. Please understand: there is nothing to be understood in this text. Understanding means making connections. If you don't see connections between subsequent paragraphs, or between paragraphs and the heading of the article, then it is the author's fault, not yours.

Actually, I think we can handle this issue by purely formal criteria: this article is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the block of another article. This for itself should be reason enough for speedy deletion.

But if you want to judge this article by its actual merit, then please use your capacity of judgement, or try to attract more editors to this debate who are capable of forming their own judgement. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have grave concerns about this article. Beyond the issues with writing style and referencing, it appears that large portions of the content constitute a POV or content fork, an attempt by the creator to preserve content from the currently protected Glass transition article, which preserves a version he doesn't favour. That the currently live version of Glass transition doesn't include some of this content is irrelevant: there is no claim or policy that the protected version is the final version; the article was protected in order that consensus be reached. Some editors have argued that the creator was encouraged to create an independent article and this is that article; however it seems clear to me that the aim is to preserve Logger9's preferred content with the aim of merging it back into Glass transition at a later time, and he says as much above. The aim of protecting Glass transition and blocking Paula was not to simply delay discussion and split the content. It was to allow all users to discuss and gain consensus. Creating this new article subverts that aim, fails to solve the problems at Glass transition, and constitutes disruption. This is supported by the relevant guideline, which states: "Wikipedia's policy is that this practice is not a legitimate way for contributors to deal with a lack of consensus." Editors are expected to search for existing articles before creating new ones. It seems clear that at least two extant articles deal with the subject of deformation: namely Deformation (engineering) and Deformation (mechanics), and that they cover much the same content and there is currently a discussion over merging them. The guideline is clear on the matter: "Regardless of whether [the editor] deliberately created the fork, the result is the same: the content should be merged back into the main article." The question for me as the protecting/blocking admin now becomes what to do about the situation. Since the article appears to contain both forked and non-forked material, and the speedy deletion criteria are specific and narrow, I am deleting the forked material from this article and leaving the remainder for deletion discussion; editors may wish to reconsider their comments in light of the remaining content. Since the blocking policy disallows punitive blocks, I am issuing a warning to the creator of the article not to engage in future disruptive editing. I am also unprotecting the Glass transition article one day early in the hopes that allowing users to edit it will help stimulate discussion and the reaching of consensus on that article, but I will be watching it and will happily block anyone who restarts the edit war there. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to delete the dangling list of references. What is left of this article maybe could be rewritten and moved to Internal friction, but this lemma should nor redirect there. It should be deleted, or it should be redirected to one of the deformation articles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't forget; I have no idea which reference refers to which portion of the text and someone will need to disentangle that if the content is kept or merged with the other articles. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the topic is OK, but it's incurably badly done; the guy who wrote it apparently has sources, but hasn't connected them to the content, so nobody can help by verifying, checking, and fixing parts that aren't quite right. I'd say start over, write a proper plastic deformation, incrementally, with references. Logger9 can be allowed to keep making such incurable messes; he should be given a chance to start over and do it in a way where collaboration is possible. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Redirect to Plasticity (physics) and merge any useful content and references there. Currently the article seems to be a content fork + school essay. Note: Even Plastic deformation should redirect to Plasticity (physics) instead of Deformation (engineering) since deformations can be elastic or plastic. Abecedare (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I redirected Plastic deformation as you suggested (that is actually where "plasticity (physics)" originally came from!). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. A most excellent and well sourced article. I agree it needs the references converting to inline citations, and to be made a little clearer for the non expert, but that is no reason to delete such a fine piece of work. I also agree with Exploding Boy about the need to avoid POV forks. However there doesn’t seem to be a POV fork here – as the article approaches the subject on a different level to deformation (engineering) or deformation (mechanics). Granted until the articles have been clarified, this next point is only clear if one has a level of technical knowledge that 99% of editors are unlikely to have. But if this article is a POV fork, then by the same token Human fertilization is a POV fork of our various articles on human sexuality.

Im not happy to see what could be border line ad homien attacks here. Its not realistic to expect everyone to be as proficient as article rescue squad members in grasping the essentials of a wide range of subjects , but one can at least hope we can all be civil. We're all wikkipedians here, lets try and do a professional job for the rest of the AfD! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: POV or content forking is not the same as article splitting. Our policies allow the latter but prohibit the former. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case Im hopeing you'll decide this is a case of article splitting! Looks like there's a case to regard this as a fork from from Glass transition as you say. But only partially, to some extent it looks like different editors have conflicting ideas about the degree of depth to go into. Haveing two articles would give our readers the best of both worlds in some ways, and anyway there's only partial overlap. So Im hoping you'll choose to restore the deleted sections from this article? FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a pretty straight forward content fork to me and not an article split. AniMate^draw 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is notable, the material is cited (albeit badly), and information is not repeated elsewhere. Name should probably be changed to 'Plastic deformation'. LK (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I postponed this !vote for a long time because I did not feel like going through such a densely written article. But I just did and it's completely inaccessible, and it's a WP:FORK of glass transition, strength of glass, physics of glass and so on. This, coupled with the unsalvagability of the current version, most of which is only remotely connected to the subject makes me say delete, and redirect to plastic deformation. The plastic deformation article can then be improved incrementally, and this whole mess can be avoided. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After long consideration, I'm going to also have to support deleting too. While the fork issues with glass transition seem to have been settled (by virtue of that article having been largely abandoned by all but one editor), there seem to be far too many issues with forking, with articles needing merging, and with an entire group of articles connected in some way with this article and with its creator. Rather than muddying the waters further, I think the problems need to be sorted out before they truly get out of control; this article can always be recreated if it's determined at some point that it's actually needed and useful. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having re-read the article its seems to be further improving in clarity and as of the early hours of this morning there's been massive progress with the references. Im not perfectly placed to judge, but the article looks to be a prodigious assembly of the best available relevant literature. Looks to be an extremely valuable resource for those working in this area. 100% agree that if we could have only one article in this area we'd want it to be much more accessible to the layman. But surely there's no compelling reason why we cant have multiple articles – especially as they approach the topic from different angles as well as levels of accessibility so there's very little overlap? FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references seem to have a cutoff date about 25 years ago. Also, there should be no need for so many reference. A few authoritative textbooks and monographs should do, with may a few review papers for recents developments, if any. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe in referencing original work. 25 years is like the blink of an eye when it comes to quality scientific research. To dismiss the original work as "outdated" is to disrespect the original authors. Their work should be noted above those that have performed work derivative to theirs in history.

I have also reduced the total reference count considerably. If what you need is fresh references, we'll get them for you. Good things in life take time. -- logger9 (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
Keep and continue working on it. This did not take AfD to get improvement started. Let the WikiProject work out the relationship between articles. DGG (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanisms

The article here merely provides a brief introduction to the subject matter (albiet a very good one). Alternatively, the purpose of this article is to expand on the introductory discussion in order to describe the mechanisms responsibile for the mechanical behavior of both crystalline and non-crystalline materials. No where in the introductory article are microstructural defects even mentioned -- much less the influence of temperature and loading on their local and/or long-range mobility.

Without a discussion of the basic work that has been done in order to illustrate these concepts and measure them quantitatively in the laboratory, we are merely avoiding the real core and essence of the subject matter. Why not at least give it a chance ? Is it really so absolutely impossible to understand the work of these authors in summary ? Much of it is taught in undergraduate classrooms in quality programs in Ceramics, Metallurgy and Materials Science Engineering. And yet you insist on its comprehensive "inaccessibility". I am certainly no genius, and I don't think so. Can you read all of the articles that are published in straight physics ? Curious.... -- logger9 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would it be possible to close the deletion debate and to replace it by one concerning merging with existing articles on the article talk page? This seems to be something most could agree to.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 21:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can indicate support for merging in a deletion debate by writing "Merge and delete" or something similar. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The high number of articles about the topic (Plastic deformation in solids, Deformation (engineering), Deformation (mechanics), Plasticity (physics), Physics of glass) should definitely be reduced. Which one should be merged where is more or less a formality, whereby some content can not be merged anywhere (for instance in Physics of glass), i.e., it should stay. I advised logger9 in the beginning to create a new article, but I did not know at this point what the topic was, and that other articles exist already. Glass transition is another (but related) topic and should stay independent, whith appropriate references to plastic deformation articles. --Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 11:56, 9 July 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 g3 hoax, second hoax by same author. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Pleakley

Unverifiable. A reasonable internet search turns up nothing that doesn't already reference this article. Probably a hoax. Sarilox (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Sarilox (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sarilox (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax, article created by a suspected sock of a known hoaxster. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:Notability and is most likely a hoax. The leftorium 11:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This editor seems to have no other edits beyond that of inherently false information no matter how improbable these concepts are. I'd bet a bit on this one being another one of their daydream concepts. treelo _radda 12:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a likely hoax--I couldn't find anything verifying this either. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 2 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worryment

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, delete and send content to Wiktionary. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited article to better reflect the true purpouse - the possibility of non-existent words passing into existence whilst citing the origins of this argument, that is, the word worryment. JonMoore87 (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is now a piece of original research. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable neologism -- Worryment is a word which currently does not appear in the English dictionary but was used in a podcast published by PCPro on Thursday 2nd July 2009, this podcast was recorded on July 1st 2009. -- to which musings on lexicalization and word formation have been added. Like the redundant neologism itself, any substantive content could be handled at worry.

I wondered about whether this is even established enough for Wiktionary, but it would appear to be so. It is an entirely regular formation. Google search yields plenty of examples from before 2009, including one use by a person born in 1856. So the current content is also inaccurate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Might be notable if updated and put on Wiktionary but it doesn't seem to belong here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wiktionary is that way... LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This word is not a neologism, it appeared in print in 1963 and possibly earlier. The more common spelling "worriment" appeared in 1897 and is included in my 1998 edition of The Chambers Dictionary. Wiktionary already has entries at both spellings - wikt:worriment, wikt:worryment, so there is no point in transwiking any of this waffle. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP is not a dictionary. Iowateen (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but note: Contrary to several suggestions above, the article is not (only) a dictionary definition. It is, however, original research not supported by any reliable, third-party sources. It therefore does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Cnilep (talk) 19:16, 8 July 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. (X! · talk) · @146 · 02:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SILIB To da Max

The show has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and therefore fails Wikipedia:Notability. Only results on Google are Facebook and Wikipedia. (I'm taking this to AfD instead of PROD because there may be language or transcription issues that are fouling up my search.) TheLeft orium 10:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also found references to this show on Friendster but nothing that could be called a reliable, third-party source. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of reference. Starczamora (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no reliable sources. Just a bunch of friendster links and wikimirrors.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unnotable with no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WING, Vancarlimospacecraft Avi (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G3) by NawlinWiki. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratamons

No evidence that this is notable fiction, or really evidence that this is not purely original. Delete per WP:NOT, WP:OR. Moved from prod. TeaDrinker (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Website links to a clearly unrelated series. Article was created by a (almost) single use account with the same name, who took issue with someone else editing the page (including user page vandalism...). Look at the users contrib history shows they've also edited the article for the Tv program they "borrowed" the link from, which shows that the link is clearly unrelated to this article Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at light speed Pure hoax THIS alone prove it. --KrebMarkt 12:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though it seems it already has. -WarthogDemon 23:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No reliable secondary sources to indicate notability. Peer reviews and so forth should be collected before a Wikipedia article can be created. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 16:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Action World Model

