Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 5

< 4 July	6 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. Valley2city^‽ 16:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manteca mayoral election, 2002

This article seems to be a non-notable local election. Also, the article is an orphan (only linked to by Manteca, California). The candidates don't merit entries, so why should the election? Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn election. Just because it happened does not make it encyclopedic. Reso lute 03:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seeing as the person who was elected doesnt even have an article I say we delete it Gang14 (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Newsworthy, but not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 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. Valley2city^‽ 16:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Side of the Looking Glass (film 2010)

Upcoming film which is still in pre-production; fails WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFF. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are provided. The imdb link (which I corrected) shows the cast as "rumored". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While IMDB has got it wrong about the cast being "rumored" the film is stuck in production hell according to a interview I read a few months ago . Garda40 (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; film fails WP:NFF; WP:CRYSTAL --mhking (talk) 23:51, 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. (X! · talk) · @834 · 19:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley West

Unclear that notability has ever been established; exhibition list appears slim, with no museum shows and no outside critical assessments. No reliable sources have ever been provided. Bulk of text is the artist describing his own work. Few or no Google hits other than personal website. Article's history shows that it was begun, and later expanded by, several subsequently blocked sockpuppets of one user. Notwithstanding many good-faith edits, this still does not appear to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Is the published book of work sufficient to establish notability? JNW (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary sources to back any notability. Teapotgeorge^Talk 06:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this passed the previous AfD. There are no secondary sources that refer to him, I've searched and come up with nothing. The book of his work is self-published. He's a pretty standard artist, and he doesn't warrant an encyclopedia entry. Fences&Windows 16:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I have been a frequent editor of this article and have tried valiantly to keep it a part of an encyclopedia that has limitless growth. Also, in the earlier discussion regarding the deletion of this article, I argued vehemently for keeping it and would even consider making some of the same arguments again but for one thing: I have searched everywhere I can think of for third-party reviews of the artist’s work and have come up empty. So, I sent an e-mail to the artist himself using the e-mail provided at his website to enquire if he might have a collection of newspaper clippings reviewing his work that might be used to flesh out his wikiarticle with third-party sources. I received a response from Mr. West on June 18, which I have only just now opened, that reads as follows:

Sorry for the delay. Please go ahead and delete my entry. Sixth form students I teach put this together, with the best intentions … but without my consent — I am a small fish! and the best place for this is a website or myspace. Thank you for seeing to this and apologies for the trouble. Regards, Ashley West.

I can upload a copy of the e-mail if someone could tell me how to do such a thing on my talk page, or via e-mail (also available from my talk page). Otherwise, I think that this should put the matter to rest.
— SpikeToronto (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a word of respect for Mr. West: In a Wikipedia universe where it sometimes seems that everyone is clamoring to have their own article, I admire him for his note above. The world depends upon just such 'small fish', and his students were, understandably, making clear their esteem for him. That's better than a Wikipedia bio. JNW (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Hear! Hear! SpikeToronto (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per everything above. Can this be tagged as csd-g7 because of the e-mail? Iowateen (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I think what Iowateen might be referring to is general criteria for speedy deletion № 7, “Author requests deletion.” However, Mr. West is not the author of the article, he is merely its subject. Deleting — speedy or otherwise — a biography of a living person simply because its subject requests it would start us down a slippery slope. The biography of a living person guidelines are intended to prevent Wikipedia from running afoul of libel laws while still maintaining a database of informative articles on living persons. So long as those guidelines are adhered to, there should never be a reason to delete a biography of a living person at the mere request of its subject. The subject of the article is akin to one of us here, in the Wikipedia community: entitled only to a vote to keep or delete. I think the important point in this WP:AFD discussion is that we are not able to obtain third-party references to support the Ashley West article and satisfy the following guidelines: verifiability, neutrality, avoiding original research, reliable sources, notability, and WP:Artist. Since the article does not qualify for speedy deletion under general criteria for speedy deletion № 7, since Mr. West is its subject and not its author, we still need to follow WP:AFD guidelines and timeframes and not delete the article until a WP:AFD consensus is reached, subject to the above WP:BLP and WP:ARTIST guidelines. So far, there is not a single vote for KEEP while there are four votes for DELETE. SpikeToronto (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. According to WP:AFD, the discussion has to remain open for at least seven days. Which means this deletion discussion can be closed as per WP:AFD’s closing procedure some time after July 12 or so. SpikeToronto (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above...Modernist (talk) 20:14, 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. Valley2city^‽ 16:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lunopolis

Non-notable film. Fails WP:NOTFILM. No GHITS of substance or any GNEWS. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin should see also Luna Stone, a related site.

Delete. It seems to be a non-notable video on MySpace. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also could find nothing substantial on Google. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any reliable sources. Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, zany to say the least. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn by LoverOfTheRussianQueen

Apenta

The article does not indicate in what way this product is notable, it is a minimal 2-line stub which does not provide any 3rd party reference. It was prod'ed, but the prod removed with an edit summary that stated 'appears to be notable' - without providing any clue as to why it 'appears to be notable' LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this nomination - a couple of high quality references have been added, including mentions in medical journals etc... Seems to be notable, after all LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:06, 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 This is an instance where the content forking is actually encyclopedic and valid. Merging the two would simply result in an article, that is already bloated, exploding. Cheers, I'^mperator 18:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington and slavery

Unnecessary content forking. Content is already included elsewhere. ~~Also, this appears to be a synthesis, rather than a reporting of second party sources.~~ Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Jefferson and slavery. Both appear to be the same content forking issue, although this one is more encyclopaedic (hence I have struck out part of the nom)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Content forking, as I read the guideline, is only bad when the intent is to present a different POV from the one in the main article. This was obviously not the case when this was originally done, and I don't see that the POV here is significantly different from that in the main article. In fact, due to the size of the original article, the creation and continuing existence of the article seems to be totally consistent with Wikipedia:Summary style. If anything, the original article's section on slavery could be trimmed as suggested by summary style -- adding additional info back to the already long main article does not seem like a good idea. The subject of George Washington and slavery is an important issue and has been the subject of at least one well-received recent (2003) book by historian Henry Wiencek. Like many articles, this one can be cleaned up, but that doesn't justify deletion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but clean up -- This is a significnat subject that might be made into a sub-article to George Washington, there already being some, but in that case the subject should be summarised in the parent article. However care will need to be taken that there is no conflict of content. I note that several books and articles on the subject exist. I expect the authors do not entirely agree. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Peterkingiron (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with George Washington. George Washington's legacy#Washington and slavery, George Washington and slavery and George Washington#Washington and slavery all seem to provide exactly the same information on the subject. According to WP:CFORK#Accidental duplicate articles, the forked content (which reads like a personal essay) should be merged back into the main article. — Rankiri (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check for content that can be merged into the George Washington article. Otherwise delete. Keep because the editors who work on the George Washington article say that content forking is necessary. Gosox5555 (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC) (updated Gosox5555 (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. Tom (North Shoreman) is right as usual. This article was created a couple years ago as part of an effort to split off several articles from the very long main article on Washington, per WP:Split. This is something that works in theory, but is notoriously hard to maintain because relatively few Wikipedians understand summary style writing, and so editors inevitably add new details to the main article instead of the daughter article. It takes one or more vigilant, knowledgeable editors watching both articles to keep the main and daughter articles properly synchronized. If that's not happening here, then a "merge" back to the main article may be appropriate until someone decides to maintain both articles, or the main article could be re-trimmed, as Tom suggets. A "delete" is the wrong move: scholars have written hundreds of thousands of words on Washington and slavery, so the topic is notable on its own merits. —Kevin Myers 01:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Articles that address this and are of sufficient length don't need to be remerged back into an article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Kevin Rutherford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.7.237 (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the large George Washington article needs content migrated to sub articles. topic is notable given many printed sources on this topic. google:george washington slavery Pohick2 (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid, notable, NPOV topic. Colonial Williamsburg and Mount Vernon have information about this topic; the main article is way too large. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tom and Kevin and WP:SPLIT Anarchangel (talk) 16:24, 10 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. While no speedy criterion applies, with such a strong and swift consensus WP:SNOW very much does. ~ mazca ^talk 22:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stone game

unremarkable game, something "made up one day" WuhWuz Dat 22:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it by a couple of seconds, literally! Delete per WP:MADEUP. -- role^player 22:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, man. This is a blatanly made up game (it's too bad there isn't a speedy criteria for games). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, palpable nonsense. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What a pointless waste of everybody's time... --DanielRigal (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Fre h ley 22:49, 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. Valley2city^‽ 16:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death Rap (Music)

Biased article, full of original research. Only one artist in this newly-created genre? It is interesting to note that this article had the avantgarde of be created with a "merge" tag. Canniba loki 22:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 22:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into rap rock, no notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Easily just WP:OR - Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete.This is just self made article--NovaSkola (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a genre but is knew so there is not a lot of information on it but it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weezerfan1 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails a lot of things, including WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Unsourced. Anjelen (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 21:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No indication of notability; a genre of one is no genre at all. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:33, 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 Speedy delete as a copyvio. Reso lute 03:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public Enemy (Lil Wayne mictape)

CopyVio: All text is simply a verbatim copy of the text in the one reference, which is a fan site. | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, clear copy vio, have placed notice on article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 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 merge to New Britain Party. As per JHumphries, the info is already at target article New Britain Party (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Delderfield

This adds nothing to that which is not already on the New Britain Party page JHumphries (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, plenty of references to RS at Wikipedia Reference Search. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - could possibly be redirected to the New Britain Party as well. The party seems to be defunct and I don't see the particularly notability of Delderfield. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Britain Party. He's worn a lot of hats, as a councillor for the City of London, local paper editor, party leader, head of a residents' association, and most recently Baby P bandwagon jumper,[1] but he's never managed to become notable for anything. Fences&Windows 22:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Britain Party -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 05:48, 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 speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belayat Dhamala

Non-notable entrepreneur currently attending Stirling University. Although claims to notability are made in the article I can find no evidence to back these up. Contested PROD. role^player 21:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references establishing notability found. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the search results on the article talk page, there doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, so the subject isn't sufficiently notable. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:HOAX. The book purportedly written by this person and serialised in The Telegraph ("Business Nightmares") is actually written by Rachel Elnaugh, one of the Dragons. link to The TelegraphElen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per Elen of the Roads. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:00, 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 keep. Still needs cleanup. Recent edits have helped with ref's and notability (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Gable

Not notable for anything beyond what is in the article page and the directly linked wiki articles all created by the same editors. Subject of article produces non-notable plays for one playhouse. Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, referenced by LA Times and Orange County Register and USA Today. Definitely notable.

Jezhotwells (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- If there's a ref in USA Today, where is it? I don't see a reference in the article.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's here [2], but when investigated it merely summarized copy from the OC Register. BTW when replying to comments it is best not to reply above the original poster's signature. That can lead to confusion. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have tidied up some links and removed those to Wikipedia and twitter. Needs cleanup. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to nominator has produced work in a number of venues. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm sorry, he produced plays in two un-notable theaters. Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced articles show that he has been produced at five theaters so far, throughout the country, and The Blank Theater in Los Angeles, Landless Theatre Company in D.C. and Spokane Civic Theatre in Spokane, Washington are all theaters of note that have received national coverage for their produced works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.158.201 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It didn't take too long to find plenty of reliable sources which also support him as an actor. I've also tweaked the article a bit. -- Banjeboi 09:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange, I tried your link and more than half of the search showed entries that do not even reference the playwright at all.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 13 out of 46 were notabout the playwright. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of the 33 left, how many are from the OC Weekly Arts Blog? Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the links on that page, none of them. A few are listing on the Theater Calendar of Orange County Register (which is online-only), but most of them are online postings of articles and reviews that were actually printed in both OC Weekly and Orange County Register, both legitimate news sources that have significant circulations.Gablewriter (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, we have 25 links coming from legitimate circulated news sources (each with different editors) such as Orange County Register, Los Angeles Times, BackStage West OC Weekly and the Spokesman-Review. As well as legitimate websites such as the Internet Movie Database, the official Flying Spaghetti Monster website and several theatrical websites. At this point, the article is pretty well-sourced. Gablewriter (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - The point isn't that all those brought up in a search will make you happy, the point is that there are plenty of relaible sources. And no, blogs can be reliable sources so we look to what is being referenced to them as well as the reliability of the blog itself. In this case seemingly tied to the theater critic of a newspaper - which is more and more common as newspapers increasingly upload content to the Internet. -- Banjeboi 22:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I had a look for sources when it was prodded, and didn't find quite enough to persuade me of his notability or motivate me to deprod and rescue it. But now sources are included and notability is argued, it seems fair enough to keep the article. Btw, Gablewriter wouldn't be any relation of the article subject, would they? Please read WP:COI! Fences&Windows 01:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- COI can't be presumed - it could be a fan or imposter - the issue is ony that the content is NPOV. -- Banjeboi 08:42, 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 in favor of still-open previous AfD, with same user as nom. The article has in fact been speedied and then re-created, with a claim of revision, since the first AfD began. If any of those who have commented at the original AfD want to check the current article and revise their opinions there, I encourage them to do so. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Austin Barry

delete, as before being the wife of someone famous doesn't make you notable Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Didn't you just nominate this article three days ago? And that AfD is still active... -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer it was redirectyed I believe and then recreated. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close this discussion as original AfD is still open Jezhotwells (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability isn't inherited. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone who hasn't participated in either AfD, please close this and relist the other one? There's no point in having two AfDs for the same page, hate to do it myself, given my delete !vote, even if it's just a procedural close. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:22, 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. (X! · talk) · @835 · 19:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The_Dustatic101

There is/was no such product on the market that I can find, no evidence of a patent application being filed by child murderer Ian Huntley, no evidence of a granted patent in that name, and no ref for the supposed quotation from the 'Chairman of the British Cleaning Council'. The only cite is to a book about the case - it is extremely doubtful that a 'British invention' of such supposed weight would have escaped the attention of the media, as the man is a well-known child killer. The only references to Huntley and this invention route back to the WP article on a vacuum company; editors repeatedly removed this content from the Huntley article and the Numatic article, so the editor appears to have made a new page for these paragraphs Little grape (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We can lump good ol' Google into the list of resources that fail to say a single thing about this (except on mirror sites or copy-pastes from Wikipedia), which is a rather lazy addition, but important in my opinion. Besides that, if this "information" couldn't stand up in other articles, it certainly isn't apt to on its own. - Vianello (Talk) 00:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe it's actually "Dustatic 101" with a space in between the main name and the number. But there aren't any reliable sources covering this product that was never made. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an invention of sorts thats not really ever been sold or manufactured outside inventors workbench, thats based on very well known principle of electrostatic dust collection. I do not find a reason why this would be encyclopedia-worthy. I would say the patent office documents document this for the generations to come well enough, but not notable invention or product for wikipedia. Casimirpo (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Seems to me this is another person, Ian Michael Huntley being inventor with 3 cleaning-related patents to be found in the GB esp@cenet of EPO patent database search service. Ian Kevin Huntley mentioned in the Sohan murders -related article has 0 hits in the same database. Casimirpo (talk) 18:52, 12 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. Nom withdrawn - majority of discussion was keep based on improvements (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson and slavery

This appears to be a school essay. I'd offer to fix the spelling and grammar, but given that all the content is already in Thomas Jefferson, and the various articles on slavery, the American Civil War, Sally Hemmings and probably others that I have missed, this is just a synthesis of other Wikipedia articles, and I'm not sure it belongs in the encyclopaedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Withdraw nomination. I have been persuaded by the work done on the article that this is not a content fork but a valid split of a notable topic from the main Thomas Jefferson article, which is too long to contain it. Not sure if this can now be speedy closed - I'll leave that to an admin--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The same new user also created George Washington and slavery. I suggest it gets nominated as well. Both articles seem to be unnecessary content forks from the respective main pages. — Rankiri (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he didn't, that's an older article. However, you are correct, either both should go, or both should stay (and this one be improved). SeeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Washington and slaveryElen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinions on the matter. These are my first attempts at adding to these issues. In my opinion they have been very conservative. I do not take offense to your "school essay" comment. If you actually believe that the quality of the message needs work, then by all means delete the article and other article additions. I would be more then glad to delete them myself. I know that you want the best on Wiki. I do too. I have made attempts to change the article. The article is completely open and I was hoping others would add to the article. The choice is yours to make. I thought this was an open format, yet, to be candid, it seems there are allot of strict guidelines with these articles. I appreciate Wiki allowing myself and others to make contributions. (Cmguy777 (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

"School essay" wasn't intended to be rude - it would be a rather good school essay. But it doesn't sound encyclopaedic, and if you want to create other articles I think you would benefit from someone beta reading your work for spelling and grammar. Some people struggle with language - doesn't mean they are any less intelligent than folks who don't.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long does this deletion process take place? (Cmguy777 (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Generally no less than seven days. You may find additional information on Wikipedia's Deletion Policy, How to discuss an AfD and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. — Rankiri (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to Thomas Jefferson -- It is well known that early presidents from the south were slave owners. The subject is thus a significant one, but it is already covered in the main article. An alternative might be to summarise the secion in the bio article, and to merge that section's present content here. However, that solution usually only needs to eb adopted when the parent article beocmes too long. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't The parent aricle at the point where further expansion is unwarranted? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23

49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In my page I was trying to be objective as possible. I believe slavery to be a very important issue, that is why I started a new page in the first place, because I thought more discussion was needed and more facts, such as the amount of slaves Jefferson owned from his 21st birthday and at the time of his will. I also thought Sally Hemming issue needed more discussion, especially the part about alledged children. I wrote in the discussion that a new page should be started. I thought the original Jefferson page was running too long. George Washington has a separate page on Slavery. My attempt was to follow the same format. <Cmguy777 (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)>[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a discussion forum.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion takes place on the talk pages of articles: "I wrote in the discussion". Discussion is a synonym for the text of the article: "more discussion was needed and more facts", "issue needed more discussion". Why, even your contribution is part of the discussion now. I think you're looking very narrowly at 777s use of the word. Anarchangel (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe that the two articles on Jefferson and Washington have the same issues and that the decision on one effects the decision on the other. After all, there is an important article Abraham Lincoln on slavery that has existed for a long time. I have made my comments on Washington (for retaining the article) at the appropriate place. On Jefferson, I certainly think the subject matter merits its own article -- his feelings and comments on the subject span the time period from the colonial era through the 1820s and the Missouri Compromise. There is no room for expanding the main Jefferson article further on the issue of slavery and an aricle on the subject is certainly warranted -- whether the current article should be deleted rather than edited I will leave to others, but at some point an article on the subect should be written. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am in agreement. This was just an attempt for a separate page on slavery. I have been incorperating elements of this page into the Orginal Thomas Jefferson page about Sally Jennings. You can read my contribution. The only other thing I want to contribute about Jefferson is to know how he inherited slaves from his father, increased the amount of slaves and apparently decreasing the amount of slaves in his estate. Also the statement he made about stopping the slave trade reads like a 21 century press statement. He knew how to communicate with people. I have deleted two contributions I made to the George Washington and Slavery issue. I know this is not a discussion format. However, not everything that has occured in History is written on stone. Things can be debatable.

