Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 3

< 2 November	4 November >

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 keep. Withdrew due to changed content. Keep (non-admin closure) Btilm 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film Victoria

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

Belongs in wiktionary. Btilm 23:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wiktionary is for dictionary definitions, this is about a government agency in Australia. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article would seem to be in need of expansion. it's too short a stub for me to judge at this point. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stub has now been expanded with many references to assert notability. Lugnuts (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a WP article now. Sources are adequate, and article is not promotional Good work by Shirt58. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Film Victoria is a major part of Australian film history and this will probably one day be a great article. New material added to article provides evidence for that view and support for it to pass WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the article doesn't quite do it justice yet, but Film Australia is that country's public film producer, somewhat akin to the National Film Board of Canada and is clearly notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with everyone now. When I marked it for deletion, it had little information on it. Btilm 13:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Bold redirect NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Elements

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

This page is nonsense Mschilz20 (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Five elements. BlazerKnight (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lordi. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lordi's Rocktaurant

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

fails WP:CORP. can't see why this restaurant deserves its own article except being an advert. gnews [1] LibStar (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 23:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 23:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lordi, not that deleting would do much harm. I would caution against Gnews for a small business in a non-English-speaking country, though. Regardless, as a longterm fan I must say this fancruft needs to go right now. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lordy Lordy, Redirect per Sandman. Mandsford (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lordi. No evidence of independent notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lordi. Non-notable by itself but worthy of inclusion in the Lordi article. Transmissionelement (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Acklin

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

Non-notable attorney. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as mere candidate for office. See similar situation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen L. Robinson. Blargh29 (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians has three bullets. I am going to quote the third, in full, and ask the contributor who nominated this article to explain why he or she doesn't think the references to the Acklin article fulfill: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Geo Swan (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

Because all of those sources are within the context of the campaign, so they are not evidence of notability. See the above-refered "primary criterion" in the intro to WP:N, which describes notability as "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Therefore, sources in the context of a (now) failed independent campaign do not demonstrate notability. Right now, all the subject is known for is being a candidate for office, which is not notable.--Blargh29 (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but I don't see how the first and third sentences of the comment above has any connection to the Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. The man was covered, extensively, by WP:RS, which, in their judgment, thought he was "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Geo Swan (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:N - significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Being a candidate for office may be notable in and of itself where it's widely recognised and commented on in relevant forums (see WP:POLITICIAN) and that's the case here. (Certainly many candidates for office never receive this attention.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I've added a number of links to Talk:Kevin Acklin that provide significant coverage of Acklin's community and political activities. I added links until I got tired; there were plenty more listed in the convenient Google News search links listed above. No top results from PoliticsPA, a shame for sure, but subject more than meets notability requirements for anything WP:BLP, politician or not. Flowanda | Talk 06:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also appears to be copyvio from the looks of it. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Forget Your Cape!

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

No evidence of notability. A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likewise, I found no sources for verification/evidence of notability. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 23:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to establish notability. Not even unreliable sources like blog posts. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. deleting because of the lack if sourcing, we should only merge sourced content Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematosis

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

not notable; undeniably coined by Quine, article makes no claim of notability beyond that fact. Terms are not elegible for a speedy deletion, even without a claim of notability. {{Prod}} removed by article creator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked this up in Quine's book ("Quiddities"), and it turns out the original is very funny and very insightful. Gregbard has turned it into... something else, but that could be fixed. If the topic was notable. I am afraid it isn't, but I am sure the Quiddities are. So I suggest renaming this article and enlarging its scope. Hans Adler 20:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Willard Van Orman Quine Certainly not notable on its own, but the Quine article isn't overly long and could probably support a sentence or two on this (admittedly funny) neologism. 67.118.103.210 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete or smerge to Willard Van Orman Quine. I haven't read the Quine book; if in the judgment of those more familiar with Quine this is a point worth putting in his bio, then fine. As a standalone article I am tempted to suspect that its main purpose is for Greg to tweak the mathematics editors. --Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A guilty conscience needs no accuser. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very same could be applied to you since this pretty much confirms the article is a bad-faith WP:POINT exercise on your part. But that's unsurprising, really 71.139.41.169 (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There are articles about all kinds of syndromes, crimes, problem behavior, logical fallacies, etcetera. There is no cause to take things personally. That interpretation of things is 100% a product of your own bad attitude. Your comment is conspicuous in how unnecessary it is, you must feel very threatened or something. Hey listen, I just want to account for a lot of foundational material in logic articles, and that is a wonderful project. If you see that as a threat, that's POV on you. All of my contributions consist in subject matter not POV. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How totally disingenuous. Why else would you feel compelled to chime in with your moralizing 'a guilty conscience needs no accuser' if you weren't interested in (as Trovatore quite aptly puts it) "tweaking the mathematics editors". I'm not threatened by your tiresome whinging about how mean "WP:MATH' are to you (And how the page on formatting mathematics articles can be mean to you is a mystery). Not threatened, just bored. 71.139.11.9 (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything bullies hate, its someone who defends themselves in an attack. It's consistent with the cowardly anonymity, too. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "smerge" a typo or some bit of AfD jargon I'm unfamiliar with? Paul August ☎ 04:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short for "slight merge". It means merge, but not very much. --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are lucky you can read the original definition here. It's worth it. Hans Adler 21:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me at least more of Quine's text was available here. Paul August ☎ 17:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect per ip UltraMagnus^speak 11:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not notable enough for its own article, so delete, or merge (perhaps to "Quiddities"). If the content is kept it needs to be rewritten more faithfully. What's there now paints the "syndrome" in a more serious light than Quine intended. See for example Hilary Putnam's Realism with a Human Face (Harvard University Press, 1992, p. 268): "In his book Quiddities, ... Quine pokes fun or grumbles good-naturedly at various pet peeves. (The essays on Artificial Languages, Extravagance, Mathematosis, Usage and Abusage are wonderful examples.)'" Paul August ☎ 04:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete with no merge let's not reward bad behavior. 71.139.41.169 (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous uncivil attacks. The article is in good faith and you have a bad attitude. Myself, I have a wonderful attitude: it doesn't matter if it ends up deleted because it will just move to Wikipedia essay space. Do the votes of anonymous editors count at all? That would be pretty questionable. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a vote, for one thing, it's a discussion. As to your other point please review Wikipedia:IP#Anonymous_users, Wikipedia:IPs_are_human_too 71.139.11.9 (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first is just an essay, the second just documents technical permissions --UltraMagnus^speak 17:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless. I'm done with this anyway, engaging with Greg on any level is about as fruitful as shining a penlight into a black hole 71.139.11.9 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

71, it probably would be better to register an account if you want to participate in procedural matters, as opposed to making non-controversial edits in mainspace. It is frustrating to argue with a voice having no fixed ___location. In your case it's easy to find your contributions in this particular discussion, but it aids understanding when editors can look up your contributions elsewhere and get a better idea where you're coming from in general. --Trovatore (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to understand you perfectly clearly. You admit you are incapable of communicating in a civil manner toward the purpose of improving article content. Whatever account you are being sock puppet for should be banned at some point. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect per ip and UltraMagnus. Shanata (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Thanks for pointing it out, the original text is quite funny. It might make a good anecdote in Quine but the current text is just wrong. I think it is a case of the thing I keep coming across of people saying of others what's true of themselves. Dmcq (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term you are searching for is projection. I would be quite fascinated about exactly why you think it is just wrong.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'it' referred to the article in wikipedia. In my opinion the article is a very POV and unfunny summary which does Quine a disservice. Dmcq (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This term does appear to have been used elsewhere in the literature besides Quiddities. Google books, for instance, turns up the The legacy of Ludwig Von Mises by Peter J. Boettke, Peter T. Leeson [2] which introduces and defines the term independently of Quine. Other references to the term, of which there are only a few on Google books and Google scholar, appear mostly as references to the Quine's article rather than a critical commentary on the term itself. There simply aren't enough secondary sources. Le Docteur (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Bottke's and Leeson's summary is accurate, Mises's meaning for the term seems to have little to do with Quine's. Interesting though; good find! --Trovatore (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not wholly different though; one of Quine's paragraphs is about (what he sees as) excessive mathematization: that it is better to speak of a subclass than of the corresponding truth function. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to a rewrite summarizing neutrally the several distinct things Quine considers mathematosis and describing it as Quine's opinions, in a book modelled, as its preface says, on Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge At this point the article is little more than a dictionary definition. Accuracy and notability issues raised by other editors are troubling as well. Ray^Talk 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the term is not notable enough for its own article, merge into Willard Van Orman Quine, per above.--Pink Bull (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem notable enough for its own article; delete. But I wouldn't object to moving it to Quine. Crepuscular Dawn (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into pernicious influence of mathematics on science, writing this new article using these sources: [3], [4] etc. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps userfication is appropriate? Le Docteur (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of any notability whatsoever, and I don't think it's significant enough to warrant merging to Willard Van Orman Quine. If we were to write an article on the book, that might make an appropriate merge target, though I'd suggest rewriting it from scratch. Huon (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. deletion because we cant merge unsourced content and assertions of notability cannot outweigh piolicy based deletion arguments Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonkers (pricing game)

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

Unsourced entirely, only source is the Golden Road fansite. No way could any of this indiscriminate trivia ever be sourced. Survived a bundle AFD in 2007 with no consensus. Tagged for lack of sources since 11/07 with no improvement. (There are more of these, but I don't want to crapflood AFD.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd merge more than delete, as they don't need to be separated. Oppose deletion, Support merging. You are opening a can of possible drama.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The_Price_Is_Right_(U.S._game_show), it is not notable enough for its own article UltraMagnus^speak 11:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The detail of this, already in Golden Road fansite, is more appropriate for the Price Is Right Wiki. It isn't Wikipedia's function to duplicate a fan site. Bonkers seems to be a variation of the higher/lower game and, to my knowledge, is not notable by itself. Mandsford (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Price Is Right article is large enough. The game has been around for a while and undoubtedly has sources. the problem with tracking down sources is that the name of the game is somewhat generic and google searches churn out mostly false positives. --Pink Bull (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. looks like there is a consensus for a list but not the standalone articles which can probably be redirected to the list per this discussion Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Price Is Right pricing games