Nonnotable cosmological theory -- basically a summary of a single scientific paper written in 1997 in Brazil. No independent sources; no indication that this theory is notable, or that anyone other than its author has ever heard of it. Seems like original research. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NawlinWiki has it right. Non-notable, screams of original research, only one source. Google doesn't turn up anything besides this article and an ad for "Santa's Action World Model". -t'shael^chat 10:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defense, not delete The original research was distributed to the most relevant institutes and discussed, inclusive on the university where the author studied. The essential 'verificable' result is about space limitations (like, black holes). The problem is that this, currently, cannot be verified experimentally. Because of this, other pesquisers observe and discus the model, but currently is not many to say about it. No error of the model was found. It also gives an alternative, 'easy understandable' model/description (not, explanation) about the physical properties of the world at the beginning - alias, the ONLY existing models, because all other models leave to a 'maximal complicated' state where we nor know if the (nowaday's) physical laws still were correct - also about their origin, our model gives an answer. Thus, the model is like a 'strange animal' what's under observation but nobody want to manifest about. I think about 12 years its good to write this general resume about it - about many other crazy or obviously models people do this much faster. This contribution can also induce a more wide discussion about the model. This article in wiki is not too big, it's a mimimum merit what the model should get. It's also by far less abstract and more 'understandable' than other physical contens in wiki -- The Santas Action World Model has absolutely nothing to do with this cosmological model. wl59 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.118.135 (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- addition to the defense: In the astrophysics, in the last year it becomes more and more visible, that black holes have to do something with limitations/forbidding of certain information transfers and movements (not only limiting the movement of the light); this is included in the model as one of its roots. Also, it gives (I suppose as the only existing theory) about the origin of the natural forces the theory, that they are simply side-effects of the first occurences happened / informations created in the early universe, because each such fact makes it impossible and force that will not created an contrary fact. The model is in all aspects understandable, also for the general publicum and simple persons, much more than obscure theories (like, about parallel universes etc) discused widely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.118.135 (talk • contribs) 2009-07-02 13:49:21
Delete - as thorough as that defense was it doesn't change the fact that the article is mostly original research and there aren't multiple, reliable, third-party sources for it. If the theory is as influential as the above poster claims then we should soon have enough third party sources to re-create the article. For now though, delete. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability and fringe theory concerns. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 16:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete What's most important is that the model and the wiki article is, beside of cientifically well justified, a rather 'generally-understandable' alternative to other often 'not understandable' models (which propose f.ex. a 'maximally complicated' state at the beginning; parallel worlds with certain probabilities etc; unclearness inhowfar physical laws were valid and wherefrom they came), thus it's of general interest. It don't need to be discussed more cientifically, because everything relevant was said without serious contestation, similar like f.ex. for the Friedmann Cosmology or other models is nothing more to add. In contrary to 100 years ago, nowadays the popular explanation and divulgation occurs more and more by internet. However, beside of the original publication, an article for wiki should not depend on the existing of an extra home-page etc about this model or results like this. And if for the admissiblity for wiki is not necessary popularity, but sufficient something is known among the academics or specialists of its topic, then the original publication is sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.119.115 (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90.31.118.135, it's pretty clear that you are Wl59 (talk · contribs), the creator of the article. It's also pretty clear that the "Wl" stands for "Werner Landgraf", the author of the paper cited.
This is not least pretty clear because, as de:Benutzer:Werner.landgraf, de:Benutzer:193.248.74.133, de:Benutzer:193.250.208.137 and de:Benutzer:80.9.31.10, you were making similar arguments in the German Wikipedia, back in January 2006, when de:Wirkungs-Welt-Modell came up for deletion over there (de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/1. Januar 2006), and signing yourself "wl" there, too (as well as speaking in the first person about "my theory").
What was stated to you then by the German Wikipedia editors holds equally over here in the English Wikipedia: A single, unpublished, monograph by you that has not been subjected to proper academic peer review is not an acceptable source. Nor is it acceptable for you to be using either the English or German Wikipedias to promote your own inventions that have yet to be acknowledged and accepted by the world at large. The English Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:No original research policy, too.
And if you start ranting about conspiracies of Jews and drug addicts to keep your ideas from the world, like you did over there, your editing privileges will rapidly vanish as will this article. Uncle G (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The german wiki has the problem that one barely write an article, 5 min later plenty trolls and other jonkeys (which appearently 'live' in wiki and have nothing better to do than this) fall over it like grills and refuse it with the stupidest arguments which in principle can be used for blame any article. This was already criticed from many sides, and ist certainly a reason why many people and sponsors in germany became wiki -tired (and, correctly, nobody want more support wiki financially). In a Linux distro, the german wiki is blocked in all browsers since the install DVD, re-directed in /etc/hosts, because it's not considered as serious, and by the consumer's law the editor has this obligation to the users to protect them from questionable/unreliable sites. -- This has nothing to do with the current article in the english wiki. Although I don't agree with the evaluation by the people here, their opinions and contributions / refuses are still within the normal, not trollic like in the german wiki. But I continue with my opinion, that wiki visibly is 'controlled' by certain interests and its objectivity and neutrality questionable. -- Note: in the first seven contributions -- even if of different opinion -- the discusion was objective, related to the topic and to its relevance for the wiki article. But with the previous item, 'Uncle G' start to turn it personal, a) indicating my reclamation that many information means and also wiki is hold by yews and thus not neutral , b) saying that by my former reclamations about this i could be excluded from english wiki. With this, he confirms that wiki would not be objective. And such statements, finally, damage wiki, whose reliability and financial support become more and more precary. Affirming Uncle G that the politics of wiki.en is the same like wiki.de, justify also to block wiki.en on the quoted Linux distro too. The holders of wiki should know if they want such development of wiki, or not, and should take adequade steps. I at least stay with the objective, article-related discusion, however reclaim against the general abuse in german wiki that it's a playground of trolls which critice everything but contribute nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.119.115 (talk • contribs) 2009-07-07 20:22:32
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own research. This theory has no notability what so ever.(TimothyRias (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Not Delete From the history/statistics of the article for 200907 I see that the article is called appr. 500 times daily, so that the topic is of general interest and interests the readers. wl
Merge to Non-standard cosmology, surely.
The key point here is that notability does not require us to delete content completely. What it tells us is that non-notable topics shouldn't have their own articles.
There's a tension between WP:N and WP:PRESERVE that occurs when a subject is verifiable but not notable, which we can only resolve by merging the disputed content to a parent article. Also, it doesn't matter whether this model is true. What matters is whether it's sourced. (By analogy, Wikipedia quite rightly has an article on Bigfoot).
In this case, I would recommend a heavy trim when the merge is implemented; I feel it merits a paragraph or so.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad to see that there are objective persons at wiki. I'm listening suggestions for make the article better. Generally, I think in a dictionary like wiki, complicated things should be explained general-understandable, and I tried to do this in this resume / article (this cosmological model itself is easily understandable, and the article contains less mathematics than some other articles about general relativity f.ex. Schwarzschild Solution, in the example about Lagrange- or Hamilton formalism, I also putted the most simple case H(a,b,a',b')=a', etc, but I listen suggestions to make the article more understandable/better even). wl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.119.115 (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've addressed notability, but entirely missed our content policies, including Wikipedia:No original research, despite this being pointed out to be a problem above. You've stated one of the things that matters, but not actually addressed that issue. As was spotted by German Wikipedia editors and pointed out in 2006, and as I reiterated above, the "source" here isn't a published article in a peer-reviewed journal. It's an unpublished monograph. There has been no peer review, or even publication. There's no reason to think that this hypothesis has escaped its inventor and been acknowledged by the world at large. Excluding hypotheses that no-one apart from their inventors acknowledge is one of the reasons that the Wikipedia:No original research policy exists in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm, that's a fair point. Let's give the author a chance to respond before I change my !vote.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Advice—I would suggest that you give thought to several matters.
First, it will not help you to imply that other editors are speaking in bad faith (for example, "I'm glad to see that there are objective persons" implies that the preceding comments are not objective). This will tend to harden their hearts against you when you would be better advised to either persuade them to change their opinion, or refute their arguments (as I have done above). It will also not endear you to the sysop (senior person) who closes this debate, who will certainly disregard logical fallacies and rhetoric in favour of a dispassionate analysis of the merits of the arguments presented.
Second, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is an encyclopaedia.
Third, it is not usually a good idea to respond to every single person who disagrees with you.
Fourth (and rather less importantly), there are hundreds of things called "wiki", including some for-profit enterprises, and abbreviating as "wiki" is ambiguous. (Among experienced editors it would be seen as gauche.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, with the 1st item I even violated self what before I condemned ... i later perceived. I wait now for suggestions to improve the article, if some. wl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.118.188 (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The important thing now is that you indicate by whom, and in what language, this research was published. We've been unable to locate it in German so far.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The original work had about 85 pages and was published by a part of the BN of Brasil which also excerces the copyright protection conventions of Brazil with abroad. Any repetition of publication would not possible, for a cientific jornal the article is too long, and it would not longer be original, but republication is also not necessary. Appr. 100 copies were sent to relevant cientific institutes with what the BN has interchange, and other copies by meself. Iself sent a copy to a university where I studied, where the model was discused, nothing obviously wrong was found. But like all cosmological models, it has his assumptions/hypotheses which one cannot proof, even if they are plausible and can explain many (like here, that each fact one time happening in the world, limits the freedom degree / Freiheitsgrad of further happenings in the sense that cannot happen an opposite fact, and that in this sense the natural forces are the remaining side-effect of the first occured facts), so that obviusly everybody is careful and nobody would say 'this model is the absolute trueness'. Formally, however, is not much to add; in the last 12 years I continued to calculate around on the model and see that it can explain many (what also gave me animation to write a resume for wiki, in oposite to any theory what after reveals to being wrong and thus better to forget). But it depends like all models on its basical assumptions, and everything what one can cleanly derive from this assumptions is that already said. Similar like the whole gravitational theory, where since the solutions of Einsteins Feldgleichungen and the Schwarzschild solutions appr. 100 years ago, not was increased much more really significant else -- but one continue to wait that observations confirm more and more these assumptions and the model. Formally, the Schw. solution is that what was calculated at that time, nothing more to add, with slightly different assumptions, or additions, one get slightly different models like f.ex. Kerr or Robertson-Walker metric etc. -- I repeat that our model together with the very plausible assumption above is apearently the only which makes plausible wherefrom the natural forces come. -- One should still remember that in the last time, not everything is longer published exclusively by books, and also important informations and discusions often happens informal, or in the last years even via internet. Generally spoken, wiki should adapt it to this situation, and not demand too strong or obsolete conditions like publication in populair books for something be 'notorical'. For this may be sufficient be known within academic circles or specialists, and wiki contains articles f.ex. about general relativity, cosmology etc with formulas which are not populairly understandable for persons without suficient pre-requisites. 90.31.118.188 (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.118.188 (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - One can find the register of the work here: http://www.bn.br/portal/index.jsp?plugin=FbnBuscaEDA , type in "Wirkungsprinzip" as title. Obs: that the topics was characterized as 'religious', although full of formulas, is a mistake of the workers at the BN which are no specialists about cosmology, and that at the time of the submission it wasnt yet published is normal and condition of the acceptance. The work is not yet scanned and put online (like many newer publications), but I reserved me that right of own divulgation, and could do this. wl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.118.188 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think "BN" means, roughly, "national library" in this context. Would I be right in thinking there's not yet been a peer review?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If there are no books, no reviews, and no anything on this, thenit's not ready for Wikipedia. Get published in a peer-reviewed journal, be mentionned favourably in reviews, and then'll this will be ready for wikipedia. Not before.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "BN" in this context is, as observed in the 2006 discussion, the Biblioteca Nacional in Rio de Janeiro. It is a copyright library, not a publication house. And it certainly doesn't perform academic peer review of unpublished monographs deposited in it. Uncle G (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I readed just the notability and, within this as one sufficient criterion, the reliable-source criterion, of wiki. One should see that reviews are only one possibility of different. I wrote about 20 longer pubs and about 80 shorter notes about physical results, almost all in refereed jornals and all citated at least 1 time by other persons. That the cosmological model it's not published in a review, is to 90% due to the lenght, to 10% because (justified by the topics) I take the freedom, in the publication, to approach me to the basical hipotheses of the model by previous general considerations. It happened that later I changed my interests and I occupied me with informatics, so that I didn't longer take care of physical topics. My cosmological model however I consider as my most important result; I examined afterwards several aspects under its light and always found confirmed that it is correct. This is also the reason why I resumed it to a wiki article (whereas I don't take care or mention in corresponding wiki articles my other results published in refereed jornals). -- I should remember that on the scientific area, historically many was produced or published by books, where often the author paied the printing. One example are P.Jordan 's cosmological ideas, afterwards often citated. Nowadays we have publication by internet. I could publish online the original work, increased still by some of the later results (however, these changes are refered only to details, irrelevant for the resume in wiki), but I think that such a repetition of the publication should not be a condition for the model be mentioned in wiki. Because published and divulged it was anyway, even if not in a refered jornal. And I think its suficient for the reliable-source conditions of wiki. When there would be a substantial error, already colegues of the (very qualified) university where I studied would have told me this, and then I certainly wouldn't resume the model longer anywhere; on the other hand, currently most of the diverse cosmological models (or better of their hypotheses) cannot be proved so that nobody would affirm "this or that model is the only correct". Also here in wiki, the model should be mentioned as one of several cosmological models, with its own merits (things what it better or more plausible, simple or "natural" explain than other models); people recognized it, discused it, but at the moment more one cannot do. -- I want still add that also a encyclopedia never claims to know or to contain only the trueness. Instead, it contains the actual "state of art/cience", even with a selection of different hipotheses (if not completely unqualified). See we f.ex. the (auto-published) books of H.Kelsen with philosophical considerations about right. In the 2nd edition, he revoces many of what he wrote in the 1st edition, and in the 3rd edition is such a chaos that nobody understand longer what is still valid and what not. During the live, the man changed his ideas. Even so were citated all 3 works, because "state-of-art", and in the praxis everybody uses what is most best for him ... (most often is used the 1st edition of Reine Rechtslehre). I didn't check it but suppose that wiki write about all 3 editions and their theories/opinions by Kelson. My cosmological model is not so confuse or auto-revogated; as said, later, approaching me from other aspects to the question, I always found that it must be correct. -- Ref. another aspect of the notability, as said, also the history > statistics of this wiki article shows enough interest; each of the last days appr. 500 calls -- According to the suggestion of the modulator, I don't write now more, and wait suggestions how to modify the article, alone or for merging with the general topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.118.188 (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The suggestion that you'll receive is the same one that you received 3 years ago at the German Wikipedia and that Headbomb has restated above: Get your physics theories peer reviewed and published via the existing, and long-standing, proper academic mechanisms for publishing new science. Wikipedia is not a shortcut around that process. You were told all this three years ago, several times. Uncle G (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete This was never published, just deposited with the National library. There is no reason to merge this if there is no published comment on it, and I do not see how there is at all likely to be. DGG (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the work is published, not in a review but in the explained form. The notary service of the BN register it, according to international copyright conventions, make it open for be consulted by anybody, divulge the list of the works, send a certain number of copies to other libraries, so that any interested person can go there and read the work. And after this also Iself sent copies to several institutes. For me, that is no worser publication than f.ex. in the old times a book publication, often paied by the author, or nowadays an e-book or web page. All this is publication, because it makes public a before unknown, secret contens, for an illimited number of persons whoever has interest to read it. With another opinion, one would justify other people / concurrent cientists read these works and publish them under their own name (so that, here, already the copyright protection makes more reliable/secure the publication). Alias, the librarie's department of deposition of elsewhere published works is another. What I really can do, is to put the work online - what's however no condition for 'published' or for a 'reliable wiki source', as most works are not online. -- I try to stop now to answer to all posts, as suggested by the moderator, and wait what they decide. wl 90.31.119.104 (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.119.104 (talk) 11:33, 9 July 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. (X! · talk) · @055 · 00:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss migration to the United Kingdom