(Cmguy777 (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have made changes to the page. I have deleted anything that could be considered opinion and/or unpublished synthesis. I would appreciate any feedback. Has anyone reviewed the page recently? If the page is kept I would incorperate any information from the main Thomas Jefferson page to make the page larger. Any suggestions? Can I bring in information from the main Thomas Jefferson section? {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

I have continued to refine the page. I have made the page chronological and have gotten rid of anything the shows opinion. I am not making any conclusions with the facts and/or unpublished synthesis. I have also incorperated valuable information from the Thomas Jefferson main page. I would like to put in the information about Sally Hemings from the main page on Thomas Jefferson. This page is vastly improved. Please remember, this is my first attempt with Wikipedia. Please keep this page. Sincerely, {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)}.[reply]

Comment. Come to think of it, if the bulk Thomas Jefferson and slavery's content can be considered encyclopedic, Thomas Jefferson (116KB long) would definitely benefit from such a split. From WP:split: if an article becomes too large...it is recommended that a split is carried out... A guideline for article size is... >100 KB almost certainly should be divided. — Rankiri (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is appropriate to have slavery in both pages, the main one and this one. This page focuses on the time line of slavery, trying to put things in perspective. I modeled this page after the George Washington page. I deleted all opinions and am trying to make it as encyclopedic as possible, with just facts. I believe the page to be better then before. I hope it does not get deleted. There is so much on the main Thomas Jefferson page. That was the initial reason for the spit. As the page is now, Rankiri, do you feel it should be deleted? {Cmguy777 (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Looks like I am getting help! I appreciate all the help I can get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmguy777 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wrote a new solid intro. That is good. I plan on putting in information about Sally Hemings with a chronological format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmguy777 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, given the length of the Thomas Jefferson article, i would like to see migration of material there to this article, (and potentially for his other growing sections). the subject is notable given the many printed sources on this topic. google:thomas jefferson slavery Pohick2 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly good, notable, NPOV topic, with dozens of good sources, which is split from a large main article. Literally hundreds of scholarly articles have been hashed out about the man on the Nickel's ambivalence towards slavery. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate everyones input and the continual progress of this page. More can be done and is being done. It would be good if the "deletion" and other front tags can be removed from this page to show validity. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

the deletion tag will be removed by the closing admin here. You can remove the other tags as long as you state clearly on the talk page why you are removing them (ie you think that the issue has been dealt with)Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I can put that in the discussion page and my talk page. The page has been expanding with good information. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)} I will also put in the main talk page as well. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep per WP:SPLIT Anarchangel (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that my only concern about WP:SYN has been addressed. Wperdue (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Has the deletion tag been removed yet? I wanted to remove the other tags. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

My vote is Keep, as I think Jefferson had a unique relationship to slavery. It is deserving of an article, as there are many books by highly respected and noted historians on the topic. Gosox5555 (talk) 03:00, 12 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) · @835 · 19:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdie

Contested prod. Dictionary definition, and I thought the actual word was "weirdo." In any case, this article is unlikely to develop into anything substantial. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the whole thing is neologism. Zoo Fari 21:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh wait, I just looked it up on the original dictionary.com, but the definition is not that very specific and it appears that it is spelled "wierdy" as well. However, there is not much history or anything to support an article and should be at Wictionary instead. Zoo Fari 21:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The term "weirdy" is already listed in Wiktionary. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Redirect to Weirdy on WT. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a dictionary definition. That's what Wictionary is for. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LoverOfTheRussianQueen. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Let them decide if they want to list it as a variant of weirdy (which Meriam-Webster.com says it is), or just let it drop. Cnilep (talk) 19:10, 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 speedy delete due to copyright violation. Plastikspork (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine spencer

Non notable, one reference, etc. Falcon8765 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Non-notable person --mhking (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be established by sufficient secondary sources. Plastikspork (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked this as speedy delete for copyvio reasons; it's just a cut-and-paste from an online profile with a phrase of two from its sole reference cut-and-pasted into one of the copied sentences. Not convinced the article subject isn't notable, but the notability of her business would need to be established first, and there's been no effort to do that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:29, 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 due to WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Reason

Contested PROD. Footballer fails WP:ATH as he has never played in a fully-professional league/competition. --Jimbo^[online] 20:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probable delete - I can't remember if the Conference counts as the fully professional level - I don't think so, even if Cambridge are possibly still fully pro. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cambridge United are professional, although the league play in isn't. --Jimbo^[online] 08:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE (Conference is not fully pro) - recreate if and when he plays in a fully-pro league --Angelo (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Conference National is a notable league and all clubs pay players. Eldumpo (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Players in the Essex Senior League & Kent League get paid too. Yes, the Conference National is notable, but players who haven't played above it aren't as it's not fully-professional. --Jimbo^[online] 21:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recreate if and when he plays professional football Spiderone (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you mean when he is deemed to play at a 'fully professional level' rather than a 'full professional' himself? Eldumpo (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has not yet played at the highest level, which in the UK, per WP:Athlete, is the Premier League and the Football League. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:41, 12 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) · @838 · 19:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deceiving (Drake song)

Non-notable song, fails WP:MUSIC. Blackjays1 (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the "sources" for this article are nothing but gossip blogs, only one of which actually mentioned the song. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unlikely redirect term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 22:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 06:40, 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Mamoun

Fails wp:bio: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The external link has 1 passing mention. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-05t20:14z 20:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search of his name turns up several book results. Looks like the article could be expanded.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Lets see if the article can be expanded any. A two star general is a high rank, there should be information on this person somewhere that can be added. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has coverage in plenty of books. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per links revealed above. Not sure myself what the general general notability bar should be, but his command experience during the 1973 conflict seems to have rendered him somewhat notable for his role the sequence of events. BusterD (talk) 15:12, 10 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) · @885 · 20:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humanball

Wikipedia is not for things made up in Bickford Park one day. No reliable sources cited, and I can't see any. The "highest governing body" is a Facebook group. Sorry, the game sounds like good fun, but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia until some people have written about it. J Milburn (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. Reso lute 21:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. clear example of WP:MADEUP. Tavix | Talk 22:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Humanball was not invented one day in Bickford Park. Nor is the highest governing body a Facebook group. Humanball was created one year ago by four people, and has now spread to several areas of Ontario, and even Brooklyn, New York, played by over one hundred people. In each game of humanball, it is introduced to a new party or group who can in turn share this with his or her community. Should this Wikipedia entry be deleted now, be assured, it will re-appear just as quickly as humanball is currently spreading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corabain (talk • contribs) 03:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC) — Corabain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep To Whom it May Concern: Humanball is the beginning of a groundswell of improvisational community-bred existential celebrations. We at Humanball understand that we are but one link in the long tradition of humans glorifying ourselves through peaceful, joyous physical exertion and yelling. Humanball is more than just a "thing made up in Bickford Park one day," just as it more than just a ball and some humans. It is what we should be doing instead of hurting and lying to each other and ourselves. In short, we are trying to throw a party, we've invited everyone we know. You will see the biggest gift will be from us, and the card attached will say "thank you for being a friend." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.182.157 (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC) — 76.10.182.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. WP:MADEUP. .......someone decided to play soccer without a goal. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as silly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added this article as a long-standing (if only occasional) good-faith contributor to a variety of open collaborative projects, including Wikipedia, and I meant it as no joke. Humanball is only "made up" insofar as any sport or abstract concept is made up, and the previously noted international "groundswell" is no joke: I simply haven't yet cited the mainstream primary and secondary sources. If there is a problem here, it is more that I published the article before attaching citations. The problem is not a question of Humanball's validity or verifiability, despite the frustrating fact that a couple quick Google News searches aren't returning the write-ups I was expecting to find. I will remedy this and add all necessary citations as soon as possible. dondello (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If reliable sources do exist, then an article would probably be a good addition- could you possibly cite some? J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had fully intended on publishing this with citations, but grew eager and rolled it out as is before collating and mentioning necessary links/print materials. My apologies for that. I will provide the materials once I'm no longer at my actual job later this week. Thank you for your time, J. dondello (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure you have good intentions, I have to ask the obvious question....why rush to post the article before before the basics, like WP:V through WP:RS are covered? Wouldn't it be more responsible to source the article properly before posting it and avoiding a situation like this? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also amended previous unlabeled comments (added Keep) to match AfD discussion guidelines. dondello (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When a Google search for "Humanball" for anything like this reveals this page (as a result on Page 5), it's hardly notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No doubt half the colleges in North America, and even more of the high schools, have local games that are played by "over 100 people," but hardly anybody bothers to pretend those are notable. Calvinball, however . . . . . 71.235.38.171 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)— 71.235.38.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) · @837 · 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Per this discussion at DRV the close has been overturned to delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood: Original Television Soundtrack - Children of Earth

Per the PROD tag which was deleted with no explanation by an IP. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 19:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only got as far as "is an upcoming album" before I decided to !vote delete.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "an upcoming" is three days as of my writing, as in July 7. Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning to list some reliable third-party sources to establish notability, then? ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 20:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that helpful reply. I presume that you actually have no real reason to keep the article, then, since you have declined to provide one, and refused to justify the page's notability... ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 21:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing uncivil about that reply. You seem to like to swing that phrase around, as you've tagged a missing edit summary as being uncivil. My reasoning is stated in my original comment. Would you have rather preferred me to ignore your query? That would have been uncivil. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer you to explain your reasoning as to why/how the article meets the notability guideline. You have not done so. Your "comment" was "an upcoming" is three days as of my writing, as in July 7 – I don't even understand what that's supposed to mean, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the notability guideline, which is the issue at stake here. What third-party sources back up the article? Without suggesting some, how can it meet the guideline? And, for your information, deleting a PROD tag without a reason (for that matter, reverting someone else's good-faith edit without a reason) is considered incivil. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 07:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soundtracks are rarely notable enough for their own article and I see nothing that makes this one notable. No indications it is notable, the only third party source is Amazon (so it could be advertising), almost no info other than the track listing. TJ Spyke 21:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable soundtrack, the only content differing between this article and the subsection in the parent article is the date of the physical media release and a tracklisting. treelo _radda 21:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Torchwood: Original Television Soundtrack to create a "Music of Torchwood" page. Since the first article is apparently fine. Pdb781 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested PROD, I'm sure if I tagged for the deletion of the other soundtrack article there'd be the same situation. Saying "this other related article hasn't been deleted so this shouldn't either" isn't the best argument for a merge of what doesn't amount to much more than the tracklists of two non-notable soundtracks. treelo _radda 15:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable soundtrack. magnius (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you've listened to it to decide that? With the events of Day Four, you may be surprised by Fandom's reaction to Merchandise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.225.200 (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only because its counterparts are allowed to stay. 86.139.225.200 (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very good reason, they could end up deleted for the very same reason as this. magnius (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OSE – I suggest that that deletion argument is ignored. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 13:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is still part of the New Who Soundtrack family and should have exactly the same treatment. It has more tracks than any other album and is a source of information for users. This is such a facade. There is no credible reason to delete it. It hasn't even been released. And if it is deleted, on 27th July, people will create the article over and over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.225.200 (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles have to have reliable, third-party sources to back up their notability. This is not negotiable. The other articles do (the other Torchwood soundtrack an exception, and it's nominated for deletion too). This doesn't. Why shouldn't we delete it? ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 17:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're doing this because you don't like this page for whatever reason. I'm a third party and I'm backing up its notability. 86.139.225.200 (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt "like" has anything to do with TreasuryTag's opinion. The only reasons you've given to back up what notability this release has are that "the fans like it" and "it's bigger" than other related soundtracks also with inherited notability. If you can explain why this or any other Who/Torchwood soundtrack is notable reliably then please do so. treelo _radda 20:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything I say now won't matter because you don't want to gather information and store it; you don't want to keep things that one day may be really useful to some historian in the future. Instead you want to delete it as if it doesn't even exist. You've misunderstood. It deserves the same treatment as its Doctor Who counterparts. And why don't fans matter? And what are your arguements against its notability? I've heard none, other than it's because Amazon have it on their website. 86.139.225.200 (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, prove why these soundtracks are notable reliably, fans do count but not as a source they're too biased to be reliable and onus is on you or anyone else interested in keeping the article to demonstrate notability seperate from the television show. treelo _radda 00:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, because you're part of the establishment, it is very easy for you to say "Oh, that doesn't count". You haven't answered my question. I've already shown how it is notable. 86.139.141.144 (talk) 10:42, 11 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) · @837 · 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ajax (band)

No third party sources; can't find any additional information. Doesn't look like it meets WP:MUSIC. -WarthogDemon 19:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until sources establishing notability can be found. I didn't find any. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect/Whatever - These guys were on Wax Trax! Records back in the day - had like one album and a bunch of singles, but I guess that's as far as they went. The only resources I can find to prove they existed are these: Ajax Allmusic Entry and Ajax Discogs Entry. They weren't enormously popular so I guess there are notability issues. Cyberia23 (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Band. Estragons (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Band, and WP:NB. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It fails the notability requirements for books? How? -WarthogDemon 05:55, 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. (X! · talk) · @837 · 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bjorn Sigurdsson

Possible WP:HOAX; almost certainly fails WP:N, WP:V. No relevant results on Google Books^[3][4] and Google Scholar^[5][6]. No apparent WP:RS results on Google Web. More specific searches like [7] or [8] show no relevant results. One of the two sources—both submitted by the creator of the page (new user, 6 edits)—is searchable through Google Books but it doesn't seem to have any references to Bjorn Sigurdsson, the Arctic Circle Whaling Company or James Geiss[9] — Rankiri (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. No GBooks hits for his alleged company [10] [11] and you don't kill a whale with a knife. Edward321 (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Discussion of whether the article is a hoax or not can be found on the talk page. Finger z 12:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked one of the references provided by the author of this article and discussed what I found on the talk page. Basically, the reference was incorrect and the book does not mention anything named in this article, including Bjorn Sigurdsson. I doubt Sigurdsson even existed.-Schnurrbart (talk) 03:45, 11 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) · @835 · 19:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darla Crane

Non-notable. Fails WP:PORNBIO, fails general notability guidelines. No indication of any reliable third-party coverage, virtually all references used in current and past versions of article link to sites controlled by the article subject or to retailer sites. User self-identifying as Darla Crane edits extensively to keep article in line with her online autobiography, making this a borderline copyvio at best, and raising substantial COI and RS issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much COI, not notable vanity page. Parkerparked (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, there is a source. One source isn't enough for the WP:GNG, but it does pass WP:RS and WP:V because there's evidence that she exists and she really is a bondage model with published pictures.
That would suggest that we should WP:PRESERVE the content somewhere on Wikipedia, and indeed we do: Darla Crane is listed at List of bondage models#1990s.
Unless a further source is found to satisfy the WP:GNG I would suggest that the above source is added to List of bondage models#1990s to support Darla Crane's inclusion, and that the Darla Crane page is redirected there.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:11, 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 Result Keep I was leaning towards closing this as a keep when I noticed that the nominator has withdrawn his AFD nod. While there is still a !vote to delete, it is clear this will be kept.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chaldean Syriac Assyrian Popular Council

Delete, to me it seems to push a viewpoint more then report on the subject in a nuetral manner Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'd like to withdraw the nomination for deletion. While I have reviewed a few pages on afd I've never reviewed WP:ATA. According to this, I nominated article incorrectly. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What viewpoint is it pushing? The controversal statements in the article is cited with neutral NGO reports. Besides, just because you don't like how an article sounds doesn't mean you can delete it. Get involved and edit the article. The party is of significance, having won the Christian elections in the January 2009 elections. Its Arabic name gets 5,000 hits [[12]]. Iraqi (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment, I would ask and suggest you strike your personal attacks against my motives. I've left a caution on your page regarding Assuming Good Faith.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attack? Iraqi (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Besides, just because you don't like how an article sounds doesn't mean you can delete it"Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you took that as a personal attack. The reason you gave for deleting this article was you don't like how it sounds. And I simply said that is not a good enough reason to delete an article. It doesn't really matter to me if you did remove some sentences from the article. But its important to keep the article, because its notable and thus Wiki-connected to different articles. Iraqi (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep in mind that comments like that are generally taken that way. I could care less how the article sounds, I just want to make sure it's encyclopeadic and nuetral. on the plus side this opens your article to community debate and My voice is only one chipping in. Try asking them what they think could improve the article. I am not qualified to help you fix it as I am unfimiliar with Iraqi Politics. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess that is where the problem is. If you are not familiar with Iraqi politics, how did you then conclude that the article was pushing a point of view? Iraqi (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. As time goes on hopefully you will understand the policies better and how they've been applied to this article. No one is denying your parties notability the article is unencyclopeadic. It's also not a newspaper which this does sound like with statements such as "Weither autonomy is legal or not within the Iraqi constitution is debatable." Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, you agree that it's notable, and say the way it's written is unencyclopaedic - I don't think anyone would say it's well written at the moment, but what makes you think that deletion is the appropriate answer, as opposed to cleanup and/or verify tags? Bearing in mind that poorly written articles are not alone grounds for deletion --Saalstin (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is notable doesn't nec. mean it will be included. In my opinion the entire article would require a fundemental rewrite to make the standard which is a criteria for deletion. I'm not saying you can't get it that way but as it stands now, it should be deleted. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English is not my first language and don't have a strong command in it, so I apologize for that. If the issue is just not readable for you, then why don't you reword the sentences you don't like? And please don't call it "my political party", I have no affilation with it. I am currently working on different Iraqi-related elections pages. Iraqi (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a legal Iraqi political party with representation in two Provinces - that's notable. It might well need severe copyediting, but there's no reason to delete --Saalstin (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not very encyclopedic, too much of a personal page with forward looking statements, rather than facts. Parkerparked (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a party who got members elected. That the article contains "forward looking" statements is to be expected--I have it on good authority that Iraq is a fairly new democracy. BTW, I don't understand the nominator's gripe about POV--I don't see any POV at all here, not even in the version that was current at the time of nomination. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as expressed above. AFD is for articles which shouldn't exist on WP - this article is about a minor political party which has regional representation and is fairly important to the topic of Christian politics in Iraq. The reason given for deletion - NPOV - is not a valid reason. It that's the problem, raise it on the talk page and fix it. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 12:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep POV is not an issue for AfD, nor is the fact that's not an amazingly written article - time would be better spent bringing it up to standard rather than discussing it here Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Improvements needed, not deletion. --can dle •wicke 01:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing is difficult - anyone read Arabic? [13] - but the nominator doesn't seem to have tried. To avoid Western systematic bias, we should keep and improve the article; the party seems to be one of the main Assyrian Iraqi parties. Fences&Windows 22:16, 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Mumolo