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

This includes all the pricing games, but I don't want a massive bundle afd with some 103 articles. Anyway, these were all listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Price is Right pricing games back in 2007 with a result of no consensus, then kept in May 2009 because of a weak afd argument. Since either AFD, there has been no improvement whatsoever to any of the articles: no secondary sources, and I doubt there will ever be any outside a few fansites. Yes, I understand that the pricing games pretty much are the game, but do we really need 103 different articles on every single one, going into such indiscriminate, slobbering-fanboy detail? This ain't Golden Road.net, folks. If you can't source it, lose it. ~~At the very minimum, I wouldn't mind a merge to a list that gives one-or-two-sentence summaries.~~ Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. There are no sources on this article, and it contributes nothing to the humanity base of knowledge. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or significantly compress and Merge into a much more reasonable article. At least some of this can presumably be sourced, as there are at least two printed books about The Price Is Right (Come On Down, ISBN 0061350117 and Priceless Memories, ISBN 1599951355), but a seperate article on every single game is way too much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for future merging of game articles. - We don't need to get rid of everything, as this would make a better place for the articles of the games.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I don't think even a merge would work, as there'd be no way to source even if they were clumped into one list. My main concern now is that none of this will ever be sourced, whether it's spread out or in one big list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to make it huge, it can always be done. Sourcing can be found.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have any of the 103 games become essential standalone fixtures in U.S. popular culture? If not, then the list and, later, the articles on each of the 103 games can easily be deleted. Warrah (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Plinko might stand a chance, but otherwise I doubt any of these. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the list, delete the other articles I'm happy to say that there is now a Price Is Right Wiki that can accomodate things of this nature. As with the TV episode articles, the entertainment wikis have been an appropriate place to transfer fancruft. This is proof positive that Wikipedia is different now than what it was in 2005. I'd be happy to assist a TPIR fan in the process of transferring these 103 separate articles to a place where they can thrive. Mandsford (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The information contained in this article, with links to descriptions of the more notable games, can be found on the show's Website here: http://www.priceisright.com/show. Would it be acceptable to replace the article with a link to that page from the appropriate point in the parent article on the show? Granted, the show Website is not an independent source, but we're talking about a simple descriptive list, not an analysis of any kind. JTRH (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments for deletion above would be good arguments for deletion of individual articles about the games, but not for the list. What is not notable enough content for an article can be a suitable line of content in a more general list. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the argument that the games are not individually "essential standalone fixtures in U.S. popular culture" is not a reason for even the deletion of an an individual article. That criterion amounts to "famous" and notability is much less than famous. This is not an abridged encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I tend to agree with your opinion and commentary oh about 10 out of 10 times, and it is really, really rare that I sidestep my completely inclusionist views in line with setting up a very comprehensive knowledge base for humanity, but in this case this compares to me to doing an article about every single word puzzle on Wheel of Fortune, or that show with Whammys, doing an article on a description of the drawing of every single whammy ever... I have to agree with nominator's sentiments here; but do we really need 103 different articles on every single one, going into such indiscriminate, slobbering-fanboy detail? . Turqoise127 (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rename, and Merge this would be a good alternative target to merge all the pricing games into UltraMagnus^speak 11:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I can't blame my friend TenPound for not nominating 103 individual articles about games, it is somewhat awkward that what's nominated is the only one of the articles that one might want to keep -- i.e., a simple list of the games. I'll confess that I was confused and urged "delete all", although I don't see a problem with the one article that's actually nominated. I've amended my !vote accordingly. Mandsford (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this list, but DELETE the individual articles. I do "want a massive bundle afd with some 103 articles". Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list; at a bare minimum, a one- or two-sentence description of each game is entirely appropriate. I still would prefer to keep the articles themselves, since the whole idea behind creating them was to provide a more complete description of the rules, prizes offered, consumer knowledge required (i.e., small prizes or grocery items, where applicable), and - where applicable - place in pop culture. That said, I am happy that a TPiR wiki was started, so at the very least, if articles on the pricing games have not been created, if the individual pricing game articles are deleted on this wiki, then they can be transwikied there. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep it is merely a list with links to the individual articles. 99.155.149.243 (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Weak prior AfD argument" does not comprise a strong AfD argument. Absent any solid reason for delerion, I default to Keep. Collect (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a problem with merging: even if we do, how will we secondarily source this? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article, delete individual articles and possibly merge into this article. Almost all of the individual articles are unsourced or use a fansite for a reference. No need to continually perpetuate these articles as fan pages here. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!: One of the most notable gameshows in American history, and the games are probably more enduring than your average popstar. No reason to nuke the list. - BalthCat (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete individual articles. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tan | 39 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lifelike

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

No reliable sources or assertion of notability. Only cited source describes itself as a "street blog".[5] A recording artist who apparently never charted? Durova³⁵⁵ 20:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BAND, and WP:N. Frmatt (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only source (aside from self-promotion) is a website interview, which does not appear to be a reliable source. Further, I received an email from the now-banned User:Management Lifelike threatening legal action for my edits to this page. Not a good way to deal with publicity! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. Ironholds (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , strong support. Not notable, as per wikipedia policy. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BAND guidelines for notability. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I can't seem to find any reliable sources that would establish notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and salt per the concerns others have mentioned. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:BAND / WP:N (if WP:BAND is not the correct guideline as that is for groups, not producers). Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to ward off lawsuit mongers. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 20:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per this ANI discussion salting might be a very good idea. Two different users have received legal threats concerning this page. Durova³⁵⁵ 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per above, lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Zhaohuan

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

The peacock language used in the article made me doubt the notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is very flowery and it needs a rewrite. But Prof. Zhang appears to be notable - try a Google search for "Zhang Zhao-Huan" instead of "Zhang Zhaohuan." It would help if a Chinese-fluent editor can offer assistance in searching out references. Warrah (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well, I am fluent in Chinese, but there are actually not many Chinese references to him on the Web that are of substance, and I don't know the field well enough. I still believe he's not sufficiently notable, but obviously I understand differences of opinions here. --Nlu (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Puffery is not per se a reason for deletion. Person is notable [6] as nearly as I can tell. Collect (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. I do not see evidence of satisfying WP:ACADEMIC here, sich as significant citability of his work. Kinoq (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. This needs to be relisted. I fear that we need a more thorough investigation of the sources, including a search by his Chinese name. Precipitously deleting this article would be bad, but it is also possible that Google is right and his contributions are minimal. Abductive (reasoning) 00:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Any discussion of a merger can be made on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Bottom

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

This topic is unworthy of its own article, there is no such notable expression as Brown Bottom. Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I beg to differ that there is no such expression - [7] [8] [9] ArcAngel (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. For the avoidance of doubt, keep. -- Testing times (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, the first link is a blogspot and one is the times, I will look at that, however the expression Brown Bottom is not a notable one, and the issue is covered in other articles and unworthy of its own article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which other articles cover this issue to the level of detail included in this article? This article deals with two related issues - the lowest point in the value of gold for 20 years (notable, I would say) and the UK's decision to sell half of its gold reserves at that point (also notable). There are plenty of other less reliable sources using this term already. Another example.[10] -- Testing times (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article written in 2007, comments, now nicknamed the “Brown Bottom” by dealers as it says, the nickname was perhaps taken up by people involved but it is not notable and not commonly known or used. This is well covered in the brown article.Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This is well covered in the brown article" - presumably you mean the two sentences in Gordon Brown, before I added another one? The old ones used to read:

Between 1999 and 2002 Brown sold 60% of the UK's gold reserves at $275 an ounce. A frequent criticism of this decision was that an unprecedented rise in the gold price since has resulted in £2billion of lost potential revenue.[11]

(That reference is the same article in The Times, incidentally.) This article goes into much more detail. That is the essence of WP:Summary style-- Testing times (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again that link is a specialised gold article, what you could call bullionblog. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This wikipedia is not here to take a non notable expression and give it airtime. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "now" referred to as such in 2007, and still referred to as such in 2009. The term has obtained some currency amongst gold traders - in much the same way as the ERM crisis became "Black Wednesday" - and I doubt it will go away. Some other examples:[12][13] I have two good examples from moneyweek.com - "is-it-still-worth-buying-gold-14434.aspx" and "three-sound-reasons-to-own-gold-14772.aspx" - but they are blocked by the spam filter for some reason. -- Testing times (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not notable and not needed, it's like some kind of content forking. Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you are saying. What content is forked into this article? -- Testing times (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post your comments out of position and out of the timeline, I have added a link to the brown talk page to allow other interested users to add comments here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you have added a link from Talk:Gordon Brown. Regarding "out of position and out of the timeline", you said the same thing on my talk page (actually, you said it was "wrong and confusing"). As I said there, all of my comments have a timestamp and are appropriately indented so you can easily see who is replying to what and when. I am sorry if you find that confusing. Unfortunately, I am not aware of an easier way of arranging things. Incidentally, are you going to add links from the talk pages of the other articles that link to this one too - Talk:Gold, Talk:Market trend and Talk:Black Wednesday? -- Testing times (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another article that also uses this term from The Daily Telegraph. -- Testing times (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or preferably Merge to an existing article that pertains to information about gold and gold values. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to an article about gold/gold markets. I had not heard of the term before seeing it in the article title and I was expecting to find it in limited use mainly by blogs in political opposition to Brown. However, doing a quick Google search for "Brown Bottom" and "Brown's Bottom" I was quite surprised to find a high proportion of returns about this subject (for "Brown Bottom" there are 14 related entries out of the top 20). While most of the results are from blogs and otherwise unreliable sources it is an indicatication that the term has entered fairly common usage, though there are also a reasonable number of reliable sources to base Wiki text on. Anecdotally, I noticed that most of the ones I have found are from commentators about international economic policy or gold markets with no obvious links to UK politics, which suggests it has gone beyond the level of an attack phrase by political opponents. One thing that should be considered though is that "Brown's Bottom" seems to be a more common usage than "Brown Bottom" so it might be worth considering a rename if the article is kept. Here is another usable source I stumbled across in my search from the Birmingham Post. Road Wizard (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again that link is a piece actually advertising gold sales, this expression is not notable at all, perhaps in some corners of the gold trading community, neither has the expression been widely reported in respected sources, have a look at the title of this page Brown Bottom is this a joke? This name is absolutely not notable and the idea that there should be a wikipedia page with this title is just plain silly. Off2riorob (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the Birmingham Post link then calling it a "piece actually advertising gold sales" is a misrepresentation of the source. It appears to be an opinion piece published by a newspaper that discusses the trade in gold commodities; it does not try to sell a product and specifically discusses the losses that can be made on the commodity market as well as the gains. Though it is an opinion piece, the tone is politically neutral which lends weight to the proposition that the term is more than just the common political slander written about government officials.