AfDs for this article:

No coverage in reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There has been no improvement to the article in the months since its first AfD, and the issue of "notability" was not resolved before -- at this point, I assert it fails notability due to lack of sourcing, hence is deletable. Collect (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing indicating this is notable, or significant. Some migrations obviously are, like the exodus from venezuala, however, this article could be written about any nationality x moving to any country x. Fuzbaby (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would've thought an article with this title would be about migratory trends or the history thereof (which I would say keep to!). This seems to make a quick mention of how many Swedish-born residents of the UK there are and then becomes a list of 'notable' Swedish residence of the UK. Doesn't seem notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Collect. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:11, 3 July 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. (X! · talk) · @972 · 22:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Work aversion disorder

This article seems to consist of original research. "Work aversion disorder" isn't a recognized medical condition, and there only seems to be one Google result that isn't directly related to this Wikipedia article. Furthermore, although there are many citations, they seem to simply be talking about unwillingness to work, and don't use the word "disorder" - an apparent violation of WP:SYN. CronoDAS (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a generally recognized medical diagnosis -- while it "exists" (see Beetle Bailey), this article shows little promise of being more than an anecdotal list of things associated with people not wanting to work. Ought we have "Vegetable aversion disorder" about people who will not eat all their vegetables? It also exists. Collect (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. No results on Google Books, Google News, Google Scholar. Google Web returns 36 results, none of which appear to be reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking. The article's references mostly point to trivial occurrences of "work aversion" and "aversion of work" in literary works. — Rankiri (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - this article was originally called "Work aversion." Someone later added "disorder" to the end of the title. A search without the word "disorder" does indeed get hits. While there may not be a recognized medical disorder with this title, there is a concept that has indeed been recognized in various published books and scholarly works. Even the Social Security Administration recognizes there is work aversion (not as a disorder but as a behavior) and considers it in determining if someone who has applied for disability is really disabled. As the nom said, this is not a disorder but the unwillingness to work, and that's what the article should be about, as it first was. Hellno2 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, "work aversion" is just a simple combination of two words that doesn't even fall under WP:DICDEF. It's in no way different from "distaste for labor", "job hatred", "unwillingness to work" and other similar expressions. Perhaps the page be redirected to a more appropriately titled article (e.g. Job satisfaction, Procrastination) but the article itself is nothing but a collection of unverifiable claims and POV/OR statements like "Work aversion disorder is a psychological behavior" and "The term work aversion does not refer to immature teens or young adults who "slack off"". — Rankiri (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we can come up with a good title, that may indeed be a better idea than just deleting it outright. There's still WP:SYN to consider, though. - CronoDAS (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEO, WP:NOTADICT........could be summed up as "work aversion disorder is a nice way of saying lazy" in wiktionary. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles wrongly titled as neologisms, the proper action would be to rename, not to delete. This page is so long, it goes far beyond a DICDEF. It has more than a dozen statements supported by footnotes, and as that section of WP:NEO says, it is better just to rename the article to a more descriptive title, and of course to purge all the OR. Hellno2 (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still looks like a polite way of saying "lazy" to me. Redirect to lazy in wiktionary if you want. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article does have a lot of sources that describe the topic. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just remove the OR. Pink cloudy sky (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't you the one who moved the page in the first place? What was your reasoning? — Rankiri (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it because the site workaversion.org, dedicated to dealing with this disorder, calls it "work aversion disorder," even though the site's name is simply "workaversion." Pink cloudy sky (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the information that I originally included in this article came from a brochure that I picked up from an organization that guides women in the work force. It was printed courtesy of a national organization, I can't remember what. I am sure whatever they chose to print in it came from some reliable sources. Some things I do remember were that this condition was simply called "Work aversion" (not disorder), and that it was also stated that "work aversion is not a recognized medical disorder" (and strictly a behavior). It also stated approximately how many people are believed to have the condition. Since then, I have read occasional snippets of information about work aversion in places like newspapers, books, and magazines; I have not kept close track of where, but I am planning in the next few days to search for all this. Tatterfly (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm still strongly opposed to keeping of the content since most of it appears to be falsely referenced WP:OR. For example, the article claims that denial of citizenship is one of the possible complications of "the work aversion disorder". The reference? This article from the Jan. 1921 issue of The New York Times that actually makes it clear that the immigrant was deported on the basis of criminal conviction for vagrancy. The claim that an estimated 20% of criminals feel compelled to a life of crime due to work aversion comes from a 1889(!) [36] book that immediately declares that the number only refers to a review of 170 "occasional criminals" and that no less than 51.7 percent of "habitual criminals" show their aversion to work. The estimate that about four to five million people in the United States may be suffering from some form of work aversion seems to come from www.workaversion.org, the place that unhesitatingly regards work aversion as "a crippling disorder" even though, as mentioned above, I wasn't able to find any scholarly opinions that were being supportive of that WP:Fringe view. [37][38][39][40]

The rest of the article is no better. The introductory paragraph continues with three largely unverifiable or trifling listcrufts. Symptoms of work aversion disorder can include... "living with unrealistic expectations" and "occasionally applying for a job for show"? Complications of work aversion include..."gambling problems", "neglect of dependents...who one is expected to support" and "legal problems, when subject turns to law-breaking to obtain cost of living"? This all looks utterly ridiculous and unencyclopedic. WP:MADEUP or not, I still feel that the article's content looks almost entirely unsalvageable and should be removed on the grounds of WP:OR. None of the keep comments so far seem to address this issue. — Rankiri (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Google examples here are kind of misleading. In terms of the Google searches that you showed, it is very misleading that you showed some searches that turned up nothing. See WP:GHITS on this - just because something has no Ghits does not mean it does not exist. What went wrong along the way is that someone renamed it from "Work aversion" to "Work aversion disorder." These searches use the latter, not the former.

Sources are equally valid, no matter how far back they go. Whether they are from the last few days, the 19th century, or ancient times, they still equally can be counted. Meanwhile, WP:MADEUP means that Wikipedia is not for what is "made up in one day." Applying this term here does not make sense either, given that these sources date that far back.