Lacks "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". Film career includes only extra type roles. Television roles, while recurring are not especially significant. Zero google news hits, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable voice actress on Ben & Izzy, Maya & Miguel, Curious George, and numerous roles on Random! Cartoons. She is a member of The Groundlings and is currently writing a comedy film with Kristen Wiig. -ραncακemisτακe (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appearing with/membership in The Groundlings generally sufficient to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - another source or two would be nice, but as it stands the article does meet requirements of notability. -WarthogDemon 19:07, 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 speedy delete. copyvio Closedmouth (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vikki Thomas

unsourced, reads like an official bio, blatant advertising Samuell Lift me up or put me down 16:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trim heavily and merge to List of glamour models. Reasoning: It's verifiable from reliable sources that she exists, so policy says we should WP:PRESERVE some mention of her on Wikipedia, but she's not notable enough for her own article. (When I say "Trim heavily", all that should be left is her name.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely a vanity page, does not meet notability guidelines, no refs except for personal sites. Infringes WP:SELFPUB.Parkerparked (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copyvio; tagged as such. Large parts of the overly gushing biography are lifted word-for-word from her own webpage. Were there no copyvio I would say there are sufficient refs out there for an article, but not in the form that is there now, so my delete !vote is w/o prejudice against recreation. I42 (talk) 19:42, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) · @837 · 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barumbado

No apparent coverage in reliable sources or other claim of notability. Fails WP:NF. PC78 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mothballed article with lack of notability. Parkerparked (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have tagged the article for input from Philippines experts. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails movie notability standards. Google search found torrents, lots of torrents. Strongest claim found (film notability #3) is that Robin Padilla, the star of the film, was nominated as Best Actor in the Filipino Academy of Movie Arts and Sciences Awards. However, even this claim is only sourced in a blog. No hits on google books and scholar either.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The nomination is listed in the film's awards entry in IMDB. --Bluemask (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Internet coverage for films from countries like the Philippines is generally very sparse. I'd assume good faith that it stars a notable actor in the main role Robin Padilla who also received a FAMAS nomination. The film was also directed by a director who has won awards at the Metro Manila Film Festival and Filipino Academy of Movie Arts and Sciences Awards. This is generally an indicator that the director is mainstream one within the Philippines and that his films are notable. I say give it time and coverage of countries like Philippines and their cinema on the web will improve over time. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just needs sources and an expert on the subject. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm with Dr. Blofeld on this one. See above comment. Film is notable but entry needs work from Filipino cinema buffs. --Junius49 (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Starred by a notable Filipino actor and directed by a notable Filipino director. It's just that information about Philippine movies on pre-Internet era were very, very sparse. Starczamora (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ADD : With what I have gathered, Barumbado (which means "The Bully") is one of Robin Padilla's earliest films where he portrays the lead role, before Bad Boy and Ang Utol Kong Hoodlum (My Hoodlum Brother) that made him popular. Starczamora (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not inherited from either the main actor or the director (if Robin did win this might have been a weak keeper and I'll be arguing for its inclusion per film notabilty#3) and the article should assert this film's independent notability. The director is also not notable enough such that all of his work is automatically considered notable. Please provide reliable sources to back up your claims of independent notability for this film rather than potential non-existent ones.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Like I have said, and you know it as well, that information about the Philippine media during pre-Internet is very sparse. Also, we know how the local entertainment media would report more on the "hype" (on how Padilla would have a relationship with every leading lady, for instance) rather than the "actual" event (the premiere of this movie). Besides, the movie title has been mentioned on several articles about Robin Padilla here, here, here, which could mean that there is "some amount" of notability. And yeah, you are looking for proof that Padilla was nominated here. Well, look that this list that I have found. 114.198.145.132 (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless you can find a news archive that actually discuss the movie then you might have a case. The three articles that you mentioned here might be good in building up the Robin Padilla article (which is in dire need of references) but not here. A passing mention in a news article (X starred in Y) does not make a subject notable. Besides Webs (web hosting) is a free web hosting site and is not considered as a reliable as they count as personal websites (see here).--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:48, 10 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) · @835 · 19:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulraga

No evidence of notability or importance of subject. magnius (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the article, "The group has only a limited fame", so Delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No 3rd party refs supplied or found, appears to be NN. I42 (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure vanity page, non notable. Only belongs on myspace, if that. Parkerparked (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no notbility, no claims of notability, fails WP:BAND. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:46, 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) · @835 · 19:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aengus Ó Maoláin

No evidence of notability or importance of subject. (see also Bulraga. magnius (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even mentioned in the article that is supposed to be the main source of his fame, Anúna. Google does not have very much on him. He has written music reviews (e.g. [14]) and won a minor composition competition[15]. This is not enough. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, just a vanity page. Parkerparked (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:48, 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) · @835 · 19:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Anthony Merendino

Delete, not very many sources to prove notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not that there are not enough sources, it's that there are not very good sources for notability. Director of a number of not very successful films. Two have Wikipedia articles, but A River Made to Drown In should be revisited. DGG (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I did try to wikify the article, Really trying hard for to get the AFD and Prods vs Csds. Hope it's improcving.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much of a personal page with a no real refs. Lacks notability. Parkerparked (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:47, 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) · @835 · 19:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony McLaughlin

Not a single scrap of evidence that supports notability or importance. No references offered. magnius (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable - despite the age of the article, speedy A7 probably applies. Note also that the original author blanked the article at one point, this was reverted, and then it was instead significantly shortened. Speedy G7 may also apply. I42 (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN "entrepreneur" who dabbles in softcore porn. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Parkerparked (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure self-promotion. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages (we're more the white pages, IMHO). BusterD (talk) 13:15, 10 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. Deletes have consensus, but there's no reason a 'merge' can't be done by mentioning of the name in the Space Ghost article if need be. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sisto

Minor character doesn't meet WP:N. Prod declined. — X S G 02:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nom. — X S G 02:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fictional character with no real world notability established Corpx (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge as the default way of handling these. No reason given why that is unsatisfactory. DGG (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should something like this that cites absolutely no sources be merged somewhere? Corpx (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it has at least one reference and thus that citation can be merged to The_Brak_Show#Characters or Space_Ghost_Coast_to_Coast#Characters per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Should every minor character from every work of fiction be created with a redirect to that fictional character's source? I don't think so; Sisto is so minor that I don't think it even warrants a redirect. — X S G 00:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:56, 28 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 15:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a mention into Space Ghost, of consider creating a character in ... article and merging there. DGG (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You already said that :) Corpx (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable original research is not appropriate. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Before commenting in AfDs, please be sure to 1) read the actual article under discussion and 2) look for sources per WP:BEFORE. Had you done either, you would see that the information is indeed verifiable and thus not original research. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wholeheartedly disagree. The article has only one statement sourced. The rest of it appears to constitute original research. I'll tag the article up with {{fact}}s if it'll help... — X S G 05:45, 12 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Widelands

AfDs for this article:

Same notability issues as last time it was deleted, no reliable secondary sources. Sources include official website, the sourceforge bug-tracking page, unofficial dev page, a German download site, and a German Linux community site. Its well-short of "significant coverage". ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty much fails WP:N; this isn't a G4 by any chance, is it? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Not a G4 as the text is a sufficient re-write, with a resonable rationale given by USer:Nasenbaer peter on the talk page. Both German sources are reliable. The "German download site"[16] is Heinz Heise, publisher of c't magazine: but the coverage isn't exactly significant, just a short description of the game. The "German Linux community site" linux-community is affiliated with LinuxUser magazine (Image Publishing, I think?), and that article appeared in print. The LinuxUser article is somewhat more significant, at 3 pages. However, with only one significant source this may fall under WP:N#cite_note-3, to be merged to Linux gaming and/or Settlers II.Marasmusine (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can a download site be considered a reliable secondary source for a file that it is hosting? It's not really a review as much as it is a description of a file for download. As far as a merge, I could understand the relevance of Settlers II to Widelands, but not the other way around. As the target article is about Settlers II, I'd oppose a merge. Unless an impact on the subject of an article can be shown, I usually remove "similar products" as SPAM. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
c't is a reliable source, but you're right in that the content is not significant. However, The LinuxUser article is useful for verification and showing partial notability, and directly relates Widelands to "Die Siedler II". If its inclusion in Settlers II is neutrally written and cites this source, one can't really call it spam. Marasmusine (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so not SPAM exactly, but it wouldn't be relevant. Say there was an article on a singer that was not notable but sounded like David Bowie; would it be appropriate to merge the content into the David Bowie article? This is a one-sided connection, it is relevant to Widelands, but not to Settlers II. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With that analogy, this would be more like a tribute band :> As a compromise, I'd settle for a "see also" link to its listing in Linux gaming. Marasmusine (talk) 10:35, 5 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 15:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I consider the sources would be sufficient, but the game has not actually been released. As I see it, an unreleased game needs considerably stronger sources for notability. DGG (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The magazine source is a good one, but the German download-site is good for nothing. A single solid source doesn't cut it for WP:N. I don't support merging anything to the Settlers series articles, countless games have clones and they're of little if any relevance to the originals they copy. Zero prejudice against reinstatement if further quality sources are found. Someone another 09:43, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–Morocco relations

whilst the 2 countries have embassies, there is a distinct lack of coverage of bilateral relations, almost all is multilateral [17]. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of this page User:Tamás Kádár was not told about this discussion on his talk page by the nominator. I have alerted him per WP:CIVIL.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Delete unless more can be found. I think it should be possible, since they would not have bothered exchanging embassies without a reason to do so. DGG (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there is some significance in each nation maintaining an embassy in the other's capital, the details are properly mentioned in the "Foreign Relations of..." articles for Hungary and Morocco. Like DGG, I'd reconsider if something can be shown, but like LibStar, I found nothing in a news search to show that there is anything out of the ordinary between these two nations. They both have had red and green in their national flags, even at times there was no official recognition of Christmas. Mandsford (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article, Hungary-Morocco relations, is not notable per our notability guidelines at WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, the subject of this article, relations between two sovereign nations, is clearly notable. The problem is that notability must be verified. To do that, independent 3rd party sources providing significant coverage of the subject must be found. If such sources are not present, notability has not been established. That is the case here, notability has not yet been established because the article lacks independent sourcing. I actually found an independent source about a bilateral treaty between the two countries quite easily. [18] The nominator also acknowledges that relations exist (multilateral relations). This article should be kept and improved since the subject matter is notable and verifiable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please provide evidence of significant coverage. 1 or 2 articles is not enough. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. [19], [20], [21], [22] The two countries have had relations for some time. Here's a reference to them having diplomatic relations as far back as 1860 (although they had very little trade). [23] Both countries also fought in World War I, on opposite sides. That history could obviously be further developed.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another random pairing of countries that don't demonstrate actual notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - This article would be worth keeping if it provided more information on the bilateral agreement, but in the absence of that information it's difficult to justify a keep vote. Cedars (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per DGG. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability shown or likely. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:40, 11 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. Aside from the nominator, the only argument for deletion addresses the film's IMDB rating. Not a valid inclusion criterion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plays With Devils

Non-notable film. No references support notability. Can find no relevant g-hits. Prod removed without improvement. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've cleaned up the original article somewhat. The play is definitely notable; the film adaptation perhaps less so. See, e.g., Google search for the Czech title: the automated translations give a good idea that it's one of Drda's most significant plays. On-line English-language sources are a bit harder to come by, but the play is frequently mentioned in books on modern Czech theatre. There should be plenty of material to flesh out the current stub. If the article is ultimately kept, it should be moved to Playing with the Devil. Hqb (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. Lacks notability and seeing its age, it will probably not gain any in the future. Only 55 people have rated it (as an average 6.5 film) on IMDB so its just a blip. Remove as there are millions on non-notable films in the world. Parkerparked (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Uh, since when is the number of IMDB ratings a reliable indication of notability? Death of a Salesman (1951 film), an English-language film from a major studio, nominated for 5 Oscars and winner of 4 Golden Globes, has been rated by just 294 IMDB users; yet hopefully no-one would argue on that basis that it's non-notable. And in any case, the article also covers the original play, which has been the subject of in-depth commentary by multiple independent sources, including many non-Czech ones, as pointed out above. Hqb (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. "Recent-ism" is a real problem sometimes on Wikipedia. For new software, films, music etc, Goggle is a great test of notability. For Czech plays from sixty years ago, not such a good yardstick. IMDB ratings don't mean anything as regards notability, as they are just the opinions of random people. So keep or at least merge with the author's article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue search for 1945 sources for the play and 1956 sources for the film. Found this on cs.Wikipedia: diff. Found these online: [24], [25] [26], [27], [28]. Unfortunately I do not read Czech nor have access to 1945-1956 news archives. Historical? I believe so. Reliable sources for the rebirth of theater arts in post World-War II and then film arts in Communist controlled Czechoslovakia? Likely. This one need input from Wikipedians knowledgable in the language. With respects to the nom, what took place and where it took place will make English sources dificult, but not quite imposible to find. We need some help from WP:CSB. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Schmidt. Iowateen (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -can clearly be expanded from Czech wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt's clear justification. Save for expansion by experts on Czech literature.--Junius49 (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is underdeveloped, but the film is very well known, it's one of the icons of the Czech cinema. An interesting and notable topic and a very poor article. No reason for deletion. --Vejvančický (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't take any great linguistic ability to see that this 64-year-old play has far more coverage in reliable sources available, even on the Internet, than many of the recent pop-culture subjects that get automatic notability passes[29][30][31]. I'm really getting to despair of these Afd nominations based on guesswork, rather than any serious examination of sources. Just because one person doesn't have access to, or understand, the sources it doesn't mean that an encyclopedia shouldn't cover a subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:47, 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 keep. Aside from the nominator, the only argument for deletion addresses the film's IMDB rating. Not a valid inclusion criterion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ee Parakkum Thalika

Contested prod; sources have been added to the article, but they only mention the film by name and offer no substantial coverage, only an unsubstantiated claim that this film was a "hit". No evidence that this film meets WP:NF. PC78 (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How is it unsubstantiated claim when these sources ([32], [33], [34], [35]) mention the film as hit or super hit movie? Salih (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the film a "hit" or a "big hit" or a "super hit"? Were they successful at the box office? Did they win any awards? I don't know because the sources don't elaborate, nor do they say anything of substance about this particular film - they only mention it in passing. Anyone can say a film was a hit, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. PC78 (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In India, a film is considered hit when it is successful at the box office. It is not anyone telling the movie was a hit; it is written as such in the reliable sources. Salih (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability, only 17 votes on IMDB (and given 3.9/10). The article is just completely unnecessary. Parkerparked (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, if anyone were to try using IMDB as a source of notability, they would be soundly advised that Wikipedia does not consider IMDB reliable. The same for using IMDB to show non-notability. It just is not reliable for such... specially when IMDB is generally a database for Western films. Their informations for Indian films is sketchy at best. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exactly Michael, especially for the lesser industries like Malayalam films. Imdb is not an indicator of notability anyway. The Hindu is a more reliable source than imdb. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Good faith allows that I do not have to have the box office figures to accept when reliable sources repeatedly call the film a "hit" or a blockbuster". MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:RS standards. Whether the film was seen by millions or only by the projectionist is not relevant to the argument. Furthermore, IMDb is currently not recognized as a reliable source by Wikipedia. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks, but the mere mention of this film in a few reliable sources does not amount to notability. What is needed, what is required by WP:N and WP:NF, is "significant coverage", and there does not appear to be any. PC78 (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry right back. I do not read Malayalam... nor do I read Tamil and Telugu, as the film has completed versions in those languages as well. But it continues to be called a hit of Thaha (needs an article), one if India's more notable directors... in English versions of Indian sources such as The Hindu, Sreen Weekly, One India. this underscores the Anglo-centricism of en.Wikipedia. With the sources that continue to praise it in passing as a major comedy hit for India's more notable directors, I can accept on good faith that the sources en.Wikipedia requires do exist. However, I cannot read them, nor do I have the language skills to do a proper search. Does that then make the film non-notable because I do not read Malayalam or Tamil or Telugu, or because I've never heard of it or the director? WP:UNKNOWNHERE suggests "Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population", and WP:CSB urges a wider view and acceptance that even if something is not (immediately) notable to en.Wikipedia, that temporary lack should not count as a stike against inclusion. I know... you're not saying that. You're saying you believe that current sourcing does not meet WP:RS for notability. However, guideline does grant that if an common sense assumption can be made that something is notable (from all the praising mentions), even if elsewhere, then that is enough to allow a keep as a continued search for sources is made. WP:V has been met and (eventual) WP:RS should be do-able, since we (or at least I) have reasonable and common sense assumption of notability. An article in The Hindu from September 2006 indicates that the film was still being screened 5 years after its initial release... which seems to tickle at WP:NF The film itself has been made in Tamil... and in Tleugu with a title of Aaduthu-Paaduthu. And under Telugu title, there is a touch more less-than-trivial sourcing.[36] I'm still looking, but a letter-to-the-editor in Gulf Times (next to last on page) indicates Gulf News gave it a review the reader did not like. So... I belive we have a common sense expectation that sources exist. Keep it, tag it for input from Wikiproject India Cinema, and let's all keep digging as well. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"One if India's more notable directors"? That seems to be overstretching things a little. I'm still not seeing a substantial claim of notability here. A few sources call it a "hit" and... that's pretty much it. It's not enough to justify an article, and it's well below the threshold of any notability guidelines. You might be able to make a "common sense assumption" here but I need more, and more importantly I think our guidelines do as well. PC78 (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If The Times and The New York Times had described the film as a "big hit" and a "super hit" in a way that assumes that the reader would be familiar with it wouldn't you accept that as as a strong indication of notability? I see that you claim to be "straight but not narrow". I think you are being very narrow (albeit in a different way from the meaning intended by your userbox) in your argument here. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't accept it as a strong indication of notability, because it isn't one. I would expect any article to be supported by sources of greater substance, as per notability guidelines. I don't think that's being narrow at all. PC78 (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs tidying but notability is more than adequately sourced, particularly for an Indian film of this era, when the Interweb was just taking off worldwide. pablo_hablo. 19:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)note - comment edited following article editing by Tinu Cherian pablo_hablo. 07:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The film is one of most commerically boxoffice hit malayalam films in the early 2000s. I have tried to improve the article as of now. Please note that India's most read newspapers like The Hindu,The Indian Express refer to this film as a big hit. I have watched this movie over 10 times. Also to noted that the success of this film lead to the remake of 3 other Indian languages. Clearly it is a mainstream notable film of India. Even created article stub in ml.wiki -- Tinu Cherian - 18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tinucherian's improvements of the article. Salih (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the most successful film in Malayalam Film Industry. --Rameshng (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tinu Cherian 's improvement of the article. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is well known Malayalam Film. The reputed indian newspapers confirm that. Shyamsunder (talk) 12:24, 11 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 withdrawn by nom. PC78 (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arappatta Kettiya Gramathil