There is no requirement for a term to be in "common use" by the public for it to be included in Wikipedia. Specialist terms primarily used in specific industries often qualify for inclusion provided that they have adequate sourcing. That this term is used by people in the gold commodity market and that we have several sources to support it means that notability for the term's inclusion has been established. Whether it qualifies for its own dedicated article or a subsection of an existing article is a slightly separate question.

Personal dislike for an article name is not a particularly strong reason for deletion. An alternative name for the article could be Gold price slump (1999 to 2002) with a redirect from Brown Bottom and Brown's Bottom. The opening sentence could be something along the lines of:

The Gold price slump (1999 to 2002) sometimes referred to as Brown's Bottom was the period from 1999 to 2002 when gold prices were the lowest for 20 years following an extended bear market.

Would a rename of the article be an acceptable solution? Road Wizard (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say merge with something is a better solution than a rename, but if you merge it there is nothing here that is not already sitting happily in other articles so it may as well be deleted. Hhere should be no redirect from browns bottom anything, it is an attack and I live in the UK and I have never heard the expression ever, brown bottom, this is an encyclopaedia not a children's comic. Oh how we larfed. Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, not having a strong opinion on keeping or merging the article myself, I just want to point out that "I have never heard of it" is never justification for judging an article - it's why wikipedia exists (to introduce new knowledge and expand upon what knowledge you may already have).--Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 17:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it is not here to publicise lesser known or not widely used expressions. Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a separate argument, and does not nullify what I pointed out above. As I've said, I have no strong opinion regarding this particular AfD, but having read through the arguments that one particular comment stood out as counter-intuitive. No offense intended. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 17:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer it if while you were here commenting that you would have a look and comment regarding the Brown Bottom issue. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a few more sources using this term to the article, but a cursory Google or Bing will throw up dozens more. It is clearly not being used as a joke or an attack - it is an eponym. Yes, most of the sources are sites that concentrate on gold trading, but what do you expect: this is a term used mostly in that business, although the term has leaked out into the mainstream press a few times. I have also added details of the 1999 Washington Agreement on Gold (which should perhaps be moved to Central Bank Gold Agreement) which is also relevant.

I could be persuaded that Brown's Bottom (or Brown's bottom) is the right place for this - the usage seems rather mixed. Gold price slump (1999 to 2002) is not quite right - there was not a slump in 1999 to 2002, and there was a peak at the end of 1999 too: the price of gold was in the doldrums for 20 years before hitting a double trough, after which it has risen spectacularly.

Off2riorob, you say that "there is nothing here that is not already sitting happily in other articles". Which other articles contain everything in this article? -- Testing times (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. this article establishes the term's notability. in any case, the decision to sell the gold is clearly a notable event and is deserving of a stand-alone article.--Pink Bull (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Theological Seminary

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

There are no significant, independent, reliable secondary sources demonstrating the notability of this institution. Ἀλήθεια 19:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. As nominator, I would like to speak first to this. From the talk page, here are some searches that came up empty: Peterson's Quick Graduate School Search ([14]), and the College Navigator found at the National Center for Education Statistics ([15]). Additionally, even though the domains are registered, neither urls have webpages: hits.edu and icgs.edu. Ἀλήθεια 19:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible hoax? Maybe a "paper college," where it exists only on paper. I found some random mentions in Google Books. But nothing in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education [16]. It shouldn't be this hard to confirm the existence of a college. Until we can, delete it, I say.--Blargh29 (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Carnegie Classifications lists this college under its old name. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Carnegie gives it (under old name) as having enrollment of 57 (Students -?). That makes it hardly notable, but there are a lot of theological colleges on that scale, since they tend only to offer course in theology. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My search results suggest that this may be a now-defunct or dormant institution, although even this is not clear. Some details:

I found a tantalizing September 2009 reference in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin to "The Rev. Bong R. Ro, professor of church history and missions at the Hawaii Theological Seminary". [17]

Otherwise, everything is rather old. At http://www.eslhawaii.us is an operative website entitled "English as a Second Language Program: International College and Graduate School Hawaii USA" . This website includes brochures, application information, etc.; however, all the information on this website is dated 2005.

The Wayback Machine has listings for versions of http://icgshawaii.org from September 27, 2002 to April 21, 2008. (The later versions are not available for viewing.)[18] The Wayback Machine also has listings for http://www.hits.edu from May 9, 2006 to July 16, 2008.[19] It appears that the content of this website has changed significantly from version to version. Here is one of the more detailed versions of the page, stating:

"Hawai‘i Theological Seminary—the re-creation of International College & Graduate School—is a member of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS), having been awarded Reaffirmed status as a Category IV institution by the TRACS Accreditation Commission on September 20, 2000; this status is effective for a period of ten years."

Third party coverage is scanty outside of catalogs and listings. It seems clear that the International College and Graduate Seminary did exist. Here is a mention of the school in a 2006 religion column in the Honolulu Star Bulletin.[20] A search at Newsbank (pay site) turns up a couple dozen other hits, although based on the headlines none appear to be direct coverage.

I am not sure where all this takes us in terms of the article. I am inclined to think that the school's past notability is established, if only marginally, so an article is warranted per WP:NTEMP. However, the current content of the article seems to be inaccurate based on the absence of evidence of the school's current existence. I didn't find any third party reliable source coverage of the school's apparent name and ___location changes. I did find the following in a 2006 blog post, but I don't think it's WP:RS:

It appears that International College and Graduate School in Honolulu is emerging from a period of chaos with a new identity, new name (Hawai'i Theological Seminary), and new focus. Eric Sorenson and I had lunch yesterday with Randy Furushima, one of the pastors at Wellspring Covenant Church, who is now on the board of regents. It sounds like they're going to put some attention into re-creating the school so that it is more indigenous in focus.[21]

--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a result of the searches given above. Size of seminaries is not a major issue -- Harvard Divinity only has a total enrollment of about 400. Collect (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that size doesn't matter, but notability does. If, and when, reliable sources become available, then an article should be recreated. I don't disagree that this school exists (or existed), but it hasn't established notability. I am also not opposed to the creation of an article under the school's old name, provided that it clearly states "ICGS was a...", and that notability is demonstrated with substantial, reliable, third party sources. Hokie RNB 18:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; It's all rubbish, but that was a substantial search. The school that's the name of article no longer seems to exist, last mentioned for 2007. Every alternate name given in this discussion either also does not exist, or does have a new website/name, but it's a camped commercial website. The closest thing to "right" i could find is this[22], but it's 100% advertising spam if you click anything. If this school does exist in some form under some name and actually has a normal website without promotional links all over the place, I'll reconsider. Otherwise there's no other choice than to delete since we have no sources and no concrete proof it exists in any variation of the name. Can't really have an article on something we can't even locate. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of reliable sources have been provided to say that this institution existed, both under its current and previous name. Any encyclopedia covers history as well as (or, in fact, better than) current events, so the fact that it doesn't currently have a web site is irrelevant to notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It evidently exists so is should be kept per the consensus of previous afd discussions, which consider graduate schools to be ipso facto notable. I would not place a great emphasis on the lack of internet information about this school, as certain religious entities may shy away from all things internet. --Pink Bull (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that I have !voted yet, so keep per the sources available that show that this was a notable seminary, and notability does not expire if a subject ceases to exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Phil Bridger's reasoning, and it's clear enough to me that ICGS was a real grad school, thus notable and qualified for an article. I am not sure, however, just what the article should say; specifically, it's not clear to me that there is an adequate reliable source for the proposition that "Hawaii Theological Seminary" "is" (or "was"?) the (or "a"?) successor to ICGS, even though it seems likely that this is true. So I suppose I'd remain open to renaming the article back to International College and Graduate School; I don't see any reason to delete it, though.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 19:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative HIV viewpoints

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

PoV fork of AIDS denialism - not a likley search target. Hipocrite (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork of the classic sort. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not a POV fork. This article falls within Alternative Viewpoints. The deletion is a form of personal attack for not sharing the same viewpoint. The information contained in the article is not a substrate of AIDS denialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuromancer (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. Yet another POV fork. These "alternative viewpoints" aren't even alternative viewpoints. Just one editor's synthetic article based on sources that are part of the normal scientific process. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (ergo de facto delete) - easily handled by AIDS denialism. A loving treatment of rejected minority opinions is both unnecessary and inappropriate. Alternative viewpoints is about notable views. In scholarly circles, the view of AIDS deniers are not notable, not even a little. The scientific consensus is that HIV causes AIDS, the only people who deny this are now ostracized and can get no credible venues for their views. That's a tiny minority and going into each rationalization gives too much weight to the perspective.