The OR issue can be addressed here too. Someone may have thrown in a little OR. That problem exists with so many other articles. There is no guideline supporting deleting an article just because someone has gone and done that. Meanwhile, much of this article contains fully verifiable information, enough to establish notability.—Preceding unsigned comment was added by Hellno2 (talk)^{Signed by Rankiri (talk) to avoid confusion.}

I would ask you to reread my previous comment, as it just happens that none of your straw-man counterarguments seem to address any of its points. The Google results only showed that www.workaversion.org could not be considered to be a reliable source. The reliability of the century-old sources wasn't and didn't need to be questioned as they don't actually verify or correspond with the text that cites them. "WP:MADEUP or not" refers to my previous comment about "Work aversion disorder" and is pretty much self-explanatory, and when I said that the article looked almost entirely unsalvageable I obviously wasn't talking about "a little OR" sentence or two. — Rankiri (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the shortcut "WP:MADEUP" the way it has been used here seems to be a deliberate attempt to game the system by giving the impression this is a hoax when it obviously does exist. Being that this does exists and has been verified, that alone is grounds for keeping. From here on, the problem is an article quality issue, and this needs a lot of cleanup. Hellno2 (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DP clearly mentions WP:OR and WP:NOTOPINION as valid reasons for deletion. A lot of cleanup won't do, as most of the article's content seem fall right under these two policies. As for the rest, my first recommendation for "Work aversion disorder" was "Delete per WP:MADEUP" and this is what my later "WP:MADEUP or not" referred to. I'm afraid I don't know how I can get clearer than this. — Rankiri (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL#REASON does not state any reason for which this article should be deleted. The closest thing is when any article cannot be attributed to any reliable sources, but some of the sources in here are reliable, and do accurately verify some of the information here. This article is not an opinion piece or anywhere near it. Therefore, it does not meet grounds for deletion. Hellno2 (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". The article still treats the topic as a disorder and every single one of its sections (Symptoms, Causes, Complications, Treatment, Philosophical/religious views, Trivia) is either an opinion piece or other WP:NOT. — Rankiri (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did read this section. Any possible way in which this page would fall into some WP:NOT category would simply require a style change. Most of what WP:NOT covers are not what pages are not to be included, but what the writing style should be. And this page does not appear to me like an opinion piece, only one that gives factal information. Hellno2 (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What information? That "symptoms of work aversion disorder include...earning barely or less than enough income to pay one's bills"? That "aversion therapy has been found to be successful in many cases"? Or would it be that "some persons are simply phobic of the workplace"? Or that other symptoms of this imaginary "disorder" include "attempts to get on a Social Welfare Program"? Perhaps that "Common excuses made for not being employed include...[being] contingent upon an inheritance winnings from a lottery (...), sweepstakes, or other forms of gambling" or "Treating work aversion involves treating the underlying psychological cause of the disorder"?

This entire article is in clear violation of WP:OR and WP:NOTOPINION. If it comes down to another no consensus, I urge the closing administrator to take a closer look at the page as most of Hellno2's objections are rather misleading, to say the least. — Rankiri (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this "OPINION", or the other use of shortcuts and then describing them to mean something other than what they really are is what is actually misleading. I urge the closing admin to look at that. This appears to be a case of someone who is venting their anger and who is determined to get something deleted at all costs. Hellno2 (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Most of the information that I originally included in this article came from a brochure that I picked up from an organization that guides women in the work force. It was printed courtesy of a national organization, I can't remember what. " -- if there ever was a statement of what does not count as an RS , even for purposes of Verifiability, let alone notability, this is it. Almost none of the apparently impressive list of references are about the actual subject. DGG (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should not be averse to doing further work upon this in accordance with our editing policy. I find plenty of sources under alternate forms such as aversion to work. At worst, we need only redirect to another article such as Sloth (deadly sin). Colonel Warden (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and it is also good to WP:PRESERVE information when the article at worst is imperfect, and in accordance with WP:HANDLE, problematic material need only be removed temporarily, not totally deleted. Hellno2 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 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. (X! · talk) · @055 · 00:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yarra Jets

Not a team that is of any particular note, non-professional. I originally tagged this for PROD due to lack of references that establish notability, but the tag was removed. No new references have been added. Trevor Marron (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GROUP and, as individuals, WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WWGB Nick-D (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Orderinchaos 11:57, 8 July 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. In spite of the attempts to source it the consensus here indicates that the subject is insufficiently notable to merit inclusion. Shereth 18:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Creek, Olathe

Non-notable subdivision, utterly identical to every other affluent subdivision in every other suburb of every other city. PROD proposed sometime last year but removed and forgotten. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added content from two sources to show this is not "utterly identical to every other affluent subdivision in every other suburb of every other city". This should also, combined with looking at the news search results, show this topic meets WP:N. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. No different than the other "high-end" subdivisions in the area or the thousands like it around the country. Ryan2845 (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thousands of other high-end subdivisions were founded in 1989 on a 4,500 master plan and sold to new owners in 2006, prompting a dispute? Your argument doesn't appear to be based on any policy or guideline. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are those facts unique to this neighborhood? Probably. Do they establish enough notability to make it worthy of being on wikipedia? Definitely not. Please see Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill which states "Apartment complexes, housing developments, and trailer parks, even though there are some GHits about each one, and they are often displayed on maps, are not notable on this basis." Ryan2845 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You initially claimed this development was "No different" than any other. The page you link to is an essay... I'm talking about guidelines and policies that support support inclusion of this article. At any rate, your essay says "there must be sources provided other than those that can be used to verify the existence of millions of others" and I have provided those sources - newspaper articles written specifically about this development, not the sort of database and census records that merely verify the existence of thousands of things. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, all of the news articles/sources you linked come from either source The Kansas City Star or Olathe Daily News, which implies to me that it is only notable locally. Even if we keep it now it would be subject to deletion under proposed policy Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) if it is adopted, which references the Run-of-the-mill essay. Ryan2845 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there's nothing saying the sources have to be national in scope, even in the run-of-the-mill essay (which is still an essay and only vaguely relevant here compared to policies like WP:V). We can write an accurate, referenced article here... I don't see what the downside is here. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) and the run-of-the-mill essay are written by the same person. Anyone can write a policy proposal or an essay... there's no evidence there's much consensus behind either of these things. I've encountered the essay writer in another AFD which he took to DRV, and he's finding no support at all for his ideas there. I really don't think his little group of essays are very compelling evidence. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete besides being non-unique the page reads like an advertisement, discussing Cedar Creeks amenities. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plaza Hotel and thousands of other articles doubtlessly discuss amenities - should we delete them too? Again this argument mentions no policy-based reason for deleting this page. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS rarely changes peoples minds. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to essays robotically rarely changes people's minds... what is the actual defense for deleting an article because it talks about nice things the subject of the article offers? There is no defense because it's a bad idea. What you miss is the part of the essay you link to that says "an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." If you really think articles like the Plaza Hotel could be deleted because they mention amenities... feel free to prove me wrong... but they couldn't be, and the fact that they couldn't be proves my point: a few sentences of pseudoadvertising is a reason to edit the article, not delete it. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if I "robotically" did it, your comment might be relevent. But trying to attack me for pointing out that your attempt to defend keeping the article is to say "this one exists" is something that community consensus finds unacceptable, simply doesn't work. Further, I dismissed your particular comment, not all the other ones you've made in this AfD. While you are reading the essay, you might want to think about how it applies. You want a good, policy based reason for deleting it? WP:N. There you go. Enjoy. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N blatantly doesn't support deleting this article... WP:N asks for multiple instances of non-trivial coverage, and I've shown that it exists. So by mentioning WP:N, not a policy but a guideline by the way, you're mentioning something that supports keeping this article, not deleting it... so you're exactly wrong. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion that I am wrong. It is not a fact. Just like your interpretation of WP:N is an opinion. When you get comfortable with difference between fact and opinion, then I'll consider moving on to the difference between "significant" coverage versus trivial coverage. Until then, my opinion stands unchanged. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation is that WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" and I have found several such articles about the subject, so it therefore meets WP:N. You have yet to provide a reason why my interpretation is wrong, you've just said you disagree... which is basically a pointless comment to make. You need to give a reason. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given my reason. I don't find the coverage to be significant. You've shown nothing that changes my mind about that. That is my opinion. I see no point in continuing this pointless bickering with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've given no reason why 2,000+ results on Google news and 2 cited sources in the article about the topic are not significant coverage. Therefore, I don't really see how your comment can be given any weight. You're just saying "nuh uh" with no argument why... --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 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. At this point, after 2 weeks, there seems to be consensus the article is improvable & that improvement has already begun DGG (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-charting U.S. music artists

This looks like a lot of work went into this, so I would say to come up with this falls under both WP:IINFO and WP:OR. It's just a list of artists charting on miscellaneous Billboard charts. Wolfer68 (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Indiscriminate information, overly long list, no real criteria for inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not remove the entire article. It's not some random or indiscriminate listing of artists' charting hits. I don't see it any more trivial than information presented in these other listings:

We can trim the 300+ artist list to 200 or so and make it more manageable.--Don1962 (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think these lists are indiscriminate information. The charts are widely recognized and cited in many articles, and the information is of considerable interst to readers who follow popular music. On the other hand, I am quite concerned about the lack of sourcing. The authors must be able to point the reader to reliable sources for the information contained in the lists, or else they are original research and inappropriate for Wikipedia. If verifiability can't be demonstrated, I can't support keeping them. BRMo (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of those articles listed, I would support the deletion of the second and last ones (though for slightly different reasons than for this article. As for the rest of them, there is a difference between them and these 2- those articles merely take one element (#of sales, chart position etc.) and rank the top artists; this article fuses several of these together for an arbitrary ranking. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 07:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article just needs better organization. It's obvious time was spent and is very resourceful for modern music. The other list shows artist with many who stop making music. This list shows artist who are currently recording and are the most successful modern artist. I don't think it should be deleted at all; just better organized.Forever Kenny (talk)

Weak Keep list items are notable, could serve as a user navigational aid. I don't like the amount of overlap with other articles, however. Gigs (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No one has demonstrated yet that the information on these lists can be verified, so—interesting though they may be—I can't support keeping them. BRMo (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This information can certainly be better verified. It's from Billboard publications and All Music Guide.--Don1962 (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the Billboard Webpages that are listed as external links (the nearest thing to references shown in the article) and I don't see the information listed in the table. If the information can be verified, please demonstrate it by adding citations to the specific sources of the information (including dates and page numbers if you're using the offline magazine). BRMo (talk) 10:44, 29 June 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 04:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettable Delete- Seems to be a somewhat interesting, well-formatted list that took a lot of work, but it fails WP:IINFO and the cut-off for the two articles seems to be somewhat arbitrary and strange, and as the nominator pointed out original research primarily in violation of WP:SYNTH. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 07:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The concept of the article(s) is good but I'm a bit concerned about lack of sourcing also. At the very least, some of the Billboard/Joel Whitburn books would help to confirm some of the totals, at least for the U.S. columns. If these are kept I would suggest renaming (current article titles seem to indicate that the artists are from the U.S.). Not sure why CAN or AUS columns would be included and I don't know what "CCM" or "Other" mean either. I'd also suggest merging the two - why separate out "modern" artists? - eo (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pledge to improve Per suggestions, I plan to source all the statistics via Joel Whitburn books and All Music Guide entries. I plan to clean-up some of the columns and change the last column to REFERENCES.