Contested prod; a few sources have been added to the article, but they do little other than mention the film by name and offer no substantial coverage. No evidence that this film meets WP:NF. PC78 (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mention in the Encyclopaedia of Indian cinema indicates notability. Given that India has produced millions of films it must have some note or it wouldn't be mentioned. Meets requirements. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sukumari won the Kerala State Award for this film, it has another notable actor in the lead role - Mammootty, it was directed by Padmarajan who has won many Kerala State Awards for direction and script, so the film should definitely pass WP:NF but Indian news outlets do not have online archives prior to 2000 or so, so a search for offline sources is required. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will gladly withdraw this nom if that award can be sourced. With respect to Blofeld, that encylopedia reference doesn't cut it. It's hard to tell from that Google books links alone, but it appearsd to only be listed in a filmography. PC78 (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well admittedly I didn't check the link and I agree it isn't substantial. But this is a good link and it seems the director is a notable one. I think you are confusing notability with the uneveness in web coverage. Malayalam, Filipino and Indonesian films etc are not going to recevie the same amount of web coverage as even Bollywood or Korean films but generally if the film is of featured length, it was directed by and starred mainstream actors withint a given country it should be within guidelines in general. The films which starred one off actors or were produced independently can usually be spooted a mile off. I believe you have selected several notable mainstream films within the respective industries for deletion based upon the poor web coverage on them. Well I can tell you that Azerbaijan has a thriving film industry yet imdb only listed like 50 films. I agree though, lack of adequate sources is a problem and you are justified to question them. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother with that award when the Padma Shri award to both Sukumari and Mammootty is not in question, given that this was also for contributions to cinema, and the award has been given to about 2100 people from a total population of way over 1.5 billion (during the life of the award). -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've lost me. PC78 (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Padma Shri is a way more notable award, and two of the leading actors in the movie have received that, so why bother about lesser awards? -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are those award wins related to this film? PC78 (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source has been added for the award. So, perhaps time to close the AfD. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page needs work, but the director's high notability plus several notable actors seems to pass Wikipedia:NF to me. --Junius49 (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sukumari won the Kerala State Film Award for Best Supporting Actress for her role Malu Amma in the film. Credit to User:Pablomismo for adding the source. Salih (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient references, especially the award, to show notability. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. I don't see the "Sufficient references", but the awards are a tangible enough claim of notability. PC78 (talk) 22:47, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad KARAMUDINI

Autobiography. No refs to assert or substantiate notability. I42 (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no third pary coverage [37]. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and they do not seem important. Irunongames • play 15:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI, Sources, and notability. Gosox5555 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible WP:Autobiography; no sources; claims of notability seems a bit light: edits the "only" magazine— for biology teachers— in Persian; and awards from organizations whose reliability as a source of notability don't seem to be established. Not sure if it would meet WP:BIO even in Persian, let alone English Wikipedia. --Closeapple (talk) 03:30, 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. Needs major cleanup, lots of coverage (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Yazbeck

Non Notable. One reference only listing performances. Cargoking talk 11:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wheres the secondary sources?, Is there anything that says why he is notable? I see nothing really that satisfyes WP:ENT, no large fan base, no unique contributions, and i dont understand if his roles are significant considering hes labeled as an understudy. Bottom line it needs sources erifiying this Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Broadway star. Per [38], [39], [40], [41]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loads of coverage in reliable sources found by Google News. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the !votes above. Iowateen (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. Send to WP:CLEANUP per available sources [42], [43]]. Yes, the article currently needs work... but that is (with respects) is not a reason for deletion. Tag it for help and move on. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:40, 11 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 withdrawn by nominator. Reso lute 21:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROSE Online

AfDs for this article:

No third-party references have appeared since tagged last October, so currently fails WP:V. Web search shows several press releases, but no significant coverage. Cnet claims there is an editor's review at gamespot, but as far as I can tell there is nothing useful there. No reviews at other likely sites. Marasmusine (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I do have mixed feelings about this. Being that WP:SOFTWARE is now historical, by policy alone this would probably be deleted. However personally I just cannot bring myself to think this should be deleted as it is a project by a noteworthy publisher, who has produced other noteworthy titles. No doubt alot of people will hammer down after this comment with "Delete, fails <policy>", my personal feeling is that it is a page that people will come looking for on Wikipedia, it isn't causing harm, and thus by WP:IAR it would be better to keep it for now. Please note that this is not an "I like it" keep, as I don't have any vested interest with the topic. I just spent some time trying to dig up sources, but unfortunately because ROSE Online seems to have released a new version, older reviews have been removed due to being out of date. Notability is not temporary, but I have no idea what happens on Wikipedia when old sources disappear from the internet. --Taelus (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it could be alot better article, its just nobody has done much to it as you said. The following things need to be fixed.

It is mostly in-universe stuff written by fans of the game. It looks more like a Wikia article that got moved here.
There are no links in the body of the article.
There are too many Level 2 headlines. They are unnessesary and should be merged into gameplay or something.
Also, that private servers section most likely shouldn't even be there. Maybe in a reception section add a sentence or two about how it is so popular that private servers have been made of the game. --Blake (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep full-sized GameZone review, Gaming Nexus review, Game Industry News review and 'one minute review' on Game Daily (the amount of material to use is much larger than the name implies). Someone another 13:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

http://pc.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r27559.htm

http://www.massiveonlinegamer.com/news/reviews/104-rebecca-bundy

MetaCritic:

http://www.gamingnexus.com/Default.aspx?Section=Article&I=1155

http://www.gamedaily.com/games/rose-online/pc/game-reviews/review/4657/1180/

Google News:

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-11266383_ITM

http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/si/si002054.htm

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1027003/rose-players-compete-for-1000000

http://news.softpedia.com/news/1-MILLION-EURO-MMORPG-competition-12398.shtml — Rankiri (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of major reviews. DGG (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination - I must be losing my touch as I could only see the press releases and not the reviews during my search. Still, if the net result of this discussion is an improved article then that's fine; I might work on it next week. Marasmusine (talk) 20:30, 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 speedy delete. vandalism Tone 12:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roflet

WP:ONEDAY SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as vandalism/hoax. WWGB (talk) 10:00, 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. WP:SNOW \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of ramsay street

Contested prod (no reason given). Unsourced speculation about Australian soap-opera spinoff supposedly premiering in September 2009. No useful hits on Google News or Google Web. Can't tell if it's a deliberate hoax or just wishful thinking; but either way, without verifiability in reliable sources, it'll have to go. Hqb (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless references can be provided it isn't a confirmed spin-off. Canterbury Tail talk 13:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and I've deleted the link posted in the article for further information. florrie 14:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "source" of this also says Bjork is dead and Chris Brown is on the down low. Are we really going to trust them about a new soap that going by the Neighbors fandom would have already had 10,000 fansites by now? I see the balls dropping on this one. Nate • (chatter) 23:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given. Gosox5555 (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
dnt go on celed click on the celebritygossip1002.webs.com and click on TV/MOVIE link for info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.195.252 (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. WWGB (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I remember a very similar article about a purported Neighbours spin-off about two years ago which was deleted and the name was similar if not identical... (but I can't find the deletion logs). --Canley (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I think it's just wishful thinking by fans who don't understand Wikipedia but obviously not appropriate. Sarah 10:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well intentioned but highly speculative. Wikipedia is neither a crystal ball nor a fantasy engine. Orderinchaos 10:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given above. --Roisterer (talk) 03:29, 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 ~~redirect to 2009 Iranian election protests~~. Consensus is pretty clear that this topic fails WP:N. As for merging, it is important to keep in mind that only verifiable information should be merged. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I didn't see the new article when I was closing, so it'll be redirect to 2009 Iranian university dormitory raids. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

OK, let's just say it's redirect. The actual target can be settled out of AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Naser Amirnejad

We don't need to write an article for every Iranian dead in the recent violence in the country. Damiens.rf 09:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is not even on its stated topic. Most of it consists a list of other casualties of the attempt by the defeated candidate in the election campaign to overthrow the results of the election. There is very little meaningful information about Naser - not even what sex he/she was.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid to say that your comments are very biased. The protests happened and are still happening in Iran are not about the attempt by the defeated candidate in the election campaign to overthrow the results of the election! It is not a war between Ahmadinejad vs Mousavi. The people want to gain their freedom. It has nothing to do with the election. In Neda's case for example, she didn't even vote. Me neither! If you want to know the reality, it is a war between the Iranian people and the whole regime of Iran. From those very biased comments of you, it sounds like that you are not qualified to vote!--Breathing Dead (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge to 2009 Iranian election protests, absolutely this information is notable and useful, in proper placement and sourced. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is about the death of an innocent person by Islamic terrorists. It should be keeped. There are lots of similar articles in wiki like this. A more publicized similar one is the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan.--Breathing Dead (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Not nearly as important or well reported as Neda - only one Google news results. And this article doesn't have any refs. Bsimmons666 (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not nearly as important is a very cruel comment. How come you can say, life of a human being is not important? And this article doesn't have any refs, the article had a reference until a user deleted it. I have added 7 more references to the article. --Breathing Dead (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Notability, verifiability issues: Google News shows zero results for "Naser Amirnejad", "Naser Amir Nejad", or "صر امیر نژاد". — Rankiri (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His name is not صر امیر نژاد! His name is ناصر امیر نژاد. Search again!--Breathing Dead (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not being a Farsi speaker. Google News for "ناصر امیر نژاد" still shows zero results. I also forgot to mention that all seven references mentioned by the article seem to be non-WP:RS blogs. — Rankiri (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google news is absolutely useless for finding Persian sources (if you search "iran" in Persian script [44] you will only find Arabic sources, and if search شورای نگهبان "Guardian Council" [45] you will find nothing). Here are some examples from Persian news reports on this subject: [46], [47], [48], [49] [50]. Alefbe (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable so long as all the references are in Persian, if verifable references can be found, Merge to 2009 Iranian election protests --Saalstin (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in languages other than English are also accepted. WP:V doesn't requre the source to be necessarily in Enlish. Alefbe (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources, WP:BLP problems. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you meant WP:BIO. — Rankiri (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. BLP says "Persons are assumed living unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise." We can't report someone's death without solid sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rankiri, unverifiable as there are no ghits for this event. Tavix | Talk 17:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to note, The Guardian's entry on this refers only to "A reliable twitterer", and other entries are only on blogs, or else reputable media using the Guardian as a source. There may well be no reliable sources available --Saalstin (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why don't all of you work for Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting? You are totally qualified. I am ready to nominate you for the job and I am sure they will openly accept you with good salaries. The Iranian regime has expelled ALL foreign reporters out of Iran and has sent ALL the opposition Iranian reporters to jails. These are all the reliable sources that you are looking for! I have added several reliable sources in Persian language plus a RELIABLE source in English which is Guardian newspaper. There are also more sources in BBC persian and Voice of America Persian. And I have personally seen the dead and also slaughtered body of Naser Amirnejad! I am talking to only fair users. In all similar cases which involves Islamic terrorism you see a lot of fanatic muslims rush in the debates to clear the mess that one of their terrorist friends has made. I am saying that THINK TWICE and don't fall in these traps!--Breathing Dead (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to completely misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. I strongly recommend to take a look at Five pillars of Wikipedia, What Wikipedia is not, Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (particularly, WP:SOAP) and Assume good faith before making any further comments. Thank you. — Rankiri (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right! I suggest you to read those 5 things too. Specially Assume good faith! A simple google search shows 479 results for Naser Amirnejad, there are much more in Persian and there is also a page about Naser's death in Guardian newspaper. And you are still saying that he is not dead! All these information while there is absolutely no professional reporter left in Iran, shows what? Your good faith is strongly questioned by your behaviour!--Breathing Dead (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commeent I've asked about iranhumanrights.org at the reliable sources noticeboard. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if a source verified this information it would still not merit its own article. Verifiable information, if it turns up, can be added to 2009 Iranian election protests, but I don't see a need to merge (and leave a redirect) as of yet. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add my support to this point, as it's my position as well. the incident involving Neda was especially notable due to the coverage which it has received and the iconic status which it has attained worldwide. The other deaths during the protests, while sad and upsetting (as they should be), are not particularly notable in and of themselves. They do deserve some mention in the 2009 Iranian election protests, but that is something which can and should be addressed within that article. I also wanted to mention that it's policy that Wikipedia is not a memorial site. From the statements above, given by the primary contributor to this article, it's also probable that Wikipedia:Content forking is being attempted here.
— Ω (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to new article. The university dormitory raids were a particularly covered event within the wider coverage of the protests, so the raids should be in a separate article under the election template. It seems like the student died in these particular circumstances, so this article should be merged into the article raids. --Toussaint (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new article. It can be "casualties of the Basij violence during the 2009 protests". Unilke what Tom Harisson has said, there are several Persian sources for these cases (e.g. this person), and the sources doesn't need to be English necessarily. The BLP policy is irrelevant in this case. Alefbe (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point out that WP:NONENG covers non-English sources. It specifically states that non-English sources are acceptable if an English source is not. Additionally, all non-English sources are supposed to translate the relevant portion (which is easy enough to do inline, using the quote= field within a cite tag).

Also, Tom is actually correct that WP:BLP is relevant, if there is not reliable source available. Since a reliable source includes a source in English...
— Ω (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Similar articles are on wiki about people in the I/P conflict that are one time events, I don't see how this is different; and while other stuff exists I think the same arguments for keeping those could apply here. Merge, but if that fails, keep.Fuzbaby (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that in order to be kept ~~or merged~~, the content still have to pass WP:N and WP:V. Right now, the article mentions two references. One is a very trivial mention from Guardian that clearly attributes the source of the information to "a reliable twitterer"^[51]—hardly a reliable source. The other one comes from iranhumanrights.org—an activist organization which trustworthiness has not been proven—and is entirely trivial as well^[52]. — Rankiri (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline is for a stand-alone article, not for parts of an article. For reliable sources, iranhumanrights.org passes the minimum threshold of reliability to be cited here in Wikipedia. Nonetheless, there also several Persian news reports that verify this incident (I have mentioned some of them in response to your first commnet). Alefbe (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to translate four of the five pages (Google Translate refuses to accept [53]). None of them seem to offer "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Translations: [54],[55], [56],[57]. — Rankiri (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "independent of the subject"? http://www.mizanpress.com/ is a news agency and it has reported this incident and the source is independent of the subject. Also, talking about "significant coverage" is totally irrelevant to the verifiability of the incident (it's related to the notability, and the notability guideline is relevant only if we want to keep the page as a stand-alone page). Alefbe (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're clearly talking about an otherwise not notable person who played a minimal role in one relatively major event. More than 100,000 people die every day, many of them die from violence. The latest protests in China alone resulted in almost 200 fatalities. Forget China. 2009 Iranian election protests now claims that this particular protest resulted in 28 confirmed and 150 unconfirmed deaths. What makes this particular individual in any way more notable than each and every one of them? Propaganda machines? I'm not quite sure if this view is fully supported by WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS or WP:INDISCRIMINATE so I correct my earlier comment to address only the issue of keeping and leave it up to the closing administrator to decide if any of my objections are justified. — Rankiri (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have seen more about your GOOD FAITH. More than 100,000 people die every day, and ofcourse none of them is important as long as Bin-Laden and other Islamic terrorists are alive? Did I complete your sentence correctly? Propaganda machines? Which it seems you are a part of it. But the propaganda machine of Islamic terrorists to wipe out any signs of their barbaric acts of murder and terrorism. Naser might has not been a notable person (In Wikipedia's measures ofcourse!) when he was still alive, but his death sparked a series of very strong protests in Azad University of Iran (Science and Research University which is a branch of Azad University) againt the government which were totally unmatched in the history of that university. His death made him quite notable, however I wish he was still alive without having any notability! And I suggest, DON'T YOU EVER TALK ABOUT A HUMAN'S LIFE LIKE THAT!--Breathing Dead (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is to be merged, the main article would have to cover all 178 alleged fatalities in an equal manner or explain what makes the death of this particular individual so exceptional. I would also suggest to be more careful with your attacks. While I'm not at all offended, such behavior is not encouraged. — Rankiri (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here it is. From WP:NOTDIR: Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not... complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight. — Rankiri (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:V concerns, as well as WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Newsworthy, but not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but rename). The original article before deletions was not 600 bytes but 4.5 k about various people killed, who are certainly notable in Iran. Those early drafts should make a good start for a proper article, perhaps named to Political violence in Iran 2009 to allow for (ahem) future expansion. Remember that this is not only the U.S. Wikipedia. People in Iran might not know who Rodney King is but that doesn't mean they delete the article. This is the exact same situation. It isn't clear to me that this article should be merged with the 2009 election protests because these deaths are their own cause for protests, and in any case the decision whether or not to merge an article an editorial question separate from deletion. Wnt (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient notability of the event. - Altenmann >t 10:15, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Frith

Search on web returns no info to verify the subject as meeting WP:ARTIST guidelines, only links to pages that are not third-party sources. Article seems to exist to promote the subject and her work, while giving undue weight to non-notable aspects of her personal life and not meeting WP:GNG. Article creation/creator username reveals likely WP:COI issues. SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advert, non-notable, coi. Pick any. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If she is really as well-known as it says a new article could be started with WP:Reliable sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promotion. Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete, valuable viable artist User:Frithmobiles —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion one way or another, but thank you for nominating Julie Frith on July the 5th. Julie Smith, you're next. Mandsford (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shame there's no Julie Heaven to nominate today :-) Astronaut (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and we've now got to wait until next year to nominate the Firth of Forth. pablo_hablo. 10:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self promotional puff piece with no assertion of notability with reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-promo, advert with no evidence of reasons why this is encyclopedic. Astronaut (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an advert. Artypants, ^Babble 18:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Teapotgeorge^Talk 08:37, 12 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. overall, the consensus was keep Nja²⁴⁷ 10:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Young-Scholten