Addendum - after removing all of the synthesis, the unsourced speculation, the outdated sources documenting veiws from the early 80s and the empty section headings, all that's left is a three-sentence, unsourced lead. The page was essentially a list of all the ways a false positive could have been generated, and a couple interviews in unreliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding any assessment of the content that the author included in the article, how can you say that there are no notable alternative viewpoints? The viewpoint that South African President Thabo Mbeki espoused was most certainly WP:Notable, written about in the mainstream press for years. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And is more than adequately covered in Aids denialism. Hipocrite (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Hipocrite, and that's a political controversy, not the scientific controversy that this article purported to discuss. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - bad POV fork--Blargh29 (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - awful and intentional POV fork, of no merge value. The "alternative views" and "personal attack" defence isn't one I've seen before, and has no standing anyway. Verbal chat 21:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet another WP:POVFORK of material already covered in AIDS denialism. And Neuromancer (talk · contribs) should probably be convinced to stop creating these POV forks, though s/he has proven a bit resistant to outside input thus far. MastCell ^Talk 04:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find it very difficult for a normal discussion to function if an article is converted from this to this. While I understand the need to remove information that isn't in line with policy, it seems a bit extreme to aggressively do that while the author has been blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review exactly what I removed previously, I think it very, very clearly becomes apparent just why the page was a bad choice. The sources aren't really sources - about 70 of them promoted the idea that HIV tests were unreliable and produced many false positives, with no context to show how reliable they are aside from these instances. There was large amounts of unsourced text, some extremely old references to controversies which aren't controversial anymore because it's not 1984, and featured such delightful sentences as "There is a semi clandestine/censored debate regarding the isolation and purification of HIV" - no source. There was a large coatrack about the steps to prove the HIV virus exists, sourced to the denialism Perth Group. There was nothing worth keeping, but if anyone is curious, the relevant version is here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand the need. I guess I'll just ask, for the courtesy to the closing admin, to indicate if there are largely different versions when discussions are going on. However, since the discussions aren't much of a discussion, it's a moot point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the comments are addressing the title and topic, which are independent of the actual content of the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this stub adds no value to Wikipedia and is simply an impassioned defense of a discredited WP:FRINGE POV. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content is redundant, fringe and essentially a recreation of a deleted article. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Duh-l33t for the obvious reasons. JFW | T@lk 21:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems an attempt to bypass review by other editors at AIDS denialism so that the author could misrepresent the science without correction. Narayanese (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ Here is my issue... The article get changed to a forward before a discussion takes place. I revert it. Then it gets nominated for deletion. My understanding is that this is a seven day process. The article then gets whittled down to a stub. Then the edit history gets deleted. How this is accomplished is beyond me without an Admin doing it. Furthermore, the information presented is claimed to be out of date, and misinterpreted, yet there are no references as to why this is so. I understand that the information is controversial in nature. However, it is referenced, well written, well cited, and NOT an original synthesis by any means. To date, no one has been able to provide a reference as to why these citation are wrong, out of date, or misinterpreted. No discussion takes place, because no one cares to discuss. The information is contrary to what the regular editors of HIV AIDS denialism, and before anyone outside of that limited sphere of influence can even look at the page, it is deleted and forwarded. Then I get a 24 ban, and comments left on my talk page referring to a cabal. It is frustrating to say the least. Neuromancer (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You only get to vote once, Neuromancer. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the content meant more than the votes... Neuromancer (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean you should add "Keep" more than once. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As others have hinted at, please use Comment in future if you have additional comments. I don't see any evidence the article was deleted, see [23] for example and [24]. Perhaps you're looking at the wrong page. You originally created Alternative HIV Viewpoints which doesn't follow capitalisation norms so was moved (the proper way) to Alternative HIV viewpoints and the edit history is there not [25] Nil Einne (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An obviously POV content fork. The article appears to be advocating AIDS denialism, which is very fringe and already has its own article. Fences&Windows 03:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inoculate with deletion virus The article itself says "It is an alternative term for AIDS denialism" -- so at best, this would end up as a redirect to AIDS denialism. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely a POV fork. JoeSmack ^Talk 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This isn't a POV fork. It's legitimate and verifiable information. The POV aritcle is actually AIDS denialism. That article is written with same sort of misguided passion that labels Dambisa Moyo a genocidal maniac for recommending that Africa go cold turkey on finacial aid (though it should be pointed out that Moyo accepts the current HIV/AIDS model). --Firefly322 (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of the article AIDS denialism is POV, and where does the article Dambisa Moyo make her out to be a "genocidal maniac" or even indicate that anyone has called her one? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with Largo Plazo here. Perhaps the article only referred to her by her given name or perhaps it was oversighted but I searched every version of the article from 00:38, 28 October 2009 Nunh-huh onwards til now and found no mention of Moyo. I also searched a ~ month older version again nothing. In case Dambisa Moyo was the article that was problematic, I search for AIDS and HIV in all the revisions from October to now, again nothing. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV-fork giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE views & an attempt to avoid documenting "the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork of AIDS denialism. I don't think there's any content here worth merging. Robofish (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Hrafn. You don't have to look far to realise that the content is as bad as the title "Some of these theories are far reaching, while others are pure conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, the bulk of these theories have been presented by scientists, HIV researches, Nobel Laureates, and medical professionals throughout the years" is the second and third sentence of the WP:LEDE. I.E. Nothing salvagable here for a merge. Nil Einne (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AIDS denialist claptrap POV fork. Crafty (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if radically needed, merge with AIDS denialism. This is just a fringey POV fork, not matter what you say. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipolicy requires at WP:NPOV that “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” It further requires at WP:YESPOV that “Article content should not be deleted solely on the grounds that it is "POV"" and that "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints.” Neuromancer (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't your summary of what it says at WP:YESPOV itself an example of cherry-picking? I think the context you've omitted in your selection of two sentences from that sentence is critical to understanding what they mean. You've fully omitted the section's focus on the relative weight of arguments: "... all majority and significant minority views must be presented fairly ... in rough proportion to their prevalence in source material", "content may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight", "[an article] should explain ... which points of view are most common". Also, none of this justifies having two articles on the same topic. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it cherry picking? No more so that anyone who has cited policy against me. I am not trying to push a POV. I am trying to included notable information from the POV of that information. Isn't that the point? There obviously has been a debate, and the article in question brings to light the reasons for the debate. How can one sum it up by saying "There was a debate, and now there isn't." without providing the information that was debated over? Neuromancer 03:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it is cherry picking. Quoting part of a source to make it appear that it supports your position, while consistently omitting all the context that is pertinent to whether it really supports your position or that even contradicts your position. That's cherry picking. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I chose to include the relevant points for my argument. The point is that the information contained in the article is notable, referenced, and a topic under debate. Look at the new film House of Numbers. It is clear that there are those who dissent on many topics regarding HIV. Alternative HIV viewpoints is not intended to be a venue for AIDS denialism, but rather a place where information regarding the current debate over HIV can be presented in an encyclopedic manner. The fact that you many may not agree with the viewpoint of those who dissent, is not relevant to whether or not the information is notable. It is often deleted off hand, because people don't like to talk about it, and some feel that by talking about it, it gives it merit. Whether or not it is meritorious is irrelevant. It is. The information is real, it is published, it written about, films are made about it. How can this information be excluded from the WP simply because some people don't agree with it? Neuromancer 08:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You "chose to include the relevant points to your argument" or you chose to include the points that supported your argument while ignoring the ones that didn't? That's the point. To the extent that the issue others have with the article is that it goes on and on and on about fringe views held by very few people, it gives them undue weight, which seems to be very relevant to the conversation. If you left them out because they didn't support your side of the argument, then you were cherry picking in your citation of that material in this conversation. If you don't understand that, then I can see why you might also not recognize what people are talking about when they say that's what you did in the article you wrote. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's always great when someone understands NPOV as 'I don't believe N\y Point Of View is being given enough blind credence.' Nevard (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though there was obviously a lot of effort put into this article, after reading the AIDS denialism page and this article I feel it is just an offshoot of the aids denialism page. Whether any of this information is worthwhile to merge I will not comment on; I did not review the quality of the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 12:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 21:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Body wrap

Proposed for deletion by User:RHaworth, prod contested by author. I am therefore nominating it for deletion on AfD. The whole article is pretty much entirely unsourced, does not claim any obvious notability, reads more like a personal essay than an encyclopedia article, and is probably primarily written only to advertise a specific beauty care treatment. DELETE. JIP | Talk 18:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, this is a treatment I heard of before, and the historical assertations give it some value. Is there another article such as mud bath or alike where we could merge this? Turqoise127 (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need to add, of course, that article needs a lot of work and wikification...Turqoise127 (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything's covered in Mud wrap, for one. The other side is that this article is horribly biased in the first place, seemingly as if to promote the benefits - this flies in the face of WP:NPOV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC), augmented at 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over. There is probably more alternatives than mud wrap, which is itself an over-short and inadequate article, so there should be a possibility of an article here, but I dod not see how the present content is helpful. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 21:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nehara Pieris

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

Unverifiable biography of a living person. I was brought to this article by a notice at the conflict of interest noticeboard, where a concern was raised that the article was being edited by a person whose sole purpose on Wikipedia was to promote the article subject. I was unable to tell for certain that there was a COI, but I did see that the article badly needed improvement. I began to do so and in the course of trying to find sources, I found that there were none (at least online). I found exhaustive coverage of this person in blogs and social networking sites, but that was it. Clearly she is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. -- Atama頭 16:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 16:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 16:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Article lacks Attribution to Verify WP:BIO or WP:BLP notability criteria … subject is not even notable enough for an IMDb listing, which most ~~Bollywood~~ Kollywood performers have … even their {{Official}} website is nothing but an "Under Construction" page … may have won some awards, but they are not notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, or to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. — 138.88.125.101 (talk · contribs) _{20:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
- My bad! I meant Tamil cinema, not Hindi cinema. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 19:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 19:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Nehara Pieris is very popular in Sri Lanka. Has won the Sumathi tele awards' popular actress award in 2008. (Sri Lanka's equivalent of Golden globes) True This lacks any reliable sources. Remove the facebook extracts but Keep the article. I have listed some reliable sources in article talk page.--Chanaka L (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In every one of those sources you cited, her name is mentioned once, that is the extent of coverage she is given. Do you have anything else? -- Atama頭 08:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources. If this actress's career continues on the present course, she should eventually get written up in traditional media and there will be something that we can cite. It is embarrassing that even her personal web site is not yet online. There seems to be some work still to be done. I hope that her web site, when it finally appears, will include press clippings with full citations that we can check. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This could be userfied as User:Nimonline/Nehara Pieris … then it can be moved back to article space if/when the subject meets WP:ENTERTAINER — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 22:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Bra (band)