I've started adding references and cleaned up columns.--Don1962 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can see how this information isn't found in one place online, as serves as a listing of chart achievements. I note how Michael Jackson is called "the King of Pop." Yet, his sister has had more charting hits. And in terms of number of hits (not sales, which is dealt with in numerous other Wiki pages) MJ is nowhere near the top of the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.3.181 (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumptive keep-- Almost all of the information can be sourced, which makes it an editing issue rather than a deletion issue.

The article needs a prose introduction, along the lines of U.S. Presidents or Best Picture.

I would totally lose the Canadian and Australian columns, which are sparsely annotated and thus non-encyclopedic.

The complete UK chart history is far easier to come by-- for instance, Perry Como had 26 charting singles (Complete UK Hit Singles, 1952-2004, pg. 166), James Brown had 24, Frank Sinatra had 40, and Ray Charles had 17. However, the UK and US charts differ in many fundamental respects, so pairing them in this sort of format is problematic.

The subsidiary Billboard chart data (AC/Adult/Rock/R&B/Country) needs to have much less white space in their columns. This means a full historic accounting for those charts, including some indication when an artist's entry is blank. For instance, Perry Como has never appeared on the R&B chart, but the blank space suggests incomplete information. Some symbol such as a hyphen or a zero should be there instead.

I'd also get rid of the RIAA column, which is neither chart-related nor comprehensive (the RIAA only calculates sales figures when paid to do so by the calculate-ee, thus making various artists' totals over- or underrepresented).

There's nothing wrong with this page that future improvements and a streamlined premise can't solve.One Sweet Edit (talk) 07:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the comments above about the potential for sourcing improvements, and the improvements that Don1962 has already made since this AfD began, it appears that the need here is for regular editing/cleanup rather than deletion. I'd lean towards keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What should we do with the cut-off for the two articles, though? Unless I'm mistaken, the cut-off for what goes in the first article and what goes in the "Modern" article is arbitrary and Original research. I suggest we either merge them or find a better system for what goes in each (or at the very least define it better eg. First charted before/after 1990). The Dominator^Talk_Edits 18:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I realize this is still a work in progress (and maybe it should be taken off line until it is ready), but the references that have been added do not confirm the numbers in the list (the numbers are off or aren't even discussed). If this is going to be kept and based primarily on the Hot 100, it should only be for artists with at least ten Hot 100 chart appearances or this is going to be a bear to continually maintain and keep up to date. Definitely merge the two lists and remove the UK, Canada, and AUS columns because their inclusion seems to contradict what this list is supposed to be showing. And why should an artists' "greatest hits" compilations and "live" albums be excluded from the Billboard 200 list - many of these have had productive chart runs as well and should be reflected for those artists. If the source in which these are being obtained doesn't count them, then that has to be referenced as well; otherwise, I would consider the decision to exclude them original research. --Wolfer68 (talk) 06:07, 8 July 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. (X! · talk) · @055 · 00:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg–Romania relations

lack of significant coverage of actual bilateral relations [41], 1st article does mention a foreign minister visit but not enough for an article. also Romanian ministers have attended EU meetings in Luxembourg but that in itself was for the EU and not Luxembourg-Romania relations. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep There;s not much, but reviewing your google search you provided, I am inclined to say there is marginally enough coverage to bump this one over the notability Mendoza line. Plus, that both nations are members of the EU and other international organizations with relatively small numbers of members (i.e. much smaller than say the UN), plus that Romania has a full embassy in Luxembourg itself, leads me to believe that these countries may have real bilateral relations, and not just imagined relations cuz they both are members of the UN or some such. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - independent sources actually about the relationship, as opposed to a visit of the sort that happens routinely and is never usually noticed here, are lacking. That relations exist is not in doubt, but their significance is not attested to by anything substantive. And someone wishing to check on joint international organisation membership can easily look at EU members, NATO members, etc.
I did search on this in Romanian, and came up empty. The Foreign Ministry does have a page on relations, but a) this is not independent of the subject and b) what is in there is dreadfully dull - endless rounds of visits, reams of trade figures (trade that is, I might add, quite minor), civil transport agreements - that sort of thing. The embassy itself has a site, but that's little more illuminating. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficient notability by far -- place in single country articles at best. Permutations and combinations of country names do not make for a good subset of WP articles. Collect (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am hesitant to say delete when one country has an embassy in the other but Luxembourg doesn't bother to to have an embassy in Romania despite their common membership in several important international organizations and that speaks volumes. I don't see significant in-depth coverage of relations between these countries as a topic which is required for notability. If they have notable trade treaties or transport agreements then articles should be created on those notable topics. Notability for the whole isn't inherited from notability for a part. Drawn Some (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This random pairing of nations shows no notability beyond the pedestrian functions of govt. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are reports mentioning the two countries in connection with football and trade. However, I could not find anything notable, and there appears no reason to believe the article will ever hold more than a few unconnected facts. The correct way to approach this would be to develop information in the article for each country. If there is ever sufficient information to link these two countries, a new "relations" artice can be created then, but this stub is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:07, 5 July 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. (X! · talk) · @055 · 00:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty Rock

Notability is seriously lacking for this article. It's almost borderline spam as the only two refs given are about a company by the name of Beauty Rock records. Can't find reliable third party refs and Google only returns hits about the company and some band by the same name. Was prodded, but contested, so it comes here. t'shael^chat 04:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -t'shael^chat 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems to be a spam article masquerading as a notable article. For full disclosure, I was the prodder. -WarthogDemon 04:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. In the best case, it's a neologism for a sub-genre of music that isn't in widespread use. In the worst, it's spam for a label/band. In either case, nothing in the article demonstrates why it's a notable subject with independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with all of the above. BioDetective2508 (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not spam for a label or a band. I am not in any of the bands listed and no labels are mentioned aside from the one that clearly verifies my claims. I have updated the references. I am merely trying to bring more light and publicity to this already important term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shide48 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the "references" that you have added mention "beauty rock". -t'shael^chat 05:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, disguised advertising for the record company of this name. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no advertising going on here. I don't even know who that label is but they clearly indicate the use of the term. Why is this such a huge deal for you to spend your lives scouring websites in order to get a single wikipedia page among millions taken down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shide48 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard people use the term beauty rock before! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theprofessorshun (talk • contribs) 16:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note This comment is the only contribution by this account registered earlier today. -t'shael^chat 20:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That doesn't make it notable. I've heard my friends use hundreds of terms that are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -t'shael^chat 19:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAgain, notability is so subjective that you cannot objectively tell me that this article should not be included. What one person views as notable, another person does not. I have given you ample references for this article. If this was spam, I would not be conversing with you about the topic and it is obviously not advertisement. What would be the subject that is being advertised? I would hardly call a reference an advertisement. Wikipedia is about the spread of information and ideas. It is user based so why should a user-drafted article be considered for deletion just because you've never heard of the term before? Wikipedia is used for the expansion of knowledge, not hard and fast "facts" (find a college or university that would accept it on a research paper and I'll gladly take this article down if it's that important to you). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shide48 (talk • contribs)

Notability has a set definition on Wikipedia, so yes, we can say that it does not meet the general notability guidelines. As for references, see my comments on the talk page. Of the seven links added today, six didn't mention beauty rock at all; the seventh is the Urban Dictionary definition I mention below. —C.Fred (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, thanks for slowing down my access to wikipedia remarkably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shide48 (talk • contribs)

There were service issues on the evening (UTC) of 2 July 2009. At one point, I couldn't access Wikipedia at all. —C.Fred (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Houston, we have a problem. What's the copyright status of Urban Dictionary definitions? The article as it currently is a word-for-word copy of [42]. A speedy delete may be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to C.Fred Well, at the bottom of the page it clearly states Urban Dictionary ©1999-2009 terms of service privacy policy feedback advertise technology live support. So, I believe a speedy deletion per G11 is indeed in order. -t'shael the sock^{Talk to my master} 22:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G12, not G11. I checked the TOS, and it's debatable—the author grants UD rights equivalent to a free license, which is sublicensable, but it doesn't say what restrictions exist on reuse of the text. If you want to tag it as a copyvio, go right ahead. —C.Fred (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction, don't know why I typed G11.. trying to do too many things at once, I guess. Anyway, I went ahead and tagged it as a copyright vio, so we'll see. -t'shael the sock^{Talk to my master} 22:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote both articles. Thank you. Both are original works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shide48 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which, since it's Urban Dictionary, is entirely plausible. I've removed the speedy deletion tag accordingly. However, it returns us where we were: no independent mentions of the term. —C.Fred (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be WP:OR with no secondary sources available. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT! You took off all my references so obviously there aren't going to be any independent mentions. I went through all the trouble of typing out the references and you just delete them without asking me just because you thought they weren't good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.147.56 (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to the ones I listed at Talk:Beauty Rock, you'll see why they were all removed: none of them discussed beauty rock at all. —C.Fred (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is unsourced, but I have heard of Beauty Rock as a new new genre. --69.161.78.31 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Christopher

Self promotional BLP article, wasn't able to verify that any of his publications are notable under WP:BK, nor the assertion that his blog was "widely acclaimed", and in which case he fails WP:BLP1E as his only other claim to notability was serving as an assistant editor for DJ Spooky's book - 2 ... says you, says me 03:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable WP:AUTHOR. Not enough coverage from secondary independent reliable sources. Algébrico (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:54, 8 July 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. WP:SNOW \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qwertial Aphasia

Delete. Fails WP:NEO. Neologism without any reliable independent sources. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. A one-time mention in xkcd does not warrant notability. JIP | Talk 06:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I personally find xkcd entertaining, we can't add every catchphrase and punchline here. Should this become some sort of a meme, it could be added here. By itself it's far from notable or widespread enough to have it's own article. Kotiwalo (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sadly, even Google could not help me find some reputable source that this is indeed, a medical term. Urban Dictionary and sites like that would be better off for this topic. --Scouto2 (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the page was PRODed on 1 July by User:WWGB with the concern "Neologism." Prod was contested on 1 July by 86.12.239.206 with the comment, "removed warning (better to have any definition than none at all)." I concur with nominator and PRODer WWGB that the page is a dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. The only source is a cartoon strip that uses the phrase as its title. Delete. Cnilep (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP or WP:NEO or both. Plus I'm not sure something like what is described could properly be termed "aphasia". Drawn Some (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A great joke, but not encyclopedic. Delete per self-admitted WP:NEO. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 3 July 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. (X! · talk) · @054 · 00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Texas Earthquakes 2008

An article about earthquakes of magnitude 2.5-3.0 is surely non-notable, no matter where the ___location. RapidR (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If 2.5 minimum is notable, then I can provide you with about 10 more individual 3-line articles like this. And this is just covering where I live. Non-notable. -WarthogDemon 03:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed two of the references which were broken links, and did a quick search for notability (as the article asserts) and there are no significant sources other than 'small-town-news' style newspaper entries. 66.183.69.201 (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The earthquake equivalent of a simple thunderstorm compared to say, a hurricane. SInce hurricanes are notable, but thunderstorms not usually; a 3.0 magnitude, of which there are dozens going on right now, seems to lack any inherant notability, and there does not seem to be anything notable about this specific earthquake either. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnotable, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Just because it happened in Dallas isn't even that notable. Texas may not be "seismically" active, but it does have regular minor earthquakes. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:13, 3 July 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kasia Al Thani