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Martha Young-Scholten (2nd nomination)

orphan article; subject no more notable than many other linguists; article copied from another wiki Coal-fired power station (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC) — Coal-fired power station (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Interesting: this AfD is the very first edit by this editor. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AOBF. Coal-fired power station (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, interesting, your appeal to non-applicable policy notwithstanding. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems notable to me. An article being orphaned is not a cause for deletion (as far as I am aware). Article copied and attributed from CZ (the recent change over of licenses from both CZ and Wikipedia allows this cross over of articles). Name of the CZ lisence is in fact: Creative Commons-Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Hence nothing illegal about the porting and hence this is also not a reason for deletion. Finally a large amount of references/footnotes are present. I had a look at List_of_linguists and this particular individual doesn't seem less notable than the random sample of 5 individuals I picked out of that list. Also Question: Where is the first nomination of this AfD?Calaka (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Seems notable to me" is NOT a validation of notability. And yes, other linguist exist and their notability is irrelevant to this person's notability. This editor's opinion should not be considered as it is based on invalid arguments. Drawn Some (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does seem notable to me. It is my opinion based on the reading I have done in assessing whether I think the article is notable or not. I had a look through the references and they do seem fine to me and the individual has published substantial amount of work that is cited by other individuals (if she published a lot of stuff and no one cited it then I would be hesitant to say it is notable). But never-the-less I stand by my initial "seems notable to me." If you do not like my opinion, then... too bad?Calaka (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was because of the 'subst:prod' tag. Coal-fired power station (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No problem with the person's notability. Article could written to be more interesting to an average reader but that no reason to tag and AfD the article for that. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"No problem with the person's notability." does not establish notability. Opinion should be ignored. Drawn Some (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonably highly cited in Google Scholar--not in Scopus or WoS, but their coverage for this subject area is very poor. But be aware that Citizendium does not have a notability policyDGG (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "reasonably highly"? We can rely on Google Scholar when it supports our position then say it is unreliable when it doesn't? Ditto for Scopus or WoS? Let's just keep throwing notablity shit until some sticks? No, Google Scholar doesn't support notability in this instance, and this opinion should be ignored as well. Drawn Some (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 994 is reasonably high. See here--anyone who knows the scholarly business knows that this is indeed reasonably high. Her 1996 book with Vainikka is cited 221 times--which makes me think that DGG's assessment is on the modest side. Drawn Some, please turn off attack mode. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons mentioned above. Plenty notable. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no reason given here at all, except "Plenty notable." Totally a waste of our time forcing us to read this and expecting it to help us make a decision regarding notablity. See the essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussion. This opinion should be ignored. Drawn Some (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got some terrible manners. Are you on a crusade? Drmies (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails both general notability guidelines at WP:NOTE and WP:PROF in particular. No, doesn't just fails, fails miserably. Obscure lecturer. Closing editor should not be swayed by hollow arguments given by those saying "keep" ultimately based on WP:ILIKEIT. We have notability and verifiability guidelines and articles need to satisfy them. Drawn Some (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to pass Point 1 of WP:PROF. Quoting from Point 1 (explained): "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work."Calaka (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim that she co-invented the "Minimal Trees Hypothesis" of Second Language Acquisition seems to be robust. Here is an example of what I would consider to be a third party source that directly addresses the topic of the Minimal Trees Hypothesis. There are more such sources. I would say that this may help Drawn Some feel better if this article is kept. I also find it very interesting that a new user:Coal-fired power station AfD'd this. Abductive (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)'[reply]

Originally an IP user proposed the article for deletion: [58] saying that the article had no incoming links and was "probably non-notable". I (in good faith mind you) assumed that the individual thought that orphan articles should be deleted and removed the prod and added the orphan tag. I then wrote a note on their IP site recommending them to join Wikipedia. Subsequently the above user nominated the article for deletion going along similar points for the deletion ([59]). I am suspecting some sort of bias by the AfD. Perhaps there is a personal dislike for the linguist (colleagues, competitors?), she managed to get a paper published while the initial individual didn't or maybe his article got deleted on Wikipedia and thinks he is as notable as this individual or maybe the individual is the person from the article?Calaka (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AOBF. Coal-fired power station (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)'[reply]

I am just giving the background to Abductive. What I said above is clearly not made up and any reasonable person would suspect a bias in your posts due to WP:SPA which was before you removed the single purpose account tag and claim your post is all about coal fired power stations. Are you originally from CZ? Did you make that article there and you are offended by the porting over to wiki? Without telling us anything we are not left with much to think about the motives.Calaka (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My interest was because starting an AfD was the first thing I did with this account, and I am known for nominating articles on professors for deletion. Abductive (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calaka: why don't you tell everyone here exactly who you are as well? Actually I wanted to write about coal-fired power stations but saw first off that there was a lot of new articles appearing on Wikipedia that had been ripped straight off Citizendium, even though Wikipedia has different rules (like notability). Coal-fired power station (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we are getting off topic so I will say this and no more: If you joined Wikipedia to contribute to coal fired power stations and so on, why was the first thing you did is nominate the above at AfD? Seems pretty advanced for someone that just came to Wikipedia for the first time (I wish I knew all the shortcuts to the various guidelines and policies of Wikipedia the first day I started editing things on Wikipedia)! Anyway, if you actually read what was said above and paid attention to other discussions happening around Wiki, both CZ, Wikipedia (and other wikis apparently) renewed their license allowing the porting of articles from one wiki to another as long as credit is given (hence the 'Edit Summary' indicating it was from CZ and the {citizendium} tag at the bottom of the article. Anyway: I wish you all the best with your contributions to Wikipedia. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a thing as lurking and reading help pages before rewriting other people's work. This page is covered with shortcuts like WP:PROF so it doesn't take a brain surgeon to find out how they work (but I admit that people who actually work out how Wikipedia is organized rather than just start editing are rare). Anyway, you are right about going off-topic into conspiracy theories. Coal-fired power station (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator provides no valid reason for deletion as the article is clearly not a copyright violation. Clearly meets WP:PROF as Google Scholar shows thier work is heavily cited. Edward321 (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on notability grounds, as it is a clear pass of WP:PROF; abstain on the copy-vio point and on any point of article content, as I haven't investigated. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on GS results and above. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment If this had been started on Wikipedia, it would have got deleted straightaway. And there are many other linguists equally deserving of pages about them if this one is notable. Coal-fired power station (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is stopping you create articles about linguists. By all means. Every Wikipedian would (well at least SHOULD) welcome the creation of articles about any topics granted they meet notability guidelines. If you want, make up a list of missing linguists at a separate sub page at WP:MISSING and I am sure there would be many that would go about creating them. Calaka (talk) 10:00, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snicki

No sources verifying anything on this page found on Google search. Without any further context, article violates WP:NOTDICDEF. ~~Possible vio of WP:ONEDAY~~. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again raises the question of why wp:oneday and wp:neologisms are not valid speedy criteria Porturology (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another neologism per Porturology. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, no independent evidence of notability. WWGB (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strikeout in OP made in light of further edits made to article; nevertheless, still a vio of WP:NEO as pointed out above by deletion proponents. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:41, 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 redirect to Modern Whig Party. original text not deleted, so someone may use page history to take relevant text to merge into the redirect main article Modern Whig Party Nja²⁴⁷ 10:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Whig Party of Texas

State division of this party does not as yet deserve its own article, ergo, Notability not noticed necessitating nomination. Toddy1 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you never {{prod}}'ed the article, nor did you discuss this at all with anyone before AfD'ing it that I can see.
...The reason that you stated for nominating the article doesn't make much sense.
— Ω (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Modern Whig Party. The Texas affiliate is not independently notable outside of the national party. Even less of note than Florida Whig Party, which apparently will survive because the nomination was made by a banned user. The technicality asserted as a defense here isn't of the same caliber. "Nor did you discuss this at all with anyone"-- hey, you don't need my permission to nominate an article. Mandsford (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is not proven through the inclusion of multiple reliable third-party sources as references. Article itself is badly out of date (talk about "early months of 2009" and "June 13, 2009" as being in the future) and reads more than a bit like an advert but those are reasons for cleanup, not AfD. Perhaps some text could be salvaged for the main party's article? - Dravecky (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Modern Whig Party as I've suggested in the other two Whig AfD's. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Modern Whig Party Gang14 (talk) 05:38, 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. possibly more suitable to dictionary, not Wikipedia per consensus Nja²⁴⁷ 10:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-cide

Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be on a unitary topic. However the -cide article is a purely lexical, word-ending based, stubby dictionary article that has no realistic chance of expansion. The wikipedia is not a dictionary.

~~The article is also unsourced, as the only source listed does not seem to be a Reliable source.~~

~~This is a list article in all but name, and worse, a list of simple words.~~ The associated wiktionary article has coverage that is better, dictionaries are word based, whereas encyclopedias are based on general or abstract concepts. The only concept displayed here is associated with pure words. The principle is that the wikipedia should not have single fact articles (like: most words ending in 'cide' are to do with killing things). The article contains a large number of distinct definitions of very different things, whereas well formed articles only have one central all encompassing definition; these are not all the same thing, they are related only by the lexical element; the telling point here is that other words that involve death or killing like 'hanging' are not included. That's because this is not an article on a well formed encyclopedic topic; for example the Encyclopedia Britannica does not seem to have an article on this 'topic'.

Even if you were to think that it's a useful article to have (that it should be kept because its useful is an invalid argument: Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It's_useful) the wikipedia is not a guidebook to the English language.

Additionally, the article title violates WP:MOS, article titles are supposed to be nouns or noun phrase. The article should either be merged with suffix or moved to become a general article on killing things or deleted.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Keep I was going to vote delete. But the suffix "-cide" is a thing, and the article on it is informative. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's easy to merge that (extremely small) 'thing' with the other suffixes and make a legitimate article. This isn't a legitimate article; encyclopedias don't do lists of words, that's what dictionaries are.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Special:WhatLinksHere/Affix shows multiple articles with similar content: -scope, -cracy, -graphy(AfD), -kinesis(AfD), -nik and so on. It may be worth to take a look at their deletion reviews or reevaluate their status depending on the outcome of this AfD. — Rankiri (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a list of Wikipedia articles. List articles are included as a guide to other articles, and their usefulness as a guide is a main criterion, so the argument of "useful" seems appropriate to me. I think it is in fact a good list; if you think it should be replaced by a more comprehensive list on the general topic of killing, write one. ICOULDDOITBETTER is not an argument. We are not limited to what's in the EB, or there would be relatively little point in the whole project DGG (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't even a list of wikipedia articles, it's a list of words. Lots of the words end up at duplicate articles; almost everything is multiply linked. For example insecticide and adulticide, gendercide and femicide which were literally the first two that came to hand.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the it's useful argument is not a valid argument in deletion reviews; and even more so when the entire article is already in the wiktionary. The wikipedia is NOT a dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This excuse for an article rips up every single MOS guideline and most of the policies as well.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean what are we going to do next, have all the words beginning with particular word-roots, like 'part-'? Or how about all the words starting with 'f-'? How non encyclopedic can you get?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. WP:NOTDIC. The article doesn't seem to have the encyclopedic potential to go beyond its Wiktionary counterpart. — Rankiri (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "-cide" is not a word, it's a suffix. Encyclopedias do have lists, of course, as does ours. Now, the list in this article, I would have no objection to someone deleting that, but the suffix itself is worthy of inclusion (not a dictionary definition--think of it as an operator). Wolfkeeper, this is not something to be taken personally. I know the guidelines, as do some of the other editors who've responded above. I am not voting keep because I like it or because it fits in with my possibly Republican leanings. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or soft-redirect to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this duplicates wikt:-cide#Derived terms. No prejudice against an encyclopaedic article about the "-cide" suffix, but this is just a list of words. Enyclopedias do have lists, but they have lists like List of Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester, not List of words that have the suffix -cide. The latter is what belongs in a dictionary or thesaurus, both of which functions are provided by Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You say correctly that there should be no prejudice "against an encyclopaedic article about the "-cide" suffix"--well, here you have an an encyclopaedic article about the "-cide" suffix. Is it a bad article? Sure--but fix it then. Wikipedia:Deletion policy says it quite clearly: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." The article is actually a bit more than a list: there are three salvageable sentences in there. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any possibility that it will be enlarged in an encyclopedic fashion, and even if it was enlarged, it would still not be encyclopedic- it would be about a word part, not a subject. Even the reference in the article points to a dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to try to ram home why suffixes are probably not a good idea consider that the wikipedia doesn't currently have the -ful suffix.(see [60]) Why not? I don't know, but the fact that it's used to make adjectives, and there's no adjective articles might have something to do with it. I mean, there's loads of suffixes, should they all have their own article, and list of words? Are lists of words encyclopedic? Or should the suffixes just be at Suffix? I think so.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget all the suffixes from languages, time periods and dialects other than contemporary standard modern English. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary seems to have everything I've looked for so far. You'd think they would have. For example all the latin suffixes are mentioned here: Wiktionary:Category:Latin_derivations- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the list is gone, and I've added a source. More could be found easily, of course. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wiktionary specifically lists prefixes and suffixes as acceptable for inclusion. I have not found anything that permits them to be valid wikipedia article titles or subjects, and several things suggest to me that they are inherently unencyclopedic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Under encyclopedia rules (WP:NOTADICT), -cide seems to be a duplicate or part of death, and the rules call for it to merge.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook case of Not A Dictionary. Powers ^T 15:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Recall this related discussion from May 2009: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"-cides" Cnilep (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic is already covered at Wiktionary. Neither the current content nor the prior list format seem like a good fit at Suffix. Killing redirects to Homicide, so obviously that won't work, either. I can think of no good rationale for keeping the page or its content. Cnilep (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: FWIW this also came up back in 2004 with many similar comments but nobody pushed it through:Wikipedia_talk:Things_to_be_moved_to_Wiktionary#Suffixes_in_the_Wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Powers states, there is no way this could be more in violation of WP:NAD. yandman 11:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More suited to a dictionary. Orderinchaos 11:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDICT Niteshift36 (talk) 05:51, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niger–Pakistan relations

lacks significant coverage of actual bilateral relations. almost all coverage is multilateral. [61] LibStar (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article, Niger/Pakistan relations, is not notable according to our guidelines at WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another random pairing of nations that fails to demonstrate actual notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per distinct lack of coverage of this topic in secondary sources. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability nowhere near satisfied. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:41, 11 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 JForget 18:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Hagan

The article looks like it was written by the guy himself, in addition to having only two sources, etc. Falcon8765 (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I looked at the sources -- losing the WTC competition doesn't make him notable. I looked around for other sources on him, but I couldn't find any on a cursory search. I'll look again tomorrow when I'm less tired. As a note though, it might be best to replace the {{citation needed}} tags with an {{unreferenced}} tag at the top of the page. I feel having so many citation needed tags are unnecessary and might lend undue weight towards deletion. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article on a completely non-notable person.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as standard partisan propagandist. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per current Wikipedia standards, you have to be better than that on self-promotion for your articles to be kept. --Damiens.rf 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Appears to be pure self-promotion. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 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 no consensus. This has turned into yet another deletionism vs. inclusionism battle, and there's simply no way to make an informed decision. We really need a more broad agreement to decide what to do with these articles. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados–Germany relations

noting that neither country has resident embassies. the article uses synthesis to stretch out any actual bilateral relations. yes Barbados assisted the British in the World Wars, but this does not directly relate to Barbados-Germany relations. Even the German foreign ministry says most of its relations are in Barbados-EU context or Germany helping a block of Carribean nations. there's quite a bit of coverage of German golf players playing a tournament in Barbados and football relations but not much on actual ongoing bliateral relations. [62]. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; pretty unremarkable. -Falcon8765 (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of this page User:CaribDigita was not told about this discussion on his talk page by the nominator. I have alerted him per WP:CIVIL.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one is beyond a stub, and is notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This one is beyond a stub.." is NOT a valid reason to keep so this opinion should be completely discounted. Drawn Some (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Assume Good Faith and don't threaten people with having their opinions discounted. They come here to express them. Let the closing administrator decide what is valid and what is not valid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd, Richard - no one's threatening anyone here. But "it's notable" is not, in fact, a valid "keep" rationale - see WP:ATA. (And yes, we know about WP:EANP, so I'm saving you the trouble of linking there.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the "threat"? I see an editor expressing his opinion, just like you did. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability of the topic of the article, relations between Barbados and Germany, is given, not one shred of evidence in the way of sources. In fact, about half the article is about relations between Barbados and the UK. This article is an absurd synthesis of unrelated factoids, most of which have nothing to do with Barbados-German relations. Drawn Some (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may note that the article on the United States starts in the 1600s and not in 1776. The modern name of the country is not relevant. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world does that have to do with relations between Germany and Barbados? More smokescreen? Drawn Some (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGF, I thought you were complaining that the article contains info when Barbados was still part of Britain, as during the wars.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Barbados and Germany were both part of Pangea so I guess under your strange logic that would make their relations notable. Drawn Some (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reductions to absurdity are fun but not helpful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - beyond the sole fact that relations exist (which can and doubtless is covered in the apposite articles), the recent expansion is trivial and fictitious. Trivial in that it accords attention to details (eg, the "Agreement between the Government of Barbados and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments" - well, it sounds important, at least) we would not bother mentioning outside "rescue" efforts done on this series of nonsense articles, just because we can (see WP:POINT for that); fictitious in that no, the actions of Barbadian men in the Imperial British Army, well before Barbadian independence in 1966, is not a function of "Barbados–Germany relations", and is not a manifestation of "historical ties", no matter how desperately some may wish to portray them that way. That history is probably notable, but you mention it at (the rather wretched) History of Barbados, at (the equally bad) Military of Barbados (where, by contrast, an avant la lettre section is appropriate), at Military history of the British West Indies during World War II, but not here, for reasons that should be obvious. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may note that the article on the United States starts in the 1600s and not in 1776. It was still Barbados before independence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a red herring. Sure, the History of Barbados also begins a couple of thousand years ago. But "Barbados–Germany relations" began precisely in 1967. Colonies don't conduct foreign affairs, the FCO does. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, no. That is when official government-to-government recognition began. Relations begin, well, whenever relations begin. The article is not "Barbados–Germany government relations". But you know all this already, we might as well just cut and paste the info from the last 10 AFDs, and put the new effort into working on articles. This is a good example of a wikigroan, where 10 times the effort goes into the AFD and talk pages than the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, relations begin when reliable sources say they begin, not when Richard Arthur Norton says so. And in the absence of sources actually dealing with "Barbados–Germany relations", your pretense that they started at some distant point before 1967 is what we call original research. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." (my emphasis added) Please don't just point to the Bible and says "the answer is here", quote a chapter and verse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. You are claiming, without validation by sources that actually deal with "Barbados–Germany relations" (which happen not to exist), that a jumble of various out-of-context facts constitute a phenomenon. That's a new position unsubstantiated by anything. Relations are what a reliable source about those relations tells us they are, not what Richard Arthur Norton thinks they may be. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the article is not "Barbados–Germany government relations". History doesn't start with the current name or current government. The article on the US begins in the 1600s, and the article on India doesn't start in 1947. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are once again pulling a red herring. Yes, US and Indian history begin well before formal independence. It does not necessarily follow that "Barbados–Germany relations" begin prior to Barbadian independence. To repeat: relations begin when reliable sources say they begin, not when Richard Arthur Norton says so. Take two examples, US-Kuwaiti relations, 1961-1992 and The United States and Brazil. Now, since those books are actually written by scholars, not people inventing topics in silly Wikipedia "rescue" efforts, they happen to begin their treatments in one case at the exact point of independence (1961), and in the other roughly at that time ("almost two hundred years [ago]"). But let's say they'd decided to start earlier, maybe 1930 for Kuwait and 1800 for Brazil. Fine, we have a reliable source placing the beginning of relations then, so we can use that. But in the case of "Barbados–Germany relations" we have absolutely no such guidepost - only Richard Arthur Norton telling us his opinion about when said relations began. If you don't see the problem with that, I again encourage reading WP:NOR. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." (my emphasis added) Please don't just point to the Bible and says "the answer is here", quote a chapter and verse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard you the first time. Of course, no attempt to address my intelligent appeal to scholarly works that deal with observed phenomena (US-Kuwait and US-Brazil relations), standing in stark contrast to this topic you've just invented (hint: that's the OR) -- only bland repetition of a mantra. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another random pairing of nations that fails to demonstrate actual notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I can read that sources for the article specifically deal with the Barbados-Germany relationship. If the relationship exists and is coverered in depth and in reliable sources, its a keeper per WP:GNG. There is enough to suport this article so that the informations need not be lost inside other articles. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, really? What sources would those be? Of the independent sources cited (and, if we're to talk about WP:GNG, then footnote 7 cannot be used), I see sources with "Barbados" and "Germany" in the same article, but no indication that "Barbados–Germany relations" are covered by any of them. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again the argument that the magic word "relations" has to appear in the article to be used as a source. Any synonym will do such as "trade", "meeting" or "emigration". All are relations according to my thesaurus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about determining what relations are according to reliable sources actually documenting "Barbados–Germany relations", rather than what your original research determines those may be? Oh, right, they don't exist, so you have to make it up as you go along. WP:NOR is just one of many policies to fly out the window during these WP:POINTy "rescue" attempts. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

original research says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." (my emphasis added) Please don't just point to the Bible and says "the answer is here", quote a chapter and verse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying something inane three times doesn't make it one whit less inane, Richard. Once again, how about determining what relations are according to reliable sources actually documenting "Barbados–Germany relations", rather than what your original research determines those may be? No one has actually dealt with this notion outside Wikipedia! Hence - original research! We deal with observed phenomena, not fabricated ones. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Not ALL sources need be used to specifically show a subject meeting guideline WP:GNG, and not ALL sources need have both Germany "and" Barbados in their content, specially if some are there for the quite proper policy mandated WP:Verification of facts within the article. WP:GNG is subserviant to WP:V. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, and verifiability does not equal notability, and WP:NOR says we can't just make up topics. Given that no source actually covers "Barbados–Germany relations", the rationale for keeping this is non-existent. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

original research says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." (my emphasis added) Please don't just point to the Bible and says "the answer is here", quote a chapter and verse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting downright silly. You made up this topic. It doesn't exist (beyond the trivial fact that relations exist, around which no viable article could actually be built). Show me the independent sources that actually touch on this phenomenon, rather than what your original research has advanced as a position that it is, and I'll change my vote.