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

Removed PROD. Reason was "No indication of notability unreferenced, only relevant google hit is the artist's MySpace page. In short, fails WP:BAND." PROD was added by Spongefrog (talk · contribs) and seconded by Victor Lopes (talk · contribs) Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 15:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources, fails WP:MUSIC, unless being featured in many unremarkable compilations is an assertion of notability. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 17:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I said on the talk page: Refs 1-3, 6 are trivial mentions and refs 4 and 5 don't discuss the band at all, only a single song by them that is barely famous let alone notable. I didn't try a google search because I was in a public place and I feared what "No bra" would bring up.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as it stands. A couple of endorsements by DJs is a start, but we need more than that. Will reconsider if substantial coverage from reliable sources are pointed out. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- No. As they're being added, resources are being misquoted or just simply invented and that is simply not acceptable. Credit is due to the person trying to update the article as they seem to have the skills of an expert PR agent to spin around so many words, but we can't have it on Wikipedia. The soundtrack? A movie barely worth mention in a pop culture sense and has 53 other songs on it. Ballet? The performance featured the music, but saying they "based a ballet performance" is false, and according to the source it was a 2-month stint somewhere and not "toured around Europe". The art? Yes, it's of the musician, but in the article one piece of art is related. Not multiple things, not things from more than one person. Saying "has inspired several visual artists such as..." is 100% false unless a different source is given. I know it can be common for band articles to not sound entirely neutral, but even then you can't lie or change what was published. Change that all and make up the source list from scratch so that at least one part of WP:BAND guidelines are met, and I'll gladly think it over. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the subject seems to have some coverage in reliable sources, enough to meet WP:BAND criterion #1. Article in Diva, review in Pitchfork, a non-trivial mention in Libération, and even a non-trivial mention in The Guardian. And that was just with a few minutes of searching. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks more like evidence of the band being notable as attention-seekers than anything else, but it's an improvement on the original list of references. Change to neutral, on the proviso that if the article stays, some of the more extravagant claims need to be put into context. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep No Bra is the primary expression of Susanne Oberbeck, a significant contemporary multimedia artist - 3,850 hits on Google, including quite a few profiles. She has toured internationally, gaining press in the process, which satisfies WP:BAND. The article does need more work. It could possibly be redirected/merged into an as yet uncreated article about her. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a redirect on Susanne Oberbeck. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily satisfies notability requirements with multiple WP:RS coverage. It does seem like some WP:BEFORE work should have been done by nominator. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. sourced provided by editors above indicate that the band is notable. --Pink Bull (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 by Malik Shabazz. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushal Weerakkody

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

No references showing that these awards have been won. (The Saturn Award does not even make sense.) Five Google results for the name. Prod tag removed by creator without comment. ... discospinster _talk 15:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are also no references showing these awards are themselves notable, even if they exist. I won the German Prize and Spanish Prize in high school, and first prize in my county's bicentennial history quiz. Does that make me notable? But besides that: the article doesn't even really say who the person is. I considered db-context, but given the award listing I figured I might wind up losing an attempt to explain the difference between facts and context. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As failing verifiability in spectacular fashion. As in this is a WP:HOAX. None of the awards exist in the context used in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha. You're right. If there was such a thing as the "Locarno International Malware Conference" I'd expect at least one Google hit. I've just posted {{db-hoax}} in the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments for keep aside from author JForget 22:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L. B. Graham

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

Mass Deletion for all of L. B. Grahm's works. Per first comment here Tim1357--- (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and all subsequent re-directs.

Delete all None of the books meet WP:BK and I don't believe the author is notable for anything else. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i discovered this group, what appears to be a WP:Walled garden, thanks for creating this afd for the group. i of course support deletion, but have already "voted" in the first art. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
very weak Keep for the author, redirect the others 5 of the books are in Worldcat, "Beyond the Summerland", the best known, has 291 WorldCat library holdings. 3 Reviews in all in WorldCat: [26] [27]. I consider this marginal. I note that even the positive review in Christianity Today considers him entirely derivative. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable author and his non-notable books. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:21, 22 October 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 13:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Books don't meet WP:NB, and there's no evidence that the author or the publisher meet notability guidelines, either. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Some evidence of third-party reviews, but not in sufficiently reliable publications to pass WP:BK. Nearly there, but not quite. Tevildo (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SolarThermalWorld.org

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

Delete article about a knowledge-base website. There's a lot of name-dropping in the article (eg - United Nations Development Programme), but it doesn't appear to be anything more than a news aggregator and article repository. Mind matrix 15:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a global knowledge-based web portal for solar thermal professionals, and as such an unlikely candidate for ever meeting the web content notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain your !vote? Joe Chill (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looked to me like a specialized trade website (web portal for solar thermal professionals). Even if neutral third party sources sources covered it, that coverage itself would have a small audience - therefore, small chance of being notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article looks like an advertisement for a web site. Warrah (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate. Skomorokh, barbarian 02:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Fedorenko

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

Notability not established. No reliable sources stated, and none seem to exist looking on Google. The only sources provided are Youtube videos, a US military site which doesn't even mention him, and what I presume is the subject's own website. He may be good at lifting kettlebells, but it's a minor sport. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, minor or not, it is an established sport with a big history. It's just new to the USA. The Youtube videos are actual (1992) footage of what it takes to achieve the Soviet Sport Rank, such as Master of Sport in the Soviet Unified System. It is also footage of his Champion Performance and Record Breaking lifts. The Air Force article is a reference to the study, not him. The proposed official study would be studying his methods. The picture used for him was taken from the US Air Force, so it must be true. I hope we can get some additional resources from others as well. Hopefully some will post them soon! Google is not the last word on who someone is, but he does have a lot of possible reference there I see. I'll look into it. Anyway, is Youtube footage of his actual 2006 reps at the Arnold Classic suitable as proof? World Kettlebell (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the GHits on the name in Russian are for an unrelated businessman, but there's a few mentions of him in Kyrgyzstan media like [28] which confirms the basic outline: he lives in America and has some weightlifting world records (the one they metnion there is in 63-kilogram "снаряда" --- shells?? my Russian and my knowledge of pro weightlifting ain't so great, so don't ask me). Don't know whether this qualifies him under WP:ATHLETE. cab (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to World Kettlebell (WP:COI?) Youtube videos are generally not acceptable as sources on Wikipedia, see WP:Youtube and WP:LTA. If there are further sources that confirm his notability, then great. But there are none at the minute, so the article fails both WP:N and WP:V. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Stu, I am sure there are newspaper articles of him in New York, Moscow (with 3 million Distribution) and maybe some in his home country. There is also a classification number for him i the Soviet Sports System like Master of Sports, World Class Master of Sport and Honored Master of Sport. I will try to get those. I will agree with you that not all his Youtube videos should referenced or are legit for reference, but the two "old footage" videos are actual 1992 World Championship and Record Breaking performances. While not maybe enough on their own, I think they should stay. I think the article should stay and be improved on. It is very new. I think it has potential. I will work on it and hopefully others will too. World Kettlebell (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a very few mentions of him in U.S. media too like [29]: "Popular with U.S. strongmen in the first half of the 20th century, kettlebells have made a comeback in this country led by the promotions of Pavel Tsatsouline and Valery Fedorenko.", and [30]. But they don't go into any detail about him, just a bare mention. cab (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or move to Article Incubator Borderline notability as far as I can tell, but I think that User:World Kettleball ought to have a shot at finding reliable sources for the article. Therefore, I suggest userfying the article for now and possibly returning it to the mainspace at a later date. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better yet, how about Wikipedia:Article incubator? cab (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds like a great idea. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd support that. Hadn't heard about the incubator until now, good idea. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate, per the talented, brilliant, tall dark and handsome editor who came up with that fantastic suggestion a few lines up. cab (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. Don't see any need to relist this. But agree with (the highly talented) cab again. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I have done some research and it seems that this chap is a world champion.Kettlebell Heroes: Valery Fedorenko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Real Natural (talk • contribs) 04:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to confess that I have never heard of Kettlebell until now. It just goes to show what one can learn from Wikipedia and how certain things that seem obscure only seem that way because one side of the world doesn't know so much about the other.(Mr Real Natural (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Valery Fedorenko The article currently does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, and I have found little coverage in reliable sources Google News Archive. The source provided by Mr Real Natural is to a primary source; primary sources do not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bose wave systems

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

Notability concerns over a lack of references. This article, and related articles have recently passed through an unclear multi-article deletion or merge process where no consensus could be reached owing to the complexity of the issue. This is an attempt to AfD one article alone, so we can hopefully agree on something. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Related merge discussion at Talk:Bose stereo speakers#Merge_Discussion_-_Bose_Products Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep "Wave" is a flagship technology for Bose and deserving of an encyclopedic NPOV article explaining just what it is. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep ~~Comment~~ AfD seems to be the wrong venue for this. This product is clearly notable and I have a hard time believing that additional references are difficult to find. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor appears reluctant to accept that the article is notable and has AfDed it once in a batch, then put forward a merger proposal, on that basis. As they so helpfully explained WP notability policy to me just today, it's not notable until it has references added. So this article needs to either shape up or ship out, because the faffing about otherwise is getting ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't get it. Is this an AfD or what? What is Andy asking -to delete or not to delete? --Cyclopia^talk 16:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a continuation of the merge discussion linked above. What is probably needed is an WP:RFC and not an AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC might be a good idea, should anyone care to go that route. I just want to see some definitive statement on at least one of these articles, so that we can stop going in circles. It does also need referencing, because although it might be obviously "notable", it's not WP:N until the fat lady sings, or whatever our policy requires. Until it meets policy, clearly and unarguably, it's exposed to further attempts to merge it away - surviving AfD only a couple of days ago certainly didn't resolve the issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy please read WP:POINT and withdraw the AfD. We understand but that's not the right way to solve the issue. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AGF. I'm the one who's been accused of working for Bose, had my CV posted across the debate and all the rest of it, because one editor wouldn't take "This is clearly a notable product, leave it be" as a response to their first AfD. Now maybe RFC is a better place, but I honestly didn't think of that - if anyone wants to take it there, then that might well be the best and we could certainly wrap up the AfD then (I'm going to be too busy, but feel free). In my tiny little mind (and I've already been accused of being too inexperienced to even comment on this AfD) the best forum for proving WP:N beyond any further shadow is a simple one-article AfD where we all can decide if it's notable or not, then drop it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