There are no reliable second or third party sources. Article was orginally written as self-promotion and to promote company though article has been revised. Other than being the third wife to a Qatar Prince, she has nothing notable. The user that created the article has done nothing further on wiki so it's questionable. This does not fall in the guidelines of WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Tree Karma (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete by nominator. Article originally was established for self-promotion and the creator tried to blank the page numerous of times. Upon good faith searching, all searches were press interviews promoting company and none support information provided such as birthdate and where she grew up, etc. Poorly sourced and non-notable. Tree Karma (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any reliable source other than press on her company. I don't think being the wife of royalty signifies notability and none of the references provides data that is included in the bio; with that said, I agree with Treekarma that their is a possibility the person that created this article is connected to the company or person and promoting. Fails WP:BIO and guidelines. BioDetective2508 (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second I know that's not an option, but I saw this article on this page, then went to it, and started to try and improve it--I learned a lot about this lady who I'd never even heard about, making me believe perhaps she is somewhat notable. I found numerous sources, including the Sunday Telegraph, the Wall Street Journal, Harper's Bazaar, Scotsman Magazine, USA Today (and many more less-appropriate, but extant, references). As I was in the process of improving it (it looked sloppy, I'll admit) I got reverted. For example, I was in the process of establishing notability, I added the paragraph:

She discovered that €50 million went missing between 2001 and 2003 from the Barclays account of her husband, Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Thani. A €50 million legal action was brought against Barclays, alleging fraud, led by Princess Kasia Al-Thani. The sheikh accused Barclays was especially negligent for allowing an employee, using a secondary account and forged signatures, to withdraw €4 million from the sheikh's account monthly. The case was was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Which was referenced from the Sunday Times, and other papers. I was reverted. I am going to put that back in. I believe a little more time must be given - the article did read like an ad, but I will try and fix that. Don't speedy delete (at least for a while!). 66.183.69.201 (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All references posted by above contributor are promoting company and not the person. Furthermore, the above lawsuit is about her husband and not significantly about the wife. On both persons articles, the story was reverted by other contributors. Based on the above plea I attempted another search and most all references quoted above are online entertainment blogs and interviews regarding company. Unless wiki supports creating pages on all notable people's wives, I stand by delete perhaps not speedy. BioDetective2508 (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is honestly getting ridiculous. I have nothing to do with the company, I have no vested interest in it. I have been editing here for years (not just under this IP). I never heard of her: I was trying to show that she was notable for multiple things: (A) For discovering a 50 million Euro fraud, of which the Sunday Telegraph says: "The sheikh's wife Princess Kasia Al-Thani, [...] first discovered the fraud and has been spearheading the legal action," (B) For being a Qatari royal, (C) For starting up a significant company that has been referenced in numerous places (I know the links to some pages have promotional content, I'm not ignorant - but they show notability of the company and her fundamental relation to it--a blog even can be a good source if it's an official newspaper blog by an employee). Because this AfD is taking place, I dumped some references at the end of the article and tried to improve it. I would suggest any objective editors who come across this AfD check the article's history, read the Sunday Telegraph article ([43]) which I keep having reverted as a source, as "it's not about the subject." She's in the pull quote, her picture heads the article, and the article states that it was her who discovered it and she is spearheading the case! The article even interviews her later on! One editor even reverted it saying it "must be written about the specific person," referring me to a wiki-policy page which said Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material in its first point! I keep getting treated like a prick because I edit from IPs. I've been editing for significantly longer than some editors who just dismiss me as an IP with no experience (my wikistress is going through the roof and I'm starting to be less and less objective--something I pride myself on). 66.183.69.201 (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google searched lawsuit and though there is significant coverage regarding lawsuit, all articles refer to husband and NOT wife. ONLY one article that is a mixture of lawsuit and her new company. Title of article reference the husband only and interviews the wife. No other significant coverage on lawsuit mentions her. Again, lawsuit is about the husband not wife and an administrator originally reverted the edit. Tree Karma (talk) 09:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator reverted this inappropriate article: ([44]), not this one, which I used: ([45]). Please stop deferring to the "admin" in this AfD--his reversion is not in question. Your points before that mention are valid. 66.183.69.201 (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The biographical details are unverifiable. It must be assumed this is puffery as these details, whether correct or not, could only come from the subject or a friend of the subject. If you are notable, a completely independent contributor will create an article. Parkerparked (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Merge with Shiekh Abdelaziz bin Khalifa Al-Thani. Per WP:BIO#Family the sheikha appears to go beyond inherited fame. Removing the material that the IP has added appears to violate WP:AGF... -Thibbs (talk) 14:02, 2 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gord Scott

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, having never won an election (or finished higher than fourth, according to Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke). Google searches for both Gord Scott and Gordon S. McLeod (his full name according to Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke election results) turn up nothing about the politician. There don't seem to be any news sources either (which there almost certainly would be for a notable politician); both Google News and news archive searches turn up nothing relevant for Gordon McLeod or Gord Scott, so it looks like this fails WP:GNG as well. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and wikipedia isn't the place to mount his next election campaign. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Fubaby. Tree Karma (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with all of the above. Very short too, and I can't find anything to expand it with. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 21:00, 4 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Airlines Flight 1883

This event involved an aircraft touching down on a taxiway. There were no injuries, no damage, and everything was all right. WP:NOT#NEWS applies. Quoting the only working reference, the MSNBC article: "Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, for instance, had three such landings over a recent four-year span" If this same scenario happened three times at one airport over a four year span, one can see that this happens more than one might think. Therefore, I simply don't think this is that notable. Tavix | Talk 18:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my discussion of these issues in the AfD talk page. AFAICT, there was only a single similar event at Sea-Tac of a jet airliner landing on a taxiway there, and it was apparently in the daytime, because the cited expert says that at night such events would be unlikely. In addition, the specific Sea-Tac taxiway is broad and located at the outer boundary of the field, which would be easier to mistake for a runway. In contrast, the Newark taxiway is an internal one, adjacent to the ramp and buildings, and is relatively narrow. I am not aware of any similar events anywhere else in the U.S., and Google only comes up with the Sea-Tac and Newark ones (though I have found a couple overseas). Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely non-notable. WP:NOTNEWS Niteshift36 (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge to the article about the Newark airport). Pilot error that, fortunately, did not end in disaster. Mandsford (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worth merging, there's nothing substantive that belongs in the article about EWR. StarM 01:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AIRCRASH. I would at first have gone for unusual circumstances, but that MSNBC quote indicates otherwise. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 27 June 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 01:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per WP:AIRCRASH, with additional sources. To reduce clutter here, I am posting my message to the closing admin on the discussion page. I will add the sources to the article, and spruce it up as needed. Crum375 (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the new sources to the article and spruced it up a bit. Crum375 (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Tree Karma (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that this is a notable incident, but that's not clear from the dull and prosaic way that the article is written. The lead sentence currently says "Continental Flight 1883 was a Boeing 757-224, registration N17105, on a scheduled domestic passenger flight from Orlando, Florida to Newark, New Jersey, with 148 passengers and October 28, 2006, with no reported injuries or damage." How about revising that to something like "Continental Flight 1883 was involved in a near-miss incident when a Boeing jet mistakenly landed on an airport taxiway in Newark, New Jersey, on October 28, 2006"? My objective is to focus the lead on the notable aspects of the article; the details can follow later. Additionally, the article probably could say more about what airline safety experts have said about the implications of the incident. --Orlady (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points. I started working on that in the Aftermath, but you are right that it should be added to the lead.Crum375 (talk)
  - I added your points to the lead, and more detail to the Aftermath section. Crum375 (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an incident, not an accident, WP:NOTNEWS. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is an incident, as is noted in its infobox. But WP:AIRCRASH specifically includes incidents, if they meet certain criteria. This one meets two of those criteria, of which only one is needed for WP inclusion. And WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here, because it's not the news aspect of this event which makes it notable. The two criteria are: it's very rare (per source), and it caused changes in the safety procedures at Newark Airport, both on the ground and in the air. To emphasize, any single one of these criteria alone would meet the requirements of WP:AIRCRASH. Please see the rationale on the discussion page. Crum375 (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by WP:AIRCRASH since it's a guideline essay and not policy, but given that enough people seem to have accepted the guideline essay as sensible, I'm removing my delete !vote and switching to Neutral. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added another section on the talk page of this AfD addressing the issue of the relative "rareness" of taxiway landings. Crum375 (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Still being reported on two years later as inquiries and investigations are being completed. I'm making this arguement on grounds of per WP:N itself even if it arguably stretches WP:AIRCRASH (one could certainly argue it does not). Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 07:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail to see any real long term notability. I'm also surprised that further discussion was needed when the consensus was to delete this )7-0) Corpx (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:AIRCRASH criteria that this article meets are not related to newspaper notability, but to uniqueness and lasting effects on air safety. We have a veteran air traffic controller stating he is not aware of any precedent in his 18 years on the job, and AP reporting that aviation experts consider a taxiway landing by an airliner a "rare event."[46] As far as effect on aviation safety, two new arrival procedures were established at Newark to replace the one used by the airliner, and the runway/taxiway lighting differentials at the airport have been changed as a result of the incident, as documented by the NTSB.[47] This incident was investigated and reported by the NTSB, and that alone makes it notable in general, since it gets widely published and is retained indefinitely in the NTSB's accident/incident online database. The less significant incidents are investigated (if needed) by the FAA, and rarely have a full investigation, as this one did. As I noted above, you only need one criterion to establish notability per WP:AIRCRASH, and this one meets at least two, in addition to the full NTSB investigation and report for general notability. Crum375 (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for "why is this relisted?", I believe that the article's creator had not been notified about this AfD discussion. --Orlady (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm swayed by the argument that the incident created a change in procedure or launched a significant investigation, etc. It is notable primarily within the field, not as a newspaper headline for the public, but that makes it no less notable. Drawn Some (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It did result in two new procedures as per WP:AIRCRASH, so it falls into the qualifiers therein. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't really apply, since this happened something like 3 years ago. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeni, nobody here is suggesting to Keep because of the incident's news value. The arguments for Keep are based on WP:AIRCRASH and general notability. AIRCRASH allows including aviation incident articles which are unique or have a lasting safety impact. This article meets both criteria, as elaborated on the AfD's discussion page. In addition, by virtue of being investigated fully by the NTSB (and not the FAA which investigates the non-notable incidents), the full report has been published on the NTSB's website and is available for the public to read, including aviation safety professionals. This, as well as the aviation safety related articles cited in the article, makes the event notable in its own right, beyond the AIRCRASH requirements. Again, none of these inclusion criteria are related to the intrinsic news value. Crum375 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can I point out that WP:AIRCRASH is only a WikiProject guideline, the article must satisfy proper Wikipedia criteria, which it does not. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 00:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, this has been pointed out and discussed above. It's actually technically an "essay", but it is the only written guidance we have for the inclusion of aviation incidents, and to the best of my knowledge, it is used routinely by the community. But even if you decide to ignore it, you still have general notability criteria to consider. If the Federal Government spends resources and investigates an incident fully, including taking test flights around the airport with many experts on board to evaluate the visible airport lighting conditions, and then publishes the results in its main aviation safety repository, that's notable. If there are two new arrival procedures at Newark Airport created and published directly as a result of this event and its investigation, that's notable (can you point out any other incident that has had that happen in recent years?). If the incident resulted in a change in differential lighting settings for all night operations at Newark (and likely elsewhere), to better differentiate taxiways from runways at night, that's notable. In the category of aviation incidents, which we allow in principle on WP, this one is one of the most notable that I can think of. Also, consider what would have happened had there been personnel, vehicles, equipment or other aircraft on that taxiway that evening. A major disaster, with the possible loss of life of all 154 on board, plus others on the ground, with high "notability" among the non-professional public. For aviation safety professionals, whose responsibility it is to prevent the next occurrence, "notability" is not measured in lives lost, but lives which can be saved. Wikipedia caters to everyone, including aviation professionals and those interested in the topic. Crum375 (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; per Usrnme h8er. Rare incident, sparked full NTSB investigation. Nevard (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Almost any commercial aicraft mishap gets a NTSB investigation. That's what the NTSB does. This is a minor incident that falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Also fails WP:AIRCRASH. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the NTSB database. Can you find one incident (not accident), involving a part 121 major carrier passenger jet airliner which: a. was fully investigated by the NTSB; b. has a "Post-Incident Safety Changes" section; c. resulted in one or more new published procedure(s) for the use by all pilots (e.g. new arrival procedures at a major airport); and d. resulted in new operating procedures at a major airport (e.g. runway/taxiway differential lighting settings)? Note that WP:AIRCRASH notability criteria for airliner incidents include material changes in industry or aircraft procedures as a result of the incident; can you find another incident which meets this requirement? Also, check our List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft, which are all linked to wiki articles. Can you find an article of an aviation airliner incident which you believe is more notable, and explain why? (Note that Gimli Glider was classified as an accident, so it doesn't count.) Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aside from the guideline which Crum referred to, the fact that the NTSB wrote an extensive report and issued reccommendations after this incident is noteworthy. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The revised article cites multiple sources and clearly identifies the aspects of this incident that make it worthy of attention and that have had a lasting impact. --Orlady (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep The extensive rescue work has convinced me of notability. Good job, now easily meets WP:AIRCRASH etc. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti Blasters