Let's look at the last 5 FAs for how this works. Thriller (album): actual phenomenon documented here. Fauna of Scotland: actual phenomenon documented in Scotland's Wildlife. Portal (video game): actual phenomenon documented here. Hispanic Americans in World War II: actual phenomenon documented in Hispanic Military Heroes. Anne of Denmark: actual phenomenon documented in Anna of Denmark, Queen of England: A Cultural Biography. "Barbados–Germany relations": fictitious phenomenon documented nowhere as such. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noteability clearly established after excellent improvements by Richard Arthur Norton. I see the page also now boasts a tasteful Groubani style info box. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to RAN for the work in gathering available material to expand the article and establish notability with multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Claims of "fictitious" sources is in staggering bad faith. Alansohn (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to hyperventilate: the sources are real enough, it's just that abusing them to make them appear to detail "Barbados–Germany relations", when in fact they do not, is in fact creating a fiction unsupported by those sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as i would have expected, this like most such articles can be improved sufficiently for an article, with good relevant content & sources. Trade relationships between countries are significant, and therefore even an article whose main content is treaties providing for them is an indication that there will be adequate material. This has been filled in sufficiently to make that clear.

and as for the earlier relations, should we make another article for the relationship between every pair of previous jurisdictions? It makes more sense to combine under the current name. I do not support the multiplication of such minute articles. DGG (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting a Colonial Barbados-Nazi Germany relations article - that's a straw man. What I for one am saying is that neither an 1874 shipwreck nor the actions of the British Army in World War II have aught to do with "Barbados–Germany relations"; that information belongs to and should be presented in entirely different contexts, where it actually makes sense. Not here, where a work of original research has strung together bits of trivia (and, in this fake context, they are trivia) on a topic no one outside Wikipedia has bothered to document. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't recognize trivia, it is a subjective term. The only mention of trivia is in the context of style, not content. Haven't we both made these points 10 times already? Wouldn't it be easier to have a central place to argue these points instead of cutting and pasting them in each AFD? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know the mantra. Much easier to repeat that incantation than grapple with my points about contextual relevance and actually presenting information where it makes sense. Much easier to pretend that a ship sinking off an island possession in 1874 is even remotely a function of "Barbados–Germany relations". Original research of this sort can be entertaining, but is ultimately corrosive to the project. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relations are relations are relations. Again you are using the more narrow term "Barbados–Germany government relations" or you are looking for the magic word "relations" to appear in the sources. Any synonym will do. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relations are what reliable, third-party, peer-reviewed sources document them -- the relations -- to be. They are not what Richard Arthur Norton thinks they are. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr. Norton and Mr. Schmidt have detailed how the article meets notability standards. It is delightful to find one of these seemingly whimsical Country X-Country Y articles having a well-researched text. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article is now excellently sourced and quite informative. To delete this article now would be a true loss to the community. Well done in improving this article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being informative and well-sourced does not make the topic of an article notable, and you haven't addressed that. No one has brought up the question of the information being verifiable, so you are addressing the wrong issue, which is that the topic itself isn't notable. Drawn Some (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you review WP:Notability again. Adequate sourcing is one of its central tenants. The subject matter of this article has been verified and is notable by wikipedia's guidelines.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, verifiability does not imply notability. Sure, it's verifiable that golf balls are hitting cars in Bismarck, ND - shall we have an article on the 2009 golf ball damage to vehicles in Bismarck, North Dakota? And moreover, like I've stressed, context is important. It's quite likely notable that Barbadian men fought in World War II. But that has about zero to do with "Barbados–Germany relations"; what it does have to do with is the Military history of the British West Indies during World War II (for that, see this) - that is the relevant context for the information, not the invented topic of "Barbados–Germany relations". - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT proves that just being "verifiable" and "sourced" doesn't equal notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT discusses stand alone articles. So an article on the signing of a mutual cooperation treaty would not warrant a stand alone article, unless it was covered by multiple reliable sources, and there was enough info to fill an article. It does not preclude that treaty being mentioned here or at the article on either of the signatory countries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep substantially improved. To the best of my knowledge the Nazis were the first time the Barbadian parliament passed a resolution to declare war on another country. The war was a rather major event in Barbadian history. There is even a cenotaph monument located outside the Barbados Paliament in National Heros Square with 4 plaques affixed to each side full of named of Barbadians who died fighting during World War I & II in Germany as well. CaribDigita (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Context, CaribDigita, context. No one doubts the importance of the war to Barbadian history. But the war is relevant in the context of the History of Barbados, or better yet, the Military history of the British West Indies during World War II. It is not relevant and does not make sense to discuss it in the context of "Barbados–Germany relations", simply because no one (outside Wikipedia) has actually found fit to document this supposed phenomenon, and as it hasn't been written about outside Wikipedia, our rules on original research (should) prevent us from having an article on the topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in what is another true barrel scrape of trivia, how does In 2006 Germany won the World Cup in men's golf in Barbados. relate to bilateral relations? Japan won the same world cup in Mexico in 2002, does that relate to Japan-Mexico relations? Usain Bolt won a gold medal at the Beijing Olympics, does that add to China-Jamaica relations? LibStar (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In a good faith effort to save this article, it has become polluted by a lot of off topic and/or very questionably relevant content. For example: "In 1874 the German bark Pierre Buyper was wrecked on the coast of Barbados", "In 2006 Germany won the World Cup in men's golf in Barbados", etc. If you ignore all that, you're left with very little relevant material. And none the cited sources (or at least those that are independent of the governments of Barbados and Germany) actually address the topic of "Barbados–Germany relations" directly or in detail. Therefore, this topic fails WP:N. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this almanacic article due to yet another impressive rescue effort for this sort of article by Richard Arthur Norton. Article clearly meets WP:N now. Good job! That is what we all like to see. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ "Comment Making war on each other is the epitome of international relations. Obviously it was talked about. This is all that could possibly be asked for . DGG (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I remind you that it was of course the British Empire making war on Germany, not Barbados. If you don't believe me, see Allies of World War II and let me know if you find Barbados on that list. And A Nobody, using "almanacic" [sic] doesn't mask the triviality of the information therein one whit. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- bulk of the article consists of factoids that happen to involve Germans/Barbadians. Two nn totally unremarkable and rather trivial treaties are all in the article that are on topic. Appears to be another arbitrary xy intersection article that someone has tried to save with excessive synthesis. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "nn" is never a valid reason for deletion, especially when not true. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think that these are notable treaties?!

An Agreement for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments

An agreement for a waiver on visas Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just the treaties, but rather the treaties, plus the fact that they were on opposing sides in world wars, etc. The totality of the relations are of sufficient interest to our readers to justify inclusion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The war is lessened as an issue (in my view) given that every British colony/commonwealth/dominion was at war with Germany once the UK declared war. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it is the combination for me, not any one thing. I have always used encyclopedias because I have a question I want answered. I could legitimately see people using our reference guide asking any of the following: "Did Barbados and Germany have any interactions in the world wars?" "When did Barbados and Germany develop relations?" "What kind of trade does Barbados and Germany have with each other?" Etc. Anyone doing research on the totality of the world wars, i.e. trying to get the full global context, anyone doing research on say Caribbean and European trade, etc. all of these things are real world items of interest to people of diverse disciplines. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, WP:ITSUSEFUL--an argument to avoid. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, it is not only useful, but also notable, encyclopedic, verifiable, unoriginal research, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only significant section of this article, the History section, reads more liek it has to do with Barbados - UK relations than with Germany; German interaction is a footnote. Of the rest, low trade ("not very significant" by the article's own text" and a few typical agreements don't really elevate this subject up to notability. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The combination of these things obviously demonstrates notability by any reasonable or logical standard. Indiscriminately wanting to delete all of these with "Kill it with fire!" hyperbole in edit summaries posted in rapid fire fashion as with the the AfDs you commented in prior to this one hardly reflect any real consideration of the individual articles or objectivity and neutrality with regards to them. Please instead help us to improve content. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If criticizing my edit summary is the best you can do to refute my argument, you're on shaky ground indeed. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I strongly encourage you to make constructive and honest contributions to these discussions and to actual articles themselves. "Kill with fire" is not an argument that one can take seriously as something to refute. What sources have you looked for? How have you tried to incorporate them into the article? What locations did you first try to merge content to? Just rapid fire and indiscriminantly going down the list of these without showing any evidence of knowledge of the subjects at hand or serious efforts to research them does not add anything to an academic discussion and using hyperbole in edit summaries weakens any real stance at deletion, because any neutral observer can see, okay, Richard Arthur Norton, for example is actively working to improve the article in addition to commenting in the AfD as a contrast to anyone who just virtually copy and pastes to delete all of these without demonstrating any proactivity or real discriminate consideration. Thus, any neutral admin will see that those arguing to keep having their stance augmented by tangible improvements made specifically to this article as a clear contrast to a seemingly pattern of these "kill with fire"s that can be chalked up as either non-serious hyperbole or a simple case of extreme WP:IDONTLIKEIT with regards to bilateral relations articles, i.e. a viewpoint justifiably not given much weight. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, he is not "working to improve the article", he is stuffing it with trivia in a WP:POINTy manner in order to generate the appearance of notability for a topic no one outside Wikipedia has bothered to cover, as part of an inane "rescue" effort. Let's give an unvarnished version of the facts. The only salient fact, that Barbados was affected by WWII, has zero contextual relevance to this topic, as no source has actually discussed Barbados in WWII in the context of "Barbados–Germany relations". See History of Barbados and Military history of the British West Indies during World War II for articles where it would actually be appropriate to discuss that history. Cue your irrelevant Napoleon and Waterloo example... - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then why not merge this sourced information there instead of just wasting Wikipedia server space with yet another AfD? So instead of an encyclopedia of articles that are at least of interest to someone, you would rather we be an encyclopedia of deletion discussions that are of interest to who? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Some people were trying to merging things, and they we asked to stop. So here we are. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - First off, you're taking to someone who actually writes articles, so your speculations on "what kind of an encyclopedia I would rather have us be" are nonsense, and better kept to yourself. Second, "sourced" is not a synonym for "relevant". Sure, it's "sourced" that Mark Sundberg is looking for queen bees, but that's relevant neither to the History of North Dakota nor to Beekeeping. Like I said days ago, here is a start for discussing intelligently the role of the British West Indies during the War. But not the present pastiche of trivia randomly gathered up and thrown together - that's fit for the dustbin, not merging. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:00, 12 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 Iranian presidential election, 2009. The main argument on the "delete" side is that the article is a POV fork. The main argument on the "keep" side is that the article has many reliable sources. However, that argument is well refuted: according to WP:RS: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers." Therefore, the consensus is to delete; redirecting as a possible search term, and allowing for a selective merge with caution. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coup of 12 June

Original reason for deletion request:

Article name is ambiguous.
The topic of this article is covered in depth at 2009 Iranian presidential election and 2009 Iranian election protests.
— Ω (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later changed to:

The article name is ambiguous, and simply fails to meet the WP:NAME guidelines.
Having to separate articles to describe two different WP:POVs for the same event is a violation of WP:NPOV.
This article is clearly a content fork of 2009 Iranian presidential election and 2009 Iranian election protests.
— Ω (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samic's reasons to keep

I get tired to explain everything for everyone! so I'll write my answers to your NEW reasons and that's the end.

1-The article name is ambiguous, and simply fails to meet the WP:NAME guidelines.

I had posted my suggests on article's Talk page before but no one care about it! it seems you just want a reason to remove things, but you don't want to improve anything!

2-Having to separate articles to describe two different WP:POVs for the same event is a violation of WP:NPOV.

When this article have more than 20 references from most important and notable newspapers in world like "Guardian" and "Washington Post" and "New York Times" and "NewsWeek", it's very interesting to say this article have "points of view" problem! maybe you think all these papers are writing "opinions from people"! in that case i can't do anything!

3-This article is clearly a content fork of 2009 Iranian presidential election and 2009 Iranian election protests.

As i said before in this page, there are lots of information in this article that you can't find them anywhere (more than 60%). just being about same object is not a reason to say it's a content fork.

Also you should pay attention that this article is about an event which occurs last month! and it's very soon to decide about it as many analysis will come later! --Samic130 (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Discussion

Delete There was no coup in Iran on June 12 and the protests are already covered in their own article. TJ Spyke 04:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on it's references the article's name makes sense. --Behzaad (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That it is called a coup doesn't make it one. Most refs are Op-Eds, not news pieces, a significant difference. Also, they "call" it a coup, it's not a separate event. Selective merge of the non-Oped sourced content to 2009 Iranian election protests is fine too. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is politically motivated by opponents of the current government. There is no real evidence of a coup. There may have been electoral malpractice - but it is not clear that this (if it happened) affected the result of the election.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Iranian presidential election, 2009 as that is the event that the article refers to. Having to separate articles to describe two different WP:POVs for the same event is a violation of WP:NPOV. --LjL (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wanted to address the Merge votes here. Believe me, I looked very hard for anything which could be merged before {{prod}}ing the article. I don't believe in deleting articles, as a matter of policy, except in extreme cases. The main issue here is exactly what LjL mentioned though: POV. It is clear to me that this article is a content fork created in order to specifically advance a non-neutral POV.
— Ω (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regard to verifiability you can see Wikipedia works on "verifiability, not truth" also under "Reliable sources" you can see some specifications, then look at this article's references like "Guardian" and "Washington Post" and "New York Times" and "NewsWeek". It is enough references to say there is a COUP. Also about name ambiguous, there are some suggests in article's talk page that you didn't care about it. --Samic130 (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering that WikiPedia's users don't pay attention to Verifiability!! Just look at this page and you can find out that this poll is meaning less!! Also who said that all topics are covered in another articles? Now most of this article isn't anywhere! --Samic130 (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceman7Spiff, said "Most refs are Op-Eds, not news pieces" whereas references like "Guardian" and "Washington Post" and "New York Times" and "NewsWeek told there is a coup, so i don't know what are "news pieces" if they aren't! --Samic130 (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is relevant to this discussion. The real issue here is that the subject of this article is extensively covered in 2009 Iranian election protests.
— Ω (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of this article is covered in another one?! This article have 11 paragraphs which you can't find at least 7 of them anywhere! Things like what happens before coup, person who manage coup, events, full details of Mojtaba Khamenei's works, arresting Iran Participation Party's central committee and so on are not in any other article. However they are all about Iran but this article have a focus on coup and 2009 Iranian election protests article have a focus on protests! --Samic130 (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samic, please, calm down and listen to what we're trying to tell you. 90% of the material in this article already exists (or has been removed from) 2009 Iranian election protests and 2009 Iranian presidential election. Your efforts would best be placed in improving those articles. If everything which you've mentioned about is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, then that materiel should be included in one of the existing articles.
— Ω (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They said which part. The article's subject. If some of the contents aren't there, then feel free to move them (if they're notable and verifiable from reliable sources), but if the subjects match, then there should be one article only. --LjL (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both 2009 Iranian presidential election and 2009 Iranian election protests article are now very long and currently they divided into several articles like: Mir-Hossein Mousavi presidential campaign, 2009, Iranian reform movement, Results of the Iranian presidential election, 2009, International reaction to the 2009 Iranian presidential election, Timeline of the 2009 Iranian election protests, death of Neda Agha-Soltan, Where is my vote?.

So after merging this article you should start with this list all put all of them into one article!! because they all have same subject!!