because one editor wouldn't take "This is clearly a notable product, leave it be" as a response to their first AfD. - I am sorry for the harassment, but, well, the editor "not taking it" was quite right in doing so. That said, I am not saying that you are not in good faith, quite the contrary, I am saying that maybe you are not familiar with our processes and stuff. I may be wrong; in this case I apologize. Anyway yes, there's RFC, there is the WP:RS/N if you have problems with sources, etc. - But not AfD. AfD is if you feel the article has to be deleted for some serious reason. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No comments on the RFC suggestion but badly conceived merges are easy to undo - deletions not so easy. This isn't the place. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep There's a merge discussion going on that should be allowed to proceed. This is not the right venue. Notability or not, once an AfD has closed as keep, or as in this case no consensus, the debate should continue on the talk page. I can somewhat understand why Andy is acting in good faith here given the actions of the opposition but this AfD just isn't the time or place to continue this debate. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Based on two things. One, the fact that this was just AfD'd. Even if it closed as no consensus, there's not really any need to renom. Second, this seems to be blatantly notable. A search of google and/or google news turns up a number of refs. Bfigura ^(talk) 16:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With an ongoing Merge discussion already in place, and an AfD barely a week ago, this AfD is procedurally wrong, and is in bad faith because of it. This poorly-thought out AfD will do nothing to change the ongoing discussion, and discussion outweighs formal AfD. Point of order: nominator then opposed their own nom. This is not how the process works. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to AGF with regards to the nom due to the fact that AfD has traditionally been more of an "articles for discussion", although I'm well aware that presently it has focused more on just "deletion" --Tothwolf (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Very well known group of products from major company. Dozens of reviews available for third party sources. Merging all of this to the company is absurd--like merging all of Fiord automobiles. Whether there should be articles on the individual models is another possibility, for there are sufficient RS reviews of many of them to meet the GNG--which in this case is the only applicable guideline. I find it very difficult to assumie good faith in this set of discussions, especially as I am aware that there is a strong negative opinion --with RSs, yet, about some of the company's products. Please, would someone who knows the sources better than I start adding reviews. positive and negative DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This prose surely needs clean up, but this is a very well known consumer product with a long history and a good deal of third party coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Come on it's the highly ambiguous Bose stereo speakers that needs deleting. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article easily meets the standards for inclusion with sources that easily conform to our guidelines. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh my GOD. Come on that page survived the nomination and didn't get deleted; this should by realativity be kept; even though someone showed me this page that says that is not a good argument. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but... - This is a weak nomination. There may be a lack of references currently listed but it's a pretty well-known concept, and it should be obvious that good sources can be found, which makes this nomination a waste of everyone's time. However, the article, perhaps in the way it's titled, implies a unique technology, and that fact would have to be backed up by third party sources, I think. The name seems promotional; It even sounds like a separate company. The article should be moved to a title that better reflects it merely being about a line of products. Equazcion (talk) 17:54, 3 Nov 2009 (UTC)
Keep this one as clearly notable - as opposed to merger of the rest of the equipment into the parent company article. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quixotic

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

Completely WP:NN band. One release on KRS doesn't pass WP:BAND. Toddst1 (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quixotic +Billotte gives over 1000 hits on Google. There was a UK release and international recognition. Band was brief but vital player in DC Riot Grrrl scene, containing - as well as the Billotte sisters - guitarist Mick Barr. It is not a practical candidate for a merge since it contained 3 notable musicians who didn't otherwise play with each other. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Christina Billotte is notable, (currently at afd that will close keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Billotte without relying on Quix*o*tic). I see no suggestion Mick Barr is not notable. That's two independently notable members. The band have done something solid themselves (Kill Rock Stars release) so keep. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 15:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Band had notable musicians, one of the notability criteria.--Pink Bull (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two notable band members as Duffbeerborme notes (and his prediction was correct; the AfD on Billotte was closed as a "keep"), plus meets criterion 1.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linkin Park Tour Details

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

Seems like a band update. No CSD criteria. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete maybe should be a prod instead, no notability, is no more than an advert. Bonewah (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 19:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: This discussion was improperly placed on the September 9 log rather then the 28th, so I have relisted so it can be viewed by more editors. --JForget 19:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fairly obvious case of WP:CRYSTAL. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally inappropriate use of article space. The "Details" can be added to Linkin Park when the concerts take place. Voceditenore (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this could even be a hoax. The band's official web site says "No upcoming performances have been scheduled at this time" and there is nothing on the internet about any concerts, e.g. tickets for sale, etc. Voceditenore (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - may well be a hoax, the dates don't make sense. JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily closed for mootness: page whose deletion is sought is a redirect resulting from a page move. As a capitalization variant, that redirect would appear to be worth keeping, but in any case, Redirects for Discussion and not AfD has jurisdiction now. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lake of Homs dam

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

moved to Lake of Homs Dam to according to naming convention Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So not deleting? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete Lake of Homs dam with lower case if this is in accordance with WP guidelines. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pervasive Data Integrator

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

Contested proposed deletion. This is a promotional article about a non-notable, non-consumer software product.

Essentially, this article is just a features list --- a mere sales brochure. It reads like unambiguous advertising, extolling the product's virtues:

can automate the integration of data movement tasks on an event-driven, real-time, or regularly scheduled basis....
extracts, aggregates, replicates, transforms and loads data from disparate sources, including between very old legacy and mainframe data and applications and new systems....
has a very wide range of connectivity...

The only reference given in the article is to a press release, a routine announcement of an acquisition, no substantive coverage; the other references are to internal sites. Google News Archives seems to yield mostly press releases announcing new versions and casual mentions that the product was used. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I've made this sort of comment before, but anyway. This class of software is limited, and consists of big expensive products used by big corporations. This, to my mind, gives them some kind of de facto notability. These products do not come and go every day. Having an article on each one is potentially very useful for comparisons. I don't really agree with your characterisation of "unambiguous advertising". Of the three statements you cite, only the phrase "very wide range" strikes me as advertisational. The rest is information. For example, "on an event-driven, real-time, or regularly scheduled basis" describes what would be the three main triggering modes. (Disclosure/explanation: I used to work for Sunopsis, before it was acquired by Oracle. I don't know anything about Pervasive Data Integrator. I assume I wrote the stub when I was researching these products and trying to find out what Sunopsis actually did...) Stevage 04:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree a bit with your characterization: This class of software is limited, and consists of big expensive products used by big corporations. But to me, these factors mean that it's a long shot that anything is going to appear in a useful, independent source about the software. And, any independent reviews are moreover going to be circulated among a tiny group of people with a professional interest in this kind of package. That kind of coverage, even if it exists, does not translate into notability. The more expensive, technical, or exclusive it is, the less likely it can achieve notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree that this class of software will not be covered. There are specialist journals covering enterprise level software. Coverage in such places would establish notability. I don't know if that is the case here as I've not yet looked. -- Whpq (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, while I was at Sunopsis, a report from Gartner Consulting came out, comparing half a dozen or so of these products. Definitely a useful, independent source. Only problem: you had to pay to read it. A lot, from memory. Here's an interesting blog post, btw. Stevage 05:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Gartner has come up before. That they're reliable is pretty much a given. But ultimately they're a consulting firm; their clients are their real editors. And their actual reports have less circulation than a hometown newspaper. Being covered in a Gartner product comparison does not equal notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree. I would not use just eh fact of coverage in Gartner as an indicator of notability as they will report on any company one of their clients makes a query about. -- Whpq (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tons of press releases. I found [31] and [32], but this does not represent sufficient depth of coverage to establish notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The above discussion seems to relate to novelty not notability. If I harvest 100 carrots and find one that has grown two roots that look like a pair of legs, that may be novel and when I was a kid that was exciting to find but no wire service ever picked up the story to make it notable. However, the other comment made above motivates my interest in defining something called "obscure but notable." The wikipedia criteria concern the geograhy being more than local and coverage depth being sufficient to write a decent article. There is no criteria for absolute popularity AFAIK. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Popularity" is not needed; "notability" is the local jargon, but especially for commercial businesses and products, where seeking to use Wikipedia for free publicity is a legitimate concern, something closer to "historical significance" strikes me as what we should aim for. What I found searching for this product was mostly press releases, generally circulated without comment. The notice and recorded interest of other people independent of the business is what would tip the scales: somebody else needs to have taken an interest in their crowing. This, I did not find. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ugh, enterprise all the consultants I drink beer with know if a product puts the word "enterprise" in the literature it is a codeword for SUCK. this type of software has a limited audience - limited audience means it is not an encyclopedic subject matter. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

- Comment - There are many topics that have a limited audience that are perfectly fine topics for Wikipedia. A broad audience is not an inclusion criterion, and a limited audience is not an exclusion criterion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in a long term view, nobody will care that wikipedia documented Elliptic curve cryptography but not Pervasive Data Integrator. one is important, this is not. this used to matter. that every product on the market is being written about, regardless of actual significance, is something wikipedia is failing to control. the standard now seems to be if two sentences appear in two magazines then VfD will keep the article. that criteria is crap and needs to end. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Perhaps so, but you will note that I did find a couple of sentences in a couple of magazines and find it insufficient to justify including this topic. -- Whpq (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 10:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Brahm

AfDs for this article:

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

It's been a while since the last deletion but I think this qualifies as a WP:BLP1E situation. Anything usable is already at 4chan#Threats_of_violence. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Now that the skies have changed, I feel we should rethink this article's importance on Wiki. After all, it is little more than an extended 4chan#Threats_Of_violence section. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into 4chan.--Blargh29 (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is merely a passing news item. BLP1E is definitely relevant. LadyofShalott 01:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Just merge it with 4chan.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Put anything that's not there yet and that's notable, into 4chan. The subject is solely notable for one event, he doesn't rate a wikipedia entry. And whatever you do: Don't mess with football. David in DC (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Making threats on an immature forum is not the kind of crime which has a lasting impact. Old news story. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G1 Nonsense. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women are better looking childs