Non-notable local program. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It technically meets the inclusion criteria because the trademark controversy has received coverage, I think the program itself has recieved some as well. While I'm not sure there's enough there to build a decent article, it does meet WP:N, so there is at least some usable information. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep We have Philadelphia Anti-Graffiti Network, so why not Chicago. Alternatively both could be merged with the weak & oddly named Graffiti abatement. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Seems to meet WP:N. -Thibbs (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. Where is the trademark controversy in the article? SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Local government painting over graffiti doesn't look particularly significant. But there are several sources addressing the specific program: [48], [49], [50], [51].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WEEEAAAK Keep Topicwise, I do not understand why it is encyclopedic at the international level. It seems like a local government program. However, Ethicoaestheticist has convinced me it is WP:N according to our guidelines.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a local govt program, but it's one that's received wider coverage in several contexts. There is critical analysis/more than just passing mention in publications other than local news. And major coverage of one particular event. DMacks (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Graffiti terminology. (X! · talk) · @054 · 00:17, 9 July 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 merge to Graffiti terminology. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woodblock graffiti

Doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Do we really need an article on blocks of wood nail on posts? Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-merge to Graffiti terminology, as I had done before. I could not locate sufficient reliable source coverage for a standalone article. Jfire (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-merge per Jfire and make it stick. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:56, 8 July 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 both. —harej (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Day (film)

No significant coverage. Fails WP:N. Since the band is only barely notable because of having had Maynard James Keenan as a member, their releases do not deserve individual articles. Conical Johnson (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability demonstrated from reliable sources or otherwise. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My prior comment was made before the bands article was added to the discussion. On that, I'd opine weak keep' based on the presence of an undoubtably notable member per WP:MUSIC. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:44, 3 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) 00:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All three of the albums are not notable on their own but should be included as part of the article on Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty. Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty should not be deleted, even though one of the criteria to make a group notable is "... an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". " The group article on Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty should be kept because even though there is only one notable member because that member is especially notable and the subject of a featured article.Rcurtis5 (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Just because Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty has an FA member doesn't mean that notability is inherited; IAR doesn't work here. Google News and Scholar turn up empty; Books gives some unrelated Daniel Webster quote. For Peace Day, News, Books, and Scholar have a lot of unrelated results, but none related to the subject in question. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 2 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with King of Hearts and there are no reliable sources or coverage. BioDetective2508 (talk) 04:40, 2 July 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.

Excuse me, Rcurtis, but you should have used the full quote; "(Criteria for notability...) Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Maynard James Keenan has been in three notable ensembles. Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty does have enough notability to have an article.

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 00:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monster (Usher album)

Delete. This is enough information to be moved to the main article Usher. The music article has no official, track listing, and hardly any background. It should be moved back to main article. Only one confirmed producer and the other are unconfirmed. Badly written with just rumors of what might happen. Lovejonesfly (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. It has yet to be released and has not established any notability to date though it is an anticipated album. Premature article and perhaps premature deletion. Too difficult to rate. BioDetective2508 (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How is it to difficult rate when it can be merged with main article, Usher. Lovejonesfly (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: once the track list and release date are also confirmed, it will qualify for its own article. Until then, this info should be in the artist's article. Cliff smith ^talk 16:06, 2 July 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas4all

Declined A7, no real assertion of notability or sources. A search on GNews [52] turns up an identical press release reprinted on several websites, a few press releases in Spanish and not much else. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As this reads like an ad. Here are some examples: "ideas4all is a democratic community where any and all ideas are welcome." Sounds promotional. "The only requirement to post an idea is to register." Could perhaps be reworded. To boot, I question it's notability. Mm40 (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:53, 25 June 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) 01:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear notable, and reads in part like an ad. The press releases are mostly clones of each other. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources indicating notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:53, 2 July 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. Project has been cancelled, and is non-notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T. Stacy Condo Tower

Contested prod, likely by sockpuppet. (I hadn't seen the contested prod when I prodded it; my prod was removed by a sock who templated me).

Anyhow, enough context. Focusing on the content. This is a non-notable proposed building (wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Lacks reliable sources to establish notability. Delete without prejudice, it can be recreated if sources are established (or it breaks ground). tedder (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that this proposed project is notable. JJL (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The project seems to have generated some reliable source coverage (see [53]) although it is unclear to me how much of the coverage is for this project and how much is for other projects by the same developer. CRYSTAL doesn't really apply to major building projects, although I'm not sure if this qualifies. (As an aside, the PROD was originally removed by the article's creator so the original de-PROD wasn't a sock, although the guy that warned you most likely was). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prod thing isn't really a big issue, just including for context. My understanding, and it's probably wrong, is that CRYSTAL applies for any sort of "vaporware", including buildings that haven't broken ground. In other words, it hasn't happened. Naturally, I can't find anything to back this up (or to show me that I'm wrong).

My own personal "yardstick" is "would this still be notable if it never actually happened?" For things such as movies and music CDs the answer to this question is almost always "no," but for something like a 800ft tall building the answer is "maybe". Thus I wouldn't use CRYSTAL as a reason for deletion in cases like this, but rather decide based on the amount of coverage the project has received. In this particular case, I am unsure whether it has enough coverage and thus am neutral on the deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the project has been canceled: [54]. --Chiliad22 (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a cancelled, proposed apartment building, non-notable, one of tens or hundreds of thousands cancelled in the world-wide real estate bubble bust. Drawn Some (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, unfinished, and not enough coverage to justify its existence. At best, a minor note in the developer's article, except they apparently aren't even notable enough to have one either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to nitpick, but a lack of an article doesn't indicate lack of notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was being mildly facetious :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - may as well cancel the Article, like the project was. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:34, 4 July 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 00:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kissy Klub Versions

Small un-notable page. Would be better merged with Kissy Sell Out Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every radio show built on remixed versions of songs has these type of "versions", and these aren't that special in any way. Nate • (chatter) 19:05, 25 June 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) 00:59, 2 July 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:ATHLETE failure. Leave me a note if he makes his debut and I'll restore. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Ayling

Youth player fails WP:ATHLETE. recently signed professional contract, but consensus is that alone is not enough. Most references supplied are from clubs own website - which of course mentions their own players, and blogs which are largely opinion, not notable sources. no news sources from mainstream media. --ClubOranje^T 00:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranje^T 00:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 01:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's been speedied twice before. Nfitz (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you mean a speedy deletion candidate, which seems harsh if it was! What criteria. Given the time of year we're at I would like to see some of these AfD's (if they must happen) to wait a couple of months as this is when the transfer and loan deals will be done. I'm sure someone will quote Crytstal Ball at me but surely there has to be some general reasonableness. Eldumpo (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Nfitz is referring to the fact that he had in fact been deleted twice before, the first time because the article made no real assertion of notability, and the second because it was a straight cut-n-paste job from a different website. The article as now written does not qualify for speedy deletion on the first grounds as it makes a claim of notability, and probably not the second as it has existed for a couple of days and no bot has identified it as a copyvio. Hence AfD, to agree notability has not been demonstrated. refer logs link above.--ClubOranje^T 10:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 09:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable until he makes an appearance for the senior team. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I have been largely involved in editing the article (it would have been very nice to have received a notification of its impending doom, but no matter), I see that the two previous comments are based upon WP:ATH It should be noted that even if a subject fails WP:ATH, that "is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". And that they may still be notable based upon a separate policy. The subject is only indisputably not notable if they fail all the relevant notability policies, just because they fail one is not a strong argument for their deletion. So although the subject fails WP:ATH, he passes the WP:GNG and WP:BIO#Basic criteria. I will just make it clear why he passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO#Basic criteria, To pass these the subject needs to have been the, uh, subject of at least two secondary sources, see: [55] and [56], clearly these two sources are independent and non-trivial coverage of the footballer. This means that he passes 2/3 of the relevant guidelines for notability (he passes: WP:GNG and WP:BIO#Basic criteria, but fails WP:ATH). Again I stress that failure of WP:ATH does not mean that the subject is not notable. I quote from WP:BIO#Additional criteria:

A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included

Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.

Regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. As has already been pointed out, he currently fails WP:ATHLETE. As far as the sources on the page go, this is mainly primary sources (Arsenal's websites), a fansite and what appears to be a couple of paragraphs directly quoting from Arsenal's site. The only substantial source is the one from the Guardian which, although it shows that the lad is a promising player, doesn't show that he is any more notable than other promising 18 year olds playing for Premier League youth teams. Media coverage of football is pretty exhaustive right down to Level 10 and beyond, so simply having a few stories written about him doesn't make him notable in this area. There is no guarantee that he will break into the first team, and until he achieves something of note (either by playing competitive football at a fully professional level, or doing something notable in another field), I would have to say delete this article for now. If he does indeed make his fully-pro debut, a quick request at WP:FOOTY's talk page is all that's needed for an admin to get it recreated. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Bettia above. To be honest, if you want an article on every youth team player (I'm sure I could find local press coverage for many of the Norwich ones for example...) then you're opening a set of floodgates. Wait until he plays pro and WP:FOOTY has been met - Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable, if this is kept then surely there'll be many more of these - Spiderone (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See my keep above, he is notable under two guidelines, and only fails one, WP:ATH, which explicitly states that failure of it is not definitive proof of a subject not being notable. And deleting something notable based purely on a fear of more similar cases coming in is not an acceptable criteria. All the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recreate if/when he plays a competitive first team game in a fully professional level. --Angelo (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you are suggesting that we delete it until such a time as the subject meets WP:ATH. But as I have stated above he is notable under two different guidelines, and only fails one, WP:ATH, which explicitly states that failure of it is not definitive proof of a subject not being notable. All the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails notability for sportspeople at WP:ATH. Sources are hardly extensive enough for him to satisfy WP:N. Removing all the Arsenal related fansites/blogs, one article in the Guardian about seeing him in one youth cup match and a few short paras on "tribalfootball" doesn't pass notability criteria. --Jimbo^[online] 13:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment even if you were to be that strict about the sources he'd still be notable under WP:BIO#Basic criteria Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Under what part, I'd hardly call tribalfootball's article "intellectually independent". What makes that site even a reliable source? --Jimbo^[online] 14:42, 6 July 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 00:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community Oriented Mutual Economy

fails WP:GNG, little third party coverage [57] LibStar (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these barter initiatives are much more common than people might think. Abductive (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:54, 25 June 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) 00:56, 2 July 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. Subject is sufficiently notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selma Cook

Non-notable, unorphaned and no sign of any external links. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 00:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- It needs better sources so that it can be improved, but otherwise it is a poor article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, she appears to have some notability, but I just can't find any non-trivial sources. I found one article that mentions her in the context of the article, but the article is not about her. This article is reprinted multiple times across a variety of sources. I also found multiple sources that published the same review about her book. In my searches I just couldn't find enough to say she is notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What exactly is unorphaned mean? I assume you just meant orphaned, but neither that, nor an external link section matters. As for the case of her being notable, she has been questioned in that USA today article about the issue, it explaining briefly who she was. And her books get reviewed. Dream Focus 18:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient notability as commentator and published author. WWGB (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not prepared to consider deleting at this stage but I am puzzled as to why being the "Managing Editor of the Youth Section and Volunteer Youth Resource Network at Islamonline." is notable. Perhaps she is notable as an author but the article doesn't make that clear either. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable as an author but the article needs drastic improvement. Orderinchaos 12:04, 8 July 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. (X! · talk) · @054 · 00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Gate

AfDs for this article:

Contested prod. I believe that the article lacks the notability to have a page to itself, as it consists of a description followed by its use in plot in 4 episodes, which should be covered in the page List of Gargoyles episodes. All the contents of this page could be covered elsewhere on other existing pages. Taelus (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:00, 25 June 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 00:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a reasonable breakout-for-length of the main page; too big too merge and there's no longer a good rd target. JJL (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge as is normal for fictional elements. It is not too big to merge to a combination article on the various artifacts. If such an article has been deleted, this would be the time to recreate it by making this the first section. Whatever may have been done in the past, we should find consensus now in combination articles. DGG (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this makes sense to me too, if someone is willing to make such a page. It looks like the first AfD redirected to a page like that that was subsequently deleted, but perhaps there's more meat for that page now. JJL (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. JIP | Talk 06:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any sensible merge target has already been deleted, and this fails notability. Mintrick (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Double-Delete as 100% original research on a non-notable topic. Drawn Some (talk) 16:51, 2 July 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 00:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal REVS

This article is about a software product that provides no sources to indicate notability. A search shows lots of download links but no reviews or coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree (edit history seems to show it's created by the developer, to help advertise it). Tedickey (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be promotional for a non notable software product. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:51, 2 July 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Legacy

Band fails WP:BAND. All albums are self-produced. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 10:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The user that created the article has only contributed to the band and band member article that was redirected to this page. After doing a google search, everything on the band is self promotion and minor reviews and no mainstream interviews with music magazines though there are a few online interviews and small independents. Notability is weak. BioDetective2508 (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion for a self-funded, self-marketed album supposedly due out in 2010. There are millions of non-notable bands in the world that do not merit a wikipedia entry, and this is just another one of them. Parkerparked (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not lack for words, but it does for sources--and the subject lacks notability. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-promotion for a [so far] non-notable band.--Canniba loki 18:16, 3 July 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiesta (MMORPG)

This game has not received any significant coverage in reliable, published sources, and therefore does not pass the general notability guideline. No other indication of importance. I am aware of several press releases ([58][59][60], etc) which do not aid WP:N. No reviews on the usual reliable websites. Marasmusine (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Notability, the topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content—which on this case, the game itself meets the criteria outlined in the web content since it is already being reviewed on some mmorpg reviewer websites. It just needs some improvements on editing—including which reliable sources that the information has been taken. We, editor, the fiesta fans—most of us not even in college yet—are trying to do our best to improve the article, and still learning how to write a good article. It does not need to be deleted. Don’t demolish the house while it’s still being built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sesarnof (talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which MMORPG review websites has it been reviewed on? They need to be WP:Reliable sources. 164.38.32.28 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Sesarnof: This game can't be evaluated on it's ability to meet the notability criteria required of web content. It's not web content, it's a game. Regardless, it wouldn't pass the web content criteria anyway... same problems: no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Sancho 07:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See above. Sancho 07:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been demonstrated by the presence of multiple reliable sources covering the game in detail. Though I have seen reviews on MMO sites the problem is that none of them are ones I would personally accept as reliable, ie usable as sources. There are numerous posts on more reliable sites for things like updates (on Massively for instance), but these are nothing more than copying and pasting game updates for the sake of creating 'news', there's no serious analysis (or indication that anybody has actually bothered to play the game). Someone another 13:57, 2 July 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Khatami presidential campaign, 2009

Khatami had dropped out by the time of the election - notice how the article has barely been updated in months. He initially said he was planning to run, but dropped out after five weeks. [61], [62], [63]. Bsimmons666 (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This could still be notable; dropping out of a presidential race is a noteworthy event, unless you're a non-notable person. However the current article is too short to give any real context to the story. Hairhorn (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - there are articles on US presidential candidates who dropped out before the first primaries (Tom Vilsack, etc.) --DMG413 (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all relevant information is already at the Khatami article, and his candidacy is not independently notableLinguistixuck (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. A former president's campaign, although aborted is definitely notable. However, it doesn't have sufficient content to merit a separate article, so it needs to be expanded, and I'm sure it can, just that it needs some local sources etc. Else a merge might not be a bad option, although not the preferred one. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This is notable as he is a notable person. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Agree with Spaceman7Spiff. Tree Karma (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge If this can be expanded and sourced it might stand on its own. He and it is notable, the only question is if its needed seperate from his main article? If it doesn't significantly expand then the info can be merged into Khatami. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont think we need an article just to say he was in, then he was out. The needed information is already in the main article, so I fail to see a need to keep this Corpx (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not warrant its own article, possibly add to main. Parkerparked (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is part of the history of this election.--Sina (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly a notable event and the information belongs somewhere. I prefer "keep" instead of "merge" because the Mohammad Khatami article is getting pretty long and it would benefit from being split into detailed sub-articles like this one. I agree that the article needs a lot of work, though. Jafeluv (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There truly is nothing to say about the article (Google it!). And I guarantee this article will not be cleaned up any time soon. Take a look at the bullet points.

1. 1:Only references are two blogs in Farsi.
2. 2:Only reference is in Farsi.
3. 3:Only legitimate bullet point - confirms that Khatami was pulling out of the race.
4. 4:Another unconfirmed report

An then finally, a list of people who endorsed Khatami - with a reference, again, in Farsi. His campaign was absolutely NOT notable in the way that Vilsack's was - there was no active campaigning, no significant events, etc. And even if there was, (a) there are tight media restrictions in Iran and (b) it's all in Farsi. Bsimmons666 (talk) 15:13, 3 July 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. (X! · talk) · @054 · 00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry S. Jacobs (HSJ) Camp

Heavily promotional in tone. No notability. Henry S. Jacobs Camp, the more proper pagename for this article, was merge/redirected a few years ago when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/URJ Camp George concluded that the camp ws not notable. Previous WP:CSD#G11 speedy on this article was declined based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Yavneh (2nd nomination) as precedent, but that doesn't seem to relate to the blatant ad tone. Also, the Camp George AfD is more closely related to the page at hand and slightly more recent...seems better precedent to me. I was about to WP:CSD#G4 this until I saw that declined-speedy in the history, but this article here really is nearly a clone of the better-named one prior to merge. DMacks (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should exist as a single line entry in Union for Reform Judaism as do all the other camps. Non-notable camp. Great as a press release, but terrible as a Wikipedia entry. Wperdue (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Comment I see the previous article has been histmerged into this one. So I'd propose moving the whole pile back to the proper name: the "(HSJ)" is against WP:NAMING conventions and replacing it with the redirect per previous consensus on that content. DMacks (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I histmerged to Henry S. Jacobs (HSJ) Camp rather than Henry S. Jacobs Camp because Henry S. Jacobs (HSJ) Camp is under AfD and I felt it better not to move it while it is under AfD. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete I agree that its tone needs to be adjusted. But an entity that has existed for almost 40 years, affecting hundreds of people... is this not notable? (The question is not facetious. I really am not quite educated on notability, even though I've read "N".) I volunteer to do some clean-up and adjusting to the article, but I won't bother until there is consensus here.--SidP (talk) 02:04, 26 June 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 00:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- SidP, the problem is that every camp is near and dear to the heart of hundreds or thousands of campers. The previous AfD touched on some of the key ideas related to notability here. I'll toss out some ideas that came from there and other WP:N discussions I've seen. What makes this camp unique or important in the world of camping? What has come from this camp that has had a greater impact than just typical camp experiences? What campers have gone on to become notable in ways related to their experiences here? What is unique and important about the campsite other than just where this camp happens to be located (again looking for lasting/greater relevance)? Where is this camp discussed in mainstream news outlets and third-party resources other than just directories of camps? DMacks (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A search at Wikipedia reference serach finds a few more than passing references to this institution which has obviously played some part in the history of Judaism in the Southern US states. However the article needs trimming back to a NPOV stub as at present it reads as a piece of promotional spam and in fact musch of the content is a straight copyvio of sites such as {http://jacobs.urjcamps.org/about/}. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm on the fence with this. It's a notable search and the article needs to be polished. Tree Karma (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-notable hybrid. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hsinying Quatal

Non-notable orchid hybrid. Do not be fooled by the large-looking article: virtually everything there is just overly-generic statements that cover all of Paphiopedilum. Circeus (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Only a few sentences of this article deal specifically with this particular hybrid. I would very much doubt that the hybrid would be mentioned in any of the references listed, except the Royal Horticultural Society has a brief list mention as follows: "Hsinying Quatal - Paph. Via Quatal x Paph. Candy Apple - Ching Hua" [64] The RHS estimates that over 110,000 orchid hybrids have been produced.[65] No information of substance located through google [66]; 0 hits at Google Books [67]. Melburnian (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But if we had a Paphiopedilum hybrids article it could be mentioned therein. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article looks good at first sight, but contains little specific information. This is a non-notable orchid. JoJan (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable artificial hybrid. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:42, 5 July 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] "Laura Lee's Official Model Website". Laura Lee. Retrieved 2009-07-02.

[1]