This article must have a focus on coup and questions like how did the coup happen?, why did it happen? who did that? why did that? what is the future or result of coup? and so on. because the most important thing in the history of a country is changing of government's form.--Samic130 (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those other articles grew out of the main articles through consensus that there was/is a need for having the separate articles. This one didn't. This prod/AfD is not about notability, verifiability, or even about the subject itself at all. This isn't a content dispute in the least. There's just no need for a separate article on this topic right now, and the motivation behind attempting to create the article is a bit suspicious.
— Ω (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are changing your reasons!! you created this page with some reasons, then some editors came and voted, then you change your reason again!! if you find new thing you must restart this voting!! also someones vote with idea that "There was no coup in Iran" and "That it is called a coup doesn't make it one", when i say please read Verifiability you say it's not about verifiability!! also you said in this page real issue here is subject but now you say it's not subject!! every time i talked about your reason, you said it's not the reason!! so in one word say I WANT to do that! --Samic130 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reason has simply been copyedited and made clearer. No reason to edit war about it. --LjL (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete clear POV content fork. ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly POV pushing title. Author should instead add notes to Iranian presidential election, 2009, stating, for example, that The Guardian and Washington Post have called it a 'coup', rather than starting a content fork which inherently endorses that position --Saalstin (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we had an election and it was really unfair but it was not a coup . honsetly i was going to nominate this article sooner for deletion but i was pretty busy recently plus it is clear example of POV Forking --Mardetanha ^talk 17:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the election in our country has many mnay problems.Please see this article in Persian Wiki pedia.Nersy (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then they should surely be dealt with at 2009 Iranian presidential election for the election (and its problems), and 2009 Iranian election protests for the response. Could you please provide a reason, preferably citing a WP policy, why there should be a separate article, which specifically calls it a 'coup'? --Saalstin (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The article has enough references to suggest that, there is a COUP. Even IRI former president Mohammed Khatami has called it a "coup". In my judgement, with all that notable references provided, it is not a "points of view" problem anymore! --Kaaveh (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read previous objections before "casting your vote"? I ask because your explanation seems to take them in no consideration. Why, again, should there be two articles on the same subject (regardless of it being a coup or not)? --LjL (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are relevant subjects, but not exactly the same subject. Alefbe (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The title of the page can be discussed in its talk page, and the page needs a major clean up, but that's not a valid reason to delete it. This page is mainly about the arrest of prominent political activists and banning independent media, starting just after the election. While this topic is related to the rigged election and the protests after the election, it is a separate topic itself (the arrest of many political activists started before the widespread protests and is not just a consequence of that). There are also enough reliable material to expand this page. So, merging it to the two other relevant pages (which are already too large) is not a good idea. Alefbe (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting, because normally I would be 100% behind you on this. I'm probably one of the most inclusionist editors around, which makes seeing this reply hit kind of close to home for me personally. This particular article is so problematic though that I don't see any other remedy aside from deletion (which is a decision that I actually agonized over). It's extreme POV pushing tone will make it near impossible to properly copy edit, and the (2) editors who have contributed significantly to it have shown active resistance towards properly improving the article (definitely a case of a couple of newer editors showing an WP:OWN tendency). All of that is rather tangential to the point that there's simply nothing new in this article. Everything that is included in this article is also included in one of the primary 2009 Iran election articles, mostly in a much more neutral manner (and those two articles are being actively patrolled and improved). There might be cause to split some content from either or both of the primary articles at some point, but this article would be a bad way to start such a split.
— Ω (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I would be so happy if the people, who thinks that this article should be deleted or there was no coup in Iran or it does not fulfill the definition of coup, look at the article by details and read the highly credible references. Most of the references are from reputable news websites, articles of famous analysts and university experts. If we can ignore such a strong rational and evidence, then we may delete it. Besides, I do not agree to merging this article to any other related mentioned article. This article is complementary and specifically look at the events and evidence of coup it self and not the election or the following protests. This event has been called and named as "coup" in Iran and the whole world and merits to have a separate special article. Therefore, it can not be merged to other related articles.Andi horn (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andi horn (talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been doing some more looking at this, and large swathes of the article are currently copy+paste, or slight re-wording for tense, etc of the 'Foreign Policy in Focus' opinion piece Ahmadinejad's Coup D'Etat. I've tried to remove the worst of the copyvios, but if the article is kept (disclaimer: my views on this are above) then it's going to need a fundamental rewrite involving looking at the myriad sources now in place, to remove copyright violations --Saalstin (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "Ω" and some of his friends like "LjL" are trying all they can do to delete article!
First they tried to put {fact}} in every sentence just to say this article doesn't have enough references!

[63] Which if they read some of references before they would understood all of this article are from references!
But with this kind of work, we put references for every sentence. after that they tried things like this:

[64]
It's obvious that they are doing what they can for motivation behind these attempts!
Instead i invite them to try to develop wiki's articles and not to war articles for their goals.--Samic130 (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with a lot of the current references is that they're not sources which backup the article, they're often links to the opinion pieces which have been copied, word for word. That's a violation of our copyright policies. Before you continue with substantial edits, you might like to read some of policies like Neutral Point of View, and reliable sources, to get a better idea which types of sources should be used, and how you articles should be written, to summarise or precis a point of view, rather than copy it directly --Saalstin (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact add quite a few requests for sourcing, as well as a marging suggestion; however, they were removed in a cleansweep shortly after. I did and do believe that, even if some of those were already contained in sources, it couldn't have hurt to put more footnotes about them in the appropriate places. I must say I did not particularly appreciate having my tags reverted like that :-\ --LjL (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an Iranian wikipedian, I don't see it as coup. This is POV. Even if we see the definition of the Coup d'état, it's obvious that it wasn't a coup. --Wayiran (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry my friend, with all respect, Wikipedia is not supposed to show people's personal point of view. This is an encyclopedia and is supposed to have the facts which are perfectly cited to several reliable references in this article. This article is a fact sheet about the events now widely known as "coup of 12 June" in Iran and outside. If read carefully and fairly it is completely obvious that it is not personal point of view and it is 100% neutral by providing references from many different Iranian and international journals with different political views including so many university professors and governments advisors who were not in fact a part of the coup.Andi horn (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andi horn (talk • contribs) 13:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, WP is not supposed to show personal point of view. Could you, or one of the other prolific contributors to this article therefore please explain how it doesn't violate Wikipedia:POV fork? --Saalstin (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesnt matter if it's really a coup or not. If there's enough sources terming it a coup, then that's all that matters as far as WP is concerned.--Zereshk (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They need to be reliable sources though, which as has been pointed out above, are not included on the page. Aside from that, you're ignoring the main issue that this page is a POV fork of existing articles.
— Ω (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's really interesting to say references like "Guardian" and "Washington Post" and "New York Times" and "NewsWeek" are NOT reliable sources!! It's like a joke!! --Samic130 (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A problem there is that due to journalistic restrictions, they aren't able to operate in the way they normally do. A great many of the articles you are using as sources are opinion pieces, which WP:RELIABLE states "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact". The Guardian, for example, has explained that it has obtained much of its coverage from twitter, and whilst they are prepared to trust the twitterers, it is very hard to verify them. --Saalstin (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News usually is, opinion pieces are certainly not. Regardless, just because you can reference the Guardian, NYT, Post, or other news sources, that doesn't automatically infer reliability. Every citation is subject to peer review, not only for it's reliability but also for it's use. Simply citing a source is not meaningful if the reason for the citation is not clear.
— Ω (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask the people, who do not have time to click on the references which are now more than 70 and read them, not to make any statement regarding the reliability of references. Most of the references are from very high impact journals and also written by reputable Iranian and international political analysts. They have been cited to show the facts, therefore questioning and ignoring them without any rational and acceptable reason is considered only as "disagreement" of the reader. Besides, as mentioned before, as this article is explaining the rational of usage of the name "coup of 12 June" and details of the events in this regard, I completely disagree to merge it to other articles. In fact, the details in this article can not be included in any other general article.--Andi horn (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
— Ω (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely: this article seems to be explaining the rationale for using a given term (coup). Now, no Wikipedia article should exist in order to explain the rationale behind using a given term in the title rather than another. --LjL (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many - indeed, all of the references that I have looked at - have been opinion pieces. Whilst these are fine as sourcing for 'x says that', they are inadequate for stating 'x happened'. Thus they are not reliable sources. They have not been cited to show fact, they have been cited to show opinion, which is the entire point of this entire article, including its title. Not only can the details from this be included in other articles, this has been done, properly, in the second paragraph of ~~Iranian presidential election, 2009~~2009 Iranian election protests --Saalstin (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what if many of the sources are opinion? WP:RS covers them: "we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." And last I checked, people like Gary Sick were indeed reliable authors.--Zereshk (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though, surely, you will not have missed the Statements of opinion section of WP:RS, where it is said: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion." (emphasis mine - I'd say it speaks for itself: the title is not the "main text" of the article) --LjL (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strongly. Definitely. 1) It is called "coup" by many RS. 2) Insiders and outsiders have called it a coup.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how does that justify having a WP:Content fork? (yes, I'll ask every time it's not addressed) --LjL (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you talking about? Maybe you gave a wrong link? I assume that otherwise I do not see why over 1000 articles written about Iran can not be called "all treating the same subject". The page on protests, is about the protests, the page on election is about election. If you think the article in question needs certian things added or deleted, please use appropriate tags. Otherwise I do not understand what you are talking about.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already used such tags; it's a pity that they've been repeatedly removed. Anyway, the article about Iranian presidential election, 2009 talks about the election, what happened before the election, what happened after the election, and what is alleged to have happened - as any sane page about an election should, it talks about its context, the central event nonetheless being the election. The fact that you take a subset of those events and decide to give it a particular label (or particularly in-depth coverage) doesn't justify making a separate article about it. --LjL (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian presidential election, 2009 covers everything that this article should, in the second paragraph - that some people have called the events of the election and its aftermath 'a coup'. Creating a new article on that topic based on those opinions, sourced to opinion pieces, is pushing a single point of view, which fails our policies on neutrality, and verifiability. If you still "don't understand what we're talking about", could you please be a little more specific about what you're missing? Thanks --Saalstin (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kaaveh. 174.18.17.237 (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pov fork. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An obvious POV fork. This is not material that justifies a standalone article. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes for the people who asks for deletion

Unfortunately, I should say that there are some WP editors widely ignoring the available facts and sources, and trying to do their best to delete this valuable article (!?). Therefore, I am obliged to correct some of their irrational changes and deletions, and make following notes:

First, I would like to ask the people who need more reliable sources, that what kind of sources you think are available only 3 weeks after the event? Do you need a History text book, or some documents from intelligence services? Normally such documents come after decades. The coup took place only 3 weeks ago, considering this fact in addition to understand the nature of the event, Iran political situation, and blocking the national and international media may help. Surprisingly, if you check list of coups d'état and coup attempts in WP, you cannot find even one reference for most of the events which took place in the recent years and recorded in WP as coup. Then if you check the coup page and click on most of the recently added coups to the page and follow them to their WP websites, you cannot find such a piece of fact established in the History text books or written encyclopedias even for them. However, they have not been requested to be deleted (!?).

Second, all sources provided in this article to support the fact that what happened in Iran is called a “coup” have been written by professional and expert political analysts, and appeared in highly reputable journals, news websites or professional international political agency websites. Of note, none of the sources are personal blogs, even though the professional people may also have their own blogs. I would like to clarify the sources one by one:

1. Omid Memarian is a journalist and blogger known for his news analysis, regular columns and blog. He writes for the IPS (Inter Press Service) news agency and has published op-ed pieces in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and The San Francisco Chronicle. He was chief researcher for Reese Erlich’s book entitled Iran Agenda: the Real Story of U.S. Policy and The Middle East Crisis. He received the Human Rights Watch's highest honor in 2005, the ‘Human Rights Defender Award’.

2. Abbas Milani is a historian, Iranologist, and author. Milani is a Visiting Professor of Political Science and the Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University, and a Research Fellow and Co-Director of the Iran Democracy Project at the Hoover Institution. He was also an assistant professor of law and political science at the University of Tehran and a member of the board of directors of Tehran University's Center for International Studies from 1979 to 1987. He is currently the Hamid and Christian Moghadam Director of Iranian Studies at Stanford.

3. Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) is a "Think Tank Without Walls" connecting the research and action of more than 600 scholars, advocates, and activists seeking to make the United States a more responsible global partner. It is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC.

4. Mehdi Khalaji is an Iranian journalist and political analyst. He is currently a a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, focusing on Iranian politics as well as the politics of Shiite groups in the Middle East.

5. Abbas Djavadi is Associate Director of Broadcasting at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, RFE/RL, overseeing programs in Persian (Radio Farda), Dari and Pashto (Radio Free Afghanistan), Arabic (Radio Free Iraq), Tajik, Uzbek, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, and Turkmen. Abbas Djavadi has contributed to dozens of newspapers, magazines, broadcast services, and websites in Europe, the U.S., the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. He has published numerous books and dozens of articles, reports, and interviews on languages, literature, socio-linguistics, politics, culture, and history of Iran, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Central Asia, and the Middle East.

6. Danielle Pletk is vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Pletka researches topics related to the Middle East, South Asia, terrorism, and weapons proliferation, and is an American Enterprise Institute expert on Iraq. Formerly, she was a senior professional staff member for Near East and South Asia with the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1992 to 2002. She was a staff writer for Insight on the News from 1987 to 1992 and an editorial assistant with the Los Angeles Times and Reuters, working in Jerusalem from 1984 to 1985.

7. Nico Pitney is National Editor at the Huffington Post. He was previously Deputy Research Director at the Center for American Progress and Managing Editor of ThinkProgress.

8. Maziar Bahari is an Canadian-Iranian journalist and film maker. Since 1998, Bahari has been Newsweek magazine's Iran correspondent.

9. Boston Globe Editorial: At the Boston Globe, as is customary in the news industry, the editorial pages are separate from the news operation. Editorials represent the official view of the Boston Globe as a community institution. The publisher P. Steven Ainsley reserves the right to veto an editorial and usually determines political endorsements for high office.

10. Cameron Abadi covers Iran for GlobalPost. He is a Berlin-based writer with a focus on contemporary Europe and the Middle East. In addition to his work for Germany's two largest weeklies, Die Zeit and Der Spiegel, he has contributed to Foreign Policy, Financial Times magazine and the New Republic. He's also worked for the Berlin bureau of Associated Press.

11. John "Juan" Cole is an American scholar, public intellectual, and historian of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history. He is Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. Cole is president and treasurer of the Global Americana Institute, a group of academics specializing in the Middle East who are working to translate the seminal works of American democracy into various Middle Eastern languages. As a commentator on Middle Eastern affairs, he has testified before the United States Senate. He has published several peer-reviewed books on the modern Middle East. Cole has been cited in the press as a Middle East expert several times since 1990. Cole has been an active commentator in the UK and US media on topics related to the Middle East and has become a widely recognized public intellectual. He has published op-eds on the Mideast at the Washington Post, Le Monde Diplomatique, The Guardian, theSan Jose Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Review, The Nation, the Daily Star, Tikkun magazine as well as at Salon.com, where he is a frequent contributor.

12. Gary G. Sick is an American academic and analyst of Middle East affairs, with special expertise on Iran, who served on the U.S. National Security Council under three presidents. He has authored three books. Sick served on the staff of the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan, and was the principal White House aide for Persian Gulf affairs from 1976 to 1981. After leaving government service, Sick served as Deputy Director for International Affairs at the Ford Foundation from 1982 to 1987, and is the executive director of the Gulf/2000 Project at Columbia University (1993-present). He is currently an adjunct professor of International Affairs at Columbia's School of International & Public Affairs, and a senior research scholar at SIPA's Middle East Institute. In addition to his professional duties, he sits on the board of directors of Human Rights Watch, and serves as founding chair of the Advisory Committee of Human Rights Watch/Middle East.

13. openDemocracy is a website for debate about international politics and culture, offering news and opinion articles from established academics, journalists and policymakers covering current issues in world affairs. openDemocracy aims to be an open source creator of agenda-driven news commentary and analysis. openDemocracy was founded in 2000 by Anthony Barnett, David Hayes and Paul Hilder. Publishing started in March 2001. Prominent contributors to the ezine have included Shirin Ebadi, Sidney Blumenthal, David Blunkett, Peter Hain, George Soros, Kofi Annan, Pierre Bourdieu, Manuel Castells and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. openDemocracy's mission statement asserts: "openDemocracy is committed to human rights and democracy. We aim to ensure that marginalised views and voices are heard. We believe facilitating argument and understanding across geographical boundaries is vital to preventing injustice". openDemocracy has been funded by a number of philanthropic organisations (including the Ford Foundation, the Atlantic Philanthropies, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and other funders. Individual supporters have included Heidi Bergemann, John Cleese, Carl Djerassi, and Pamela Raspe, and Reinhard Hesse.

14. The International Relations and Security Network (ISN) is based at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland and is part of the Center for Security Studies.

I assume that I do not clarify the reliability and credibility of “The Boston Globe”, “The Huffington Post”, “Forbes”, “The Washington Post”, “The New York Times”, “Newsweek”, “CNN”, “Herald de Paris”, “ABC”, “Associated Press”, “ABC”, “Wall Street Journal”, “BBC”, “Guardian”, “Los Angeles Times”, “Chicago Tribune”, “The Telegraph” and etc. I hope this helps. Thank you.--Andi horn (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andi, please understand, what we are challenging is that your "facts and sources" are [of opinion]. You are using commentary, op-eds, opinion articles and blogs, and using them against our policies to try to report events, rather than opinions of events. This is why you should be in the election, or protests article, where this would be correctly dealt with by stating that "x has called these events a coup", "y believes these are a coup", and sourced to the same articles. --Saalstin (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. First, I am skeptical that you did not read my whole text as I saw your response rapidly after my post. Second, as mentioned in my las text, none of those sources used in the first paragraph to support the use of the term "coup" has been a comment in the journals. All of them are editorials, news, and articles. The whole long text which I posted some minutes ago is about this story. It is to show you and others that those first 18 references in the article are highly reliable. I encourage you to put more time on reading carefully what people write rather than disagreeing and resisting irrationally. Second, the Persian language sources have been used only in the second paragraph to show that the term "Coup of 12 June" or it's Persian equivalent "کودتای ۲۲ خرداد" has been widely used in Iran and outside. Again, thank you all for your advices. I would really appreciate if the people read carefully what others write and not repeating their same statements--Andi horn (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andi, we have carefully read what you're saying, and pointed out its problems. We will continue to do so until you address them - that you are using opinion pieces, not reliable sources, and are pushing a point of view --Saalstin (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, the most important issue to me is WP:CFORK. I just can't see the article being "rescued" with any reasonable amount of editing, since the whole topic is covered quite well (and more WP:NPOV) in both 2009 Iranian election and 2009 Iranian election protests.
— Ω (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have already posted this whole thing on the article's talk page; did it really deserve copy-and-pasting here rather than just linking? --LjL (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ohm and Saalstin--TJSpyker said it really concisely. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not an AfD. This is a naming, editing, and/or merging dispute running to Mommy for a second opinion. The sources show obvious notability, etc., so please, close this AfD quickly and focus on mediating the content dispute as what it is. This article might plausibly be merged, or it might stand on its own. If it stands on its own it should be renamed to something like 2009 Iranian election legal issues or 2009 Iranian election legitimacy issues, and efforts should be made to put content about the protests in the protests, general content about the election in the election general article, content about the legal arguments and constitutional violations in this one, with summary style followed for each. Wnt (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support or Merger of Two Articles While the protests have certainly not gotten to what we call a coup, I think that the political analysis of the situation matters with what is going on. Of course, we watch CNN or BBC and see the protests going on: but these protests are not simply going on for the faint heart. You have to understand the reasoning behind my wish to keep this article is the following; You see them chanting we want freedom and other such slogans. The system of iran is like this to prevent the control of government by the elected and clearly the Supreme leaders and his inner circle enforce it like this. The Iranian people have never saw these protests as just a Reform (like Prague Spring) but this is a movement that is wanting to get rid of the current leadership as they see the problems of the country coming from him and if he is removed, then the Reform of the System will come. So does it follow into the criteria of a coup? not yet but we certainly need such an article to explain the Political side of what is going on. Rezashah4 (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2009 (CST)

Err? This article is not about the protests. It's about the events that caused the protests; those are what it calls a "coup". The protests most certainly aren't a "coup" (how could they be?). --LjL (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One thing to keep in mind here is that we're not discussing (and no one is suggesting) the deletion of the articles which have been and continue to cover the subject that this article also covers. Again, the problem with this particular article is that it is a content fork which (apparently intentionally) is not presented with a neutral point of view.
— Ω (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: POV fork.--M.Reza (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Partial and ambiguous.IlllllllllIlllllllllIff (talk) 17:30, 11 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. Keeper | 76 04:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I warned Him