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

Pointless discussion based article that would be more appropriate in users userspace RWJP (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Speedy delete, no context. . .Wayne Riddock (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Patent Nonsense --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smondo

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

non notable WP:NEOLOGISM. Appears to be confined to a single development in Bangalore. No evidence of use elsewhere. noq (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem like the word has caught on yet, no Google News hits. The concept makes sense however. Northwestgnome (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not caught on yet since it's a new concept. Will update with some resources once there is some press coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbazg1 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As by your own admission it has not caught on yet it does not qualify for an article - If it does catch on, that might change in the future. noq (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the creator. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a shame because without an authoritative definition the term could be misused, but until that press coverage turns up there's really no alternative. Declan Clam (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected by nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medals of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets

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

Article is now section on article Royal Canadian Air Cadets. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Will redirect to main article page. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth Velamoor

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

I have removed the speedy deletion tag because notability is asserted by the claim that Velamoor was hired as a law clerk by United States District Court Judge David O. Carter. However, I have been unable to find any reliable sources to verify this. The first reference in the article is not a reliable source, while the second source, a blog from the Los Angeles Times doesn't even mention Velamoor. Furthermore, a Google News Archive search does not return any results. This individual appears to fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have removed some unsourced information per WP:BLP. Cunard (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of relevance is this link (archivedurl) which mentions Velamoor and the Wikipedia article about Perkins Coie, his law firm; see here. Cunard (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a new young attorney without any claim to notability, who only got his name onto blogs (read: non RS) as the list of law clerks with his name on was put on Wikipedia as obvious OR by an IP who has in the past sockpuppeted for a banned user and who obviously has a conflict of interest. An additional problem with "recentism" (WP:NOTNEWS) is that it is always difficult to find correct NPOV information - in the case of this guy a probably erroneous legal database claims he obtained his law degree at the School of Law in Bratislava, but it seems Bratislava has no record of him studying there.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I put in the speedy to start with. The page was being hacked about by a new editor at the time I saw it on Huggle. As the references in the history pages were as much use as a chocolate teapot for verifying, I decided not to revert back to them, but to place the speedy instead. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be absurd not to delete this article. The subject has done nothing notable other than get an appointment to a relatively minor legal position. Any notability lies in the overactive defamatory imaginations of a tiny group of political extremists masquerading as 'patriots'. NyallM (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable at any rate., regardless of how or why the article was entered DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BIO. Person is of no public interest except to a small, highly politicized group who have no problem violating someone's privacy or posting public information about a person and urging others of like mind to contact and harass the person. Thorswitch (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I suppose the last vote refers to the website of Orly Taitz and to Free Republic. Unfortunately, the former is again beset with spyware and the latter is considered spam by Wikipedia - so I cannot link to either. Notwithstanding that problem, I think we should add WP:BLP to the deletion rationale. See [33]. The last sentence there fits this article perfectly. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I doubt whether being a law clerk for a federal district judge is a claim of significance at all, but this quite clearly fails WP:BIO. Tim Song (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article has been redirected to StudentBusinesses.com. Cunard (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Venture Network

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

I have removed the speedy tag from this article because notability is asserted by this passing mention at TechCrunch. I have also done a Google News Archive search, which returned this article from this passing mention from masshightech.com. Because these sources only mention Campus Venture Network in one sentence each, this company fails the notability guidelines for companies. Cunard (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the Campus Venture Network search yields four results from noteworthy sources, a search for StudentBusinesses.com (which the article references as the core Campus Venture Network product) returns articles with mentions from Washington Post, BusinessWeek, the the Boston Globe, the Triangle Business Journal, the Harvard Crimson, etc. Thus the company (including its product) has received widespread coverage of sufficient notability to fulfill the notability guidelines for companies. Strav17 (talk) 06:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources posted above mention "Campus Venture Network". Cunard (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the articles reference StudentBusinesses.com, which is the core product owned by the company Campus Venture Network as the article references. According to the notability guidelines for companies, "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." Since the articles lend credibility to the product itself (StudentBusinesses.com) being notable, shouldn't the company then be considered notable?Strav17 (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because all of the articles are about StudentBusinesses.com, an article about the product is the best approach. StudentBusinesses.com appears to be notable due to the presence of many reliable sources, but Campus Venture Network is not notable because there are no reliable sources that provide significant coverage about it. Perhaps you could move the information in this article to one about StudentBusinesses.com? Cunard (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've updated the article Campus Venture Network to be a redirect for StudentBusinesses.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strav17 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue, taking to RFD. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GLAM

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

Misleading redirect. No mention of "GLAM" on LAMP page, only link is from glam (disambiguation) where it is defined as an unrelated acronym. To find mention in the page one must go back to 2006. The term is now used in a Wikipedia space essay recommended to new users, making it even more in violation of the principle of least astonishment. Danger (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dot Dot Dot (band)

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

Only one self released EP, placed on Next Great American Band, very few sources. Placing in a talent show isn't a free pass to notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not really established.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV 13 ^{other crap} 22:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Batch AfDs only really work if each article has similar merits. In this debate, there were some advocating one article be kept, or one article deleted. There were weak keeps, but there were also numerous keeps with sound rationale. In respect to Agne's request, I'm not willing to have my judgement enforcing what would be, in effect, a consensus to delete by editors who haven't read every article. Either there is consensus to delete each article, or there isn't; I cannot just say that the result was delete those which are deemed by the closer to be unfit. In that respect, I would have to say that a 30 second non consensus closure is, unfortunately, the only way the policies allow this debate to end, given this murky discussion. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of wineries and vineyards in Maine

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

A seemingly useless article that does not serve any encyclopedic purpose as detailed by WP:LIST. This article is essentially a list of red link for wineries of questionable notability that would have difficulties passing WP:CORP. The very limited number of wineries that would merit an encyclopedia article would be better served with a category and inclusion in the Maine wine article. As this article stands it is essentially one big link farm of these wineries websites that is more WP:ADVERT than anything that would benefit the reader. The basic question here is if Wikipedia is not a WP:ADVERT wineguide or business directory, what is the point of keeping these lists consisting mainly of links to the websites of non-notable businesses?Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 04:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles: The above rational also applies to the following articles which should be considered in this deletion.

At this time, I've declined to add two other "list of" articles to this AfD (List of wineries in Missouri and List of Oregon wineries and vineyards) because they appear to conform more to guideline laid out in WP:LIST. However, there is still concern about their overall encyclopedic purpose and the extensive external links to commercial websites. As a member of WP:WINE, having additional input from the community on the appropriateness of these articles would be very worthwhile. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 04:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot. There's definitely a WP:CORP issue here, as evidenced by the proliferation of red text. You're left wondering if it's some kind of business directory. Adorned as they are with external links, I don't see how they're any more than linkfarms. Good call. mikaul^talk 05:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot. of the 2 lists not nominated, they clearly can stay as there are wineries of note on the lists, but the redlinks have got to go. and i checked the maine lists "oldest vineyard", and its not old enough (10 yrs) to be notable in it own right. oldest winery date is given, also not notable, yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note After these two comments, 4 more winery articles were added to the AfD. I apologize for the delay but I just recently stumbled upon them. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 06:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to hear what folks from Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine think, as the concept of the article seems potentially worthwhile to me, and the template on the article seems to be encouraging the creation of these articles. Only wineries that are independently notable should have their own articles, but that doesn't mean having a list of those wineries by state should be forbidden. Wikipedia didn't used to be so anti-redlink, of course the links can be removed.--Milowent (talk) 06:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both Mikaul above and myself are members of WP:WINE. I'm sure a few other wine project members will chime in with their opinions as well. The topic of "List of..." articles is one that the project hasn't fully tackled yet, though a few of us disagreed with the "no consensus/default to keep" decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vineyards and wineries (2nd nomination). Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 06:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After having read WP:LIST I must say that it is not clear to me what the criteria for a list is! Why are Willowtip Records discography or List of Project Runway contestants (both featured) and both having lots of none wikilinked and therefore probably not notable items on the list acceptable. (Not trying to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF just trying to undertsand what the criteria is and since they are both featured I assume that they are acceptable). While List of wineries in the Barossa Valley is not? The former are a much better article, sure. But that any of the wine lists are finnished is not a reason to delete just to WP:SOFIXIT, the reason must be that the list as such is not notable, or 'does not serve any encyclopedic purpose' or something. I do not understand why a list of wineries in barossa is any less notable than a list of project runway contestans or a list of records from a recording company. Can anyone point to a place that defines 'notability' for a list? Or a place that defines the criteria for deletion/keep of a list, or explain in more specific terms than 'does not serve any encyclopedic purpose ' since WP:STAND and WP:LIST does not really make this clear to me. Does "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." from WP:LIST really mean that all items on a list must be notable for a lits to be notable?? And if so why is Willowtip Records discography or List of Project Runway contestants featured, are we saying that we have feature lists that should be deleted?? I'm confused :-) --Stefan ^talk 13:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since my interest and attention here deals mostly with wine content, I'm probably not going to give the best rational for why list articles on Willowtip Records and Project Runway exist. But looking at those articles compared to these winery list articles, a few things do jump out. For one, there is a substantial amount of referenced content in both of the featured lists as well as an established claim of notability (at least according to community consensus) for each entry on the lists. There is also a finite number of entries for each article and, compared to the wine articles, there is not as much overt commercial link farming and directory styling. Per guidelines such as WP:CORP, a winery is not notable simply because it is a winery. Like a pizza shop, neighborhood deli, etc, it has to establish its notability beyond just simply existing. The contestants of Project Runaway are (apparently) notable because they did something beyond just existing-they appeared on a television show. The same claim of notability can not be made for every single Barossa Valley winery. So if Wikipedia is not a WP:ADVERT wineguide or business directory, what is the point of keeping these lists consisting mainly of links to the websites of non-notable businesses? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 14:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1. First link farms in this context does not mean delete, just remove the links.
  2. Many of the list items on the lists I quoted are NOT notable, to be a contestant in Project runway only does not make you notable, so my point was that some of the list items are notable but not all, just as for wineries in e.g. Barossa.
  3. Again, just because a article is bad does NOT mean that it should be delete, it should be FIXED.
  4. Why is wineris in barossa less finite than the number of records a record company have made? See e.g. List of bicycle manufacturing companies as a example in WP:STAND if that is notable then I see no reason why wineries should not be.
  5. So the question is what makes a LIST notable? --Stefan ^talk 00:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While my personal opinion is that contestants of Project Runway are not notable, that apparently doesn't reflect community consensus. You're arguments are essentially WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS or you are working from the flawed premise that wineries are inherently notable just simply because they are wineries. If that is the case then WP:CORP will need to be rewritten to include this de facto notability. Your WP:SOFIXIT claim is flawed because the only way to fix these articles from not being WP:ADVERT, WP:WINEGUIDE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY link farms is to essentially delete everything in the article. Look at articles like List of wineries in Ohio which is a list of wineries websites and coordinates that would not pass WP:CORP. If you remove every redlink and WP:SPAM webpage links, all you have is a bunch of coordinates on the page. Now we could do the reverse and make it MORE of a business directory by adding phone number, tour availibility and tasting room hours. Would that really be fixing it? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 07:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not argue OTHERSTUFF, I started to ask what the difference was, I was NOT arguing OTHERSTUFF, just questioning what the policy was, you then stated differences, among one that that ALL items was notable, I do not think that is the case. I agree that IF all items in a list needs to be notable my vote would be Delete, but I can not find that stated or see it by consensus since there are FA lists with what I think is non-notable items, therefore I vote Keep. That is not a OTHERSTUFF exists vote, it is a unclear policy is interpreted by consensus this way, vote. Please help me understand out policies, since I see nothing that differs from List of Project Runway contestants and any of these lists that SOFIXIT can not fix. --Stefan ^talk 10:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well we now have proof that many of these articles are not salvageable and can't be WP:SOFIXIT. Take a look at the edit history of List of wineries in the Barossa Valley and its talk page. I tried in good faith to clean the article up of its glaring issues but was reverted by two editors who wish to keep it in its sorry shape--even with its clear WP:POV, WP:ADVERT section of "iconic wines"! Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 05:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of wineries in Quebec. I had promised to work on improving the list by creating articles on the most known wineries we have here. I started working on the general subject by creating Quebec wine, but went on to do other stuff after that. I promise to get back to it now. :-) I should be able to write stubs on four or five of our most internationality successful wine makers in a relatively short amount of time. I can also remove the red links on the others of course. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm somewhat divided on this one, and since we're sort of trying to establish some sort of WP:WINE policy, I will explain my thinking in some detail. I think it's fairly clear that the majority of the wineries listed in these lists are not notable enough for stand-alone articles. To me, that in itself isn't a completely sufficient reason to delete these lists, but it does seem to rule out two out of three main purposes of lists under WP:LIST: "navigation" and "development". From this point of view, redlinks to non-notable wineries are not really helpful to have, and external links to them is definitely a WP:LINKFARM which should be removed on sight according to WP:EL. 5 out of 7 nominated lists have this type of content:
- Redlinks to non-notable wineries: Ohio, Utah, Quebec, Maine, Illinois
- External links to non-notable wineries: Ohio, Maine, Illinois

However, we still have the third purpose of a list - "information". And in principle, I could see that a list of items not notable enough for one stand-alone articles per item still could provide information. So what do the lists contain in terms of information, other than the winery's name?

- Location (town/village): 6 out of 7 (Ohio, Utah, Quebec, Niagara Peninsula, Maine, Illinois)
- Exact coordinates: 1 out of 7 (Ohio)
- Flagship wine: 1 out of 7 (Barossa Valley)
- Date established: 1 out of 7 (Maine)
- Additional notes: 1 out of 7 (Maine - "oldest winery" and "oldest vineyard")

Probably, it's not worth having a list with just winery name+___location ("Wikipedia is not a phone directory" or whatever). However, I see some marginal merit in the information in the Maine list, and maybe, maybe the Barossa Valley list (altough a list of "flagship wines" may be bordering on material discouraged by WP:WINEGUIDE). However, the current information on oldest... in the Main list looks like it could be merged to the Maine wine article.

For any list we also have the issue of inclusion criteria that are both clear and encyclopedic, verifiability of list entries against these criteria, and what the length of the resulting list will be. (That's why I think that the List of vineyards and wineries is a far more horrible creation than any of the lists nominated here.) I suppose that listing "all wineries in Maine" is possible, but drawing up a complete List of wineries in California suddenly seems like a much more impossible idea, and if the same concept can't be applied to all US states, doing a list by state suddenly seems less attractive.

So, which type of inclusion criteria would make for a "sensible" list of wineries per some geographical unit (country, region...) from my point of view, since I'm not totally against such lists if they provide some amount of encyclopedic information? Well, I would say at least criteria:

based on official classifications (such as the list in Classification of Saint-Émilion wine; I could in principle also imagine listing vineyard owners in all Burgundy Grand Cru articles),
membership in an organization which is clearly selective in its membership (such as the list in Verband Deutscher Prädikats- und Qualitätsweingüter), or
based on size (vineyard size, volume of sales) with a significantly high "cutoff" (such as a "List of major California wineries", listing all with more than X acres of vineyards or Y (million) dollars of sales and ending up with a hundred or so).

...but not "all" as the only inclusion criteria. So I don't see these lists being informative enough, and end up with (weak) delete. Tomas e (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good points, I agree to most but remeber that a list does not have e.g. date establised in it now, is not a reason for deletion, that is just a reason to FIXIT, the reason for delation should be notability, however that is defined for a list. --Stefan ^talk 00:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will not !vote about List of wineries and vineyards in Maine specifically at this time, due to being the creator and principle editor of that article, but I would like to comment... This article specifically was, for the most part, copied and based off the other lists like List of Oregon wineries and vineyards. When I created this list, I was doing so to get the information organized, because there was very little information about Maine wine, and no information about the wineries in Maine at the time. The external links were added as references that each of the wineries were actually in business, and actively making wine. The intention was to then create an article for each of the wineries on the list. I also created the categories for this project (Category:Maine wineries and Category:Maine wine). This was not done to create a linkfarm, or to advertise anything, it was done with the intention of creating encyclopedic content on a wine-making region that Wikipedia did not have any information about. I somewhat lost interest in the project when I was bugged by bad faith editors, and the first article I created for the list was deleted, and unfortunately, it has sat unchanged since... As I see it, it does not violate any specific policy (WP:LIST included, as vague as it is) anymore than half the other lists out there (I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and is a well organized list of articles that have yet to be created. I also did some work on List of wineries in Ohio, removing the entries that did not have a reference, following the same thought process I was using for the Maine list...
As far as the other lists go, I would !vote weak delete for List of Utah breweries, wineries, and distilleries, List of wineries in Quebec, List of wineries in the Eden Valley, Niagara Peninsula wineries and List of wineries in the Barossa Valley simply due to the lack of references (WP:V)... and keep for List of wineries in Ohio and List of wineries in Illinois, for being well referenced and organized... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not understand, you can not delete just because of lack of references, are you seriously saying that you do not think that most entries in the lists does not have a reference, a ref for a list should just be a reference that states that they exists, not one that establishes notability. --Stefan ^talk 00:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above... when building the Maine list, I used a ref for each entry to prove not only that they existed, but also that they were actively vinting wine. Without a ref for each winery, how can you prove that it even exists? Per WP:V, a ref is required for anything that could be questioned, I do not think that the ref used for each entry necessarily needs to prove notability (or even pass WP:RS), just something (even that winery's own website) that says the winery exists, and is active... I don't think that's asking too much to verify that each entry is a real company... and my delete !vote was a "weak delete" because I would quickly strike it if a ref was given for each entry (and those without a ref were removed)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Warrah (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little confused by this one... exactly which part of WP:NOTDIRECTORY do these lists qualify under? - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all. The correct question to ask (seems this AfD seems to be about a meta issue primarily, not the individual lists) is: "Is the subject 'Wineries of X' notable in general?" I think the answer is yes and I will explain why. If we had a theoretical article "list of wineries" it would surely pass notability as there are a large number of reliable sources that list & discuss hundreds of different wineries. However, such a list is not remotely feasible. The most logical way to break that list down is by region, as this is exactly the same system winery guides normally use. I am sure one can find news paper articles, magazine articles, and even entire books dedicated to the wineries in a specific region. Thus clearly some regions are notable enough for a listing of their wineries. Now, obviously there is an appropriate level to stop breaking down the list further, but this discussion isn't about the merits of the individual lists, but rather a discussion about the existence of these lists at all, so I !voting keep based on the validity of the concept, not the contents of each individual list.
Now, there are a couple related questions here. 1) How does one determine inclusion into list X? 2) Do the lists serve any purpose? The first question is a matter of editorial discretion and is not relevant to the AfD. The answer to the second question is yes, certainly. While usefulness doesn't determine inclusion, those arguing the lists are useless are flat out wrong. Some readers may be very much interested in learning about every winery in a given region. Others may like one manufacture and want to learn about others. More importantly though, the "list of" article can also serve as a combination article where relevant information about not individual notable wineries can be stored. 90% of wineries in Ohio may be non-notable, but that doesn't mean that the wineries of Ohio as a whole are irrelevant and that we should have absolutely no information about them on Wikipedia.
Thus the lists of "wineries of x" are both worthy of inclusion and serve a valid purpose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially your rational is that Wikipedia IS essentially a business directory? Since the only thing that makes these lists "useful", such as what would make List of pizza shops in New York City useful, is that a reader may be interesting in seeing the names of every single winery in a region or pizza shop in New York City. If this is the case, then the precedent for this AfD may be cause to remove WP:NOTDIRECTORY from the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not 07:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. I specifically said