Fairly much unsourced nonsense. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. So tagged. -WarthogDemon 04:32, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IBPT Corporation

No sources offered to support notability, and few Google hits [65]. Apparent conflict of interest; only reference links to study written by author of the article. Persistent removal of templates without explanation. Same conflict of interest and vandalism of templates at Sergey Sheleg. JNW (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable company. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This company is the only company in the world working on hypothermic biopreservation using clathrate-forming gases. This company published a reserach paper in a peer reviewed journal cited in PubMed (research paper is the most aspect of notability). Ssheleg (talk)5 July 2009

Delete per nom--I don't see any notability here, and having published one paper is certainly not enough (unless that paper is called "Die im elektromagnetischen Felde auf ruhende Körper ausgeübten ponderomotorischen Kräfte " or some such thing). Drmies (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 106 Google hits (that's if you put it in quotes)--and none of them are very good. Article as written borders on a G11 due to the high COI (in fact, I'm about to block the author as a spam-only account)--but if someone who's even more rougish than I am spikes this article, I won't object. Blueboy 96 04:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Leaving aside concerns about the technology itself, there is not one single shred of evidence that the company is notable.
Note: The blocked author has also been editing Cryostasis (clathrate hydrates). That might need looking at and possibly reverting or tagging for improvement. The article is all but incomprehensible to a non-expert reader as it currently stands. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a research company. Kindly ask any wiki moderators who have some expertise in similar fields to allow this article in wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.79.70 (talk) 18:51, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Palmer (doctor)

delete, spamlike would need complete rewrite to meet standards Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Copyvio of http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A2E1HHD295JYWA among others, tagged as such. --CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~ - WP:COPYVIO - http://www.liverdisease.com/palmertwo.html — X S G 05:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per the site from which most of the content comes: "This website, and all its contents, are copyright 1994-2009 by Melissa Palmer, M.D. All Rights Reserved." Wikipedia does not have the right to use this content. — X S G 05:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per WP:COPYVIO, I've reverted the page to the most recent version which didn't contain the COPYVIO. AfD should proceed normally. — X S G 06:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - No reliable sources found to verify notability. — X S G 06:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think she's notable. I'm withdrawing my vote, and I'm going to take some time to expand her article some, noting sources. She's clearly got a conflict of interest going on, but I think this article can be saved. — X S G 06:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've looked high and low to substantiate some of the claims made, to no avail. — X S G 09:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam bio of non-notable person being used as promotion. Drawn Some (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline. GS gives h = 9, top cites 106, 48,42,33... Xxanthippe (talk) 05:59, 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 redirect to Media of India. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MAHAA TV

Delete one-liner for a tv channel with minimal context and no claim of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is way too short if I had seen this before it was placed in AfD I probably would have marked it for Speedy Deletion.Etineskid (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I understand that for US radio stations, FCC license confers notability. What's the policy for TV stations/channels? -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:21, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As per WP:POTENTIAL, if this article could get the notice of Indian wikipedians, perhaps then we could develop the article and establish it's notability. --Roaring Siren (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claims of notability, insufficient refferences, insufficient content. If an article can be written starting from scratch would be the same as starting from this article, so nothing is lost except a poor article if this is deleted. Verbal chat 09:54, 5 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 02:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Media of India for now. Per "Heritage fraud hits TV channel?", it looks like the station - which has a very nice website - is "being promoted by veteran journalist Inaganti Venkat Rao" but currently mired in some finance issues so may not be approved yet. This may be a case of too soon. -- Banjeboi 09:38, 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 Deleted by Jclemens as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Non-admin closure. CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Happy Daze (film)

Non notable film. A village of <500 producing a notable film is pretty farfetched. Probably CSD, but there doesn't seem to be one for non-notable films ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:25, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freeling Football Club

Delete. Suburban football club, below national or state level. No notability established by significant independent sources. Fails WP:GROUP and WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. -Falcon8765 (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither are notable clubs. Jevansen (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any notable information to Barossa Light & Gawler Football Association and Hills Football League respectively. florrie 23:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both and commence discussions on article talk pages about a possible merge into [Barossa Light & Gawler Football Association]] and Hills Football League respectively with no prejudice to a later split. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think a town of 1,200 can sustain any decent team. When I was a kid, the orchestra I was in went to the Barossa to play for schoolkids, and we stopped at the local school in Freeling (the only school). There are only about 80 kids aged 5-13 in this place. I doubt there would be more than 150 men in this town aged 20-35 for them to choose from, let alone relatively fit people semi-athletic people. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in its own right (the size of the town is indicative - it sounds like some of the Peel Football League town teams) Orderinchaos 11:58, 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 Deleted as hoax: this article is the top Google hit Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K-DsY

Possibly a hoax. Nothing to corroborate them being signed to Universal in Google. Link to "official" website is on a free hosting site. The "singles" in the discography are available as MP3s on that site. No indication that they have been released commercially. All the alleged members who have articles seem to be in other bands with quite different names. None of those articles mentioned this band until the author added them. Album title doesn't check out either. If it is not a hoax then it is clearly not notable. DanielRigal (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Speedy deletion was added to the article while I was submitting the AfD so this may become moot quite quickly. That said, the speedy might fail so lets not close it yet. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:02, 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 speedy delete. Tone 12:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of equations that depend on c

Not really a list, just equation examples. Not really sure what the purpose of this list is, but I assume it is too broad (hence "c" can be any variable). Zoo Fari 01:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense and for having no context. It's barely an article and doesn't really make sense as it is. Esteffect (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as no context. Rnb (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A1 criterion. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A1 or G1. Salih (talk) 11:58, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmni Theatr Ieuenctid Maldwyn

Google search shows little English results but high amounts in foreign language. Maybe notable in a different country? Zoo Fari 01:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The language is Welsh. I'm going to say weak keep because A) The low number of Google results is understandable for a Welsh language act, and B) They're mentioned in the media and on the BBC's website often. It's hard to find references for Welsh stuff, but the article indicates that they've produced lots for S4C, which as theatre group would mean appearing in lots of television shows and series. That's what swings it to a keep for me. Esteffect (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands we have an article on a theatre group with limited coverage in local/regional media. There is no indication or evidence, provided or on searching, that establishes the group meets any notability criteria. Nuttah (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if there's a list if stuff they've done on S4C. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. If there are "high amounts" of results "in foreign language", then it is notable to non-English speakers. Wikipedia does not discriminate against topics that are currently notable in only non-English speaking areas. See WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Sources like this from BBC Wales confirm its notability.--Oakshade (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; I am swayed by the sources provided by Esteffect and Oakshade. As thin as those references may be they seem to be enough to make the subject pass the guideline. BTW, I'm a bit disappointed that some users don't immediately recognize this is Welsh, given also that the (awful) first version did state "mid wales." Drmies (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Theater groups don't get a free pass on notability because they present in a language other than English. The topic of the article still must be notable and we can't ASSUME that in-depth references SHOULD exist, we have to actually have them and they must be non-trivial an reliable to support notability and verifiability. What we have here is a completely unreferenced (that's right, NO REFERENCES) stub. Drawn Some (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you bringing a straw man into this? Nobody is claiming this is notable "because they present in a language other than English." They're arguing to keep because of references found and presented here. Just because they haven't been placed into the article yet doesn't magically mean they don't exist.--Oakshade (talk) 02:01, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhro

The article was Proposed for deletion by User:9ayyad on 27 June 2009 with the concern, "Based on lies and has no reference, I am part of a group that is documenting the history of the middle east and most of what is said here is not true." Such factual disagreements are best handled via AfD, rather than PROD. Cnilep (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: I have no opinion toward deletion, but feel that, since the objections are factual rather than procedural, discussion is necessary. I note that currently the article has no references as such, but does have a list of external links. Cnilep (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individuals might be notable but i cant find anything on the family as a subject. --neon white talk 22:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 of the people have Wikipedia articles already. Based on their positions, at least 6 or 8 of the others could also ,as cabinet ministers or chairmen of major companies.Actual refs are needed, but it seems notable. DGG (talk) 04:45, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the individuals could be notable, that doesn't make the name notable. If that were the case, we'd have to say everyone with that name has automatic notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article could be written about a certain family, Bush family Kennedy family, but not about a family name, or everyone with that name. Major BLP problems if information is uncited, especially since anything negative, or that could be negative to somebody, reflects on all the other people mentioned in the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article starts out "Fakho is the family name..." which is a mistake. If all the people were closely related and connected, as are the Bushs and Kennedys covered in those family articles, then there could be an article on the "Fakho family." As it is it looks like anyone of some importance with that name is thrown into the "family." Steve Dufour (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of information mentioned about the family is not true and based on lies, I have read a lot of books about middle eastern families and Fakhro family was not mentioned the way it is on the Fakhro page and it got mentioned in early books and not in old books. The family origins and the history of the family along with the names and titles and some positions of the people that got mentioned on the page are not true.9ayyad (talk) 22:28, 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 Keep as relatively clear consensus. --JForget 18:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vampirefreaks

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable, blatant advertising. Article was previously deleted. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 00:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~Delete~~ ~~nn, ad, no claim of notability~~ though a merge would be better if a clear target was available--very minor notability for its possible connection to a series of crimes. JJL (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I found some news articles from major Canadian news sources CTV Vancouver Sun [66] [67]. I massively edited the page to include only a brief history and things verified in those articles, everything else was opinion anyways. It is seemingly notable for these crimes, but I worry that this page will not stay this way for long.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 01:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CastAStone. The sources found proves that Vampirefreaks passes WP:WEB and WP:RS. This article from Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and this magazine article from Revolver are additional sources that prove this website's notability. Cunard (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable social networking website, and more widely used than its stub-like article suggests. Esteffect (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, just needs expansion. -Falcon8765 (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:33, 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 redirect to Britain's Next Top Model. (Being bold here.) The consensus is to delete simply because she is not notable. Comparing her to other people is irrelvant to the discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lianna Fowler

Only her notability in Britain's Next Top Model and failing orphaned. It was prodded less than five weeks ago [68]. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 08:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I always consider the phrase "Up and coming" as a strong indicator that they haven't arrived at notability yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She did win a series of a what is a notable reality show. I am sure that it can be referenced. The winners of the other series all have articles. I agree about "up and coming" being a very bad sign. I have removed that. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digression: I just put "up and coming" in the search box. It is a great way to find stuff that is either poorly written or just not notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Eboni Stocks is also nominated for deletion, is less fewer notability than Fowler. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. This is a borderline WP:BLP1E. Only thing that saves it is that it's going to confuse readers if some winners have articles and others don't on a arbitrary basis on which articles happen to have been taken to AfD. I'd rather a decision was taken on articles as a whole, and reasonable outcomes could be: 1) There is enough coverage of winners for all winners to be presumed notable; 2) Winning doesn't confer enough notability in its own right but some of the winners became notable by other means (in which case the template needs to say "notable winners" instead of just winners; or 3) non of them are notable independently of the programme. Should we go for 2) or 3), merging all the winners into a single article would be a reasonable compromise. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Britain's Next Top Model is not Big Brother or Britain's Got Talent, and does not gain as wide an audience. As a reality television show, it is broadcast on Living TV, which is significantly smaller than the likes of the BBC, ITV, or even Channel Five. Furthermore, the British version of the show is not as popular as its American equivalent. As such, while the show is notable - It's a television program, after all - The winner is not unless they have achieved notability elsewhere. Esteffect (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding other winners, Lauren McAvoy seems to have appeared on a variety of other shows after winning and so in my opinion rightfully has an article. Lianne did not achieve this - She won in 2006, not recently. Lucy Emily Ratcliffe and Alex Evans (model) - The other winners - Seem to be the same. My solution would be to delete the articles of Fowler, Ratcliffe and Evans and mention their careers in the main article, whilst keeping McAvoy's as is. Esteffect (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winning recently confers no more notability than winning several years ago, but I'll take your word on the rest of it. Merge into main article (or separate article for winners) along with the others except McAvoy. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point about the fact she wasn't a recent winner is that she's had time to gain notability away from the show, and apparently hasn't done so. Esteffect (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Abigail Clancy has been more notability than Fowler, although she didn't win the series, she had covers in FHM and appearing in several television series. The American and Australian counterparts are bigger notable than the British series, although it seen more in an internet forum sites. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 06:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, single claim is a tv show that since she's been unable to gain any notability on her own. Fuzbaby (talk) 17:24, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eboni Stocks

only notable for her involvement in Australia's Next Top Model. so WP:ONEVENT applies here. she really has not had significant and ongoing coverage outside this context [69]. LibStar (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See Lianna Fowler is also nominated for deletion, she won in second series in British version, Eboni won seven months ago. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 08:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Has she done anything notable other than winning a reality show? Winning a reality show is not an automatic ticket to notability Corpx (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:53, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comes down to one event no matter how I look at it. She might be notable in the future, but I can see it as of yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable enough after her controversial news about her waitress work. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:31, 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 00:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vim-LaTeX

Contested prod. Article is about open-source software, with no reliable sources provided and none found outside of blogs and standard descriptions. I can't see how this is notable. TN X Man 15:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read here first: Talk:Vim-LaTeX. Then: reliable sources - as I've said -- if needed, I'll move all this info to the Vim or LaTeX pages. It's a utility plugin for a text editor, just like Firefox plugins. On the other hand, I must agree that Firefox is many times more notable than any text editor, just because people browse the internet more than edit the webpages. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:21, 22 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 01:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, and too minor to be a likely search term. JJL (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a plugin, and not a particularly notable one. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:14, 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. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a "keep" consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodlum Rock Vol. 1

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:NALBUMS: didn't chart[70], "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". The redirect was undone without indicating notability. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-21t14:19z 14:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:37, 21 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) 00:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This band is bona fide and the album is a major label release. Therefore meets WP/Music criteria. What's the nominator's deal? Baileyquarter (talk) 00:22, 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 merge to Modern Whig Party. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Modern Whig Party

State division of this party does not deserve its own article, ergo, Notability not noticed necessitating nomination. Baileyquarter (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about the national party. Same opinion I offered in the AfD for the Florida Whig Party.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about the national party. I have nominated an essentially similar advertisement-article on the Modern Whig Party of Texas.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator indefblocked as a sockpuppet of Wiki_brah. – iride scent 10:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the nominator is a good or bad person is not relevant.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Modern Whig Party, as with Texas, North Carolina and Florida parties. Nomination by a sockpuppet, however, goes beyond a mere technicality, and may be fatal to the nomination. Poor old Bailey Quarters. Shoulda stayed in Cincinnati. Mandsford (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is not proven through the inclusion of multiple reliable third-party sources as references. (The News & Observer reference is compelling but it's alone.) Certainly some text could be salvaged for the main party's article. - Dravecky (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and agnostic on merging). The N&O reference only establishes that there's one person in NC who's a member of this party, and that the national organization thinks NC would be a good state in which to look for more than one member. Not an assertion of notability for the NC chapter. And btw, if this nomination implodes because of untimely sock-death, I'll renominate it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Modern Whig Party Gang14 (talk) 05:39, 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. WP:NOTAVOTE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swings-N-Things

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Small amusement park with little coverage and no apparent coverage other than a single local source. Is this source really even reliable? It appears to be treated as a newspaper, but doesn't look at it; and there's apparently no detailed coverage except from one of these sources, currently reference #2, the "Unique retreats". I previously searched for coverage and couldn't find anything reliable. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I can't find any sign of the depth-of-coverage as required at WP:N guidelines for inclusion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Jayron32. I am also unable to find coverage of the sort that indicates notability. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Swings-N-Things pioneered the family entertainment industry and continues as a leader and innovator in the industry. The first two references are reliable, the first actually being a magazine and the second a major business newspaper in Cleveland. The articles are no longer available on their original website, so they are linked to in Access My Library. Also, this article has more verifiable information and this place is more notable than many of the other amusement park stubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TPOLMike (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a good article and the place is important to people of Cleveland and is responsible for many first's in the FEC industry nationally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.187.100 (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC) — 70.183.187.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Sources look pretty reliable to me!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.179.100 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC) — 72.240.179.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never heard of it. Even if I had heard of it, doesn't seem signficant enough. Seems Hoaxalicious. Baileyquarter (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bailey here was banned as a sock puppet of Wiki Blah. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now, it's close, hey, everyone who said keep, do you have any National sources or coverage for this?--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 01:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage, so doesn't pass WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Also, Gnews shows way more hits for a similarly named retailer in SoCal. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:22, 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. Consensus holds that neither article has received enough coverage to demonstrate notability; and the second article has the additional dubious honour of making no sense and contradicting itself. ~ mazca ^talk 19:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia Unwired Tour 2003

Non notable concert tour. Nothing to make this tour any more notable than any other tour. No widespread media coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Comment. Nokia Unwired Tour 2009 in its current form is one of the most confused articles I've ever seen. It can't agree with itself on the name, the sponsor, the tour, the year, or the bands. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 28 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) 00:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreeing with nom, not seeing the notability. Tavix | Talk 18:16, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autoworld.com.my

Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the company has generated sufficient third party coverage to warrant inclusion, as evidenced by the numerous sources already used in the article. (Additional sources are also available). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable web site; violates WP:N and WP:SPAM --mhking (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established through the article's sources. An advertising-like tone can be solved through editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to be enough notabilit yto warrant inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:15, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the sources available. Tavix | Talk 17:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:31, 11 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. Insufficient coverage has been demonstrated to meet any notability guidelines. ~ mazca ^talk 19:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Powers

Gay pornstar with no notability established Corpx (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not seeing any claim that he has won any awards or is notable for anything else. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:44, 28 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) 00:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:03, 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 redirect to FedEx. Insufficient notability demonstrated to comply with WP:CORP and warrant an independent article. The history has been left intact if anyone feels there is sufficient relevant information to merge. ~ mazca ^talk 19:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Trade Networks

Local award, but still fails WP:CORP criteria --Oscarthecat (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Oscarthecat (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:01, 28 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) 23:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FedEx. For now. This isn't a separate company, it merely used to be. It may deserve its own page, but not with whats on it. It is not, however, inconceivable that someone will search for this, so for the time being, redirect, with a back up vote of keep.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 01:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect with FedEx. This company does have a homepage: [71]. However, they are clearly related. This may merit a separate article someday, but not in it's current state.Dave (talk) 06:11, 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 redirect to Paul's Boutique . Actually, someone did it before the closure of the discussion --JForget 18:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for Janice

Non-notable "song". KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 22:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect per Resolute below due to utter lack of outside coverage. Not even close.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 01:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing about the 11 second long "song" appears notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album Paul's Boutique, which I believe is pretty much the standard for cases such as this. Reso lute 05:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect yadda yadda riffic (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (since there is nothing here to merge). Drmies (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the album. Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 06:12, 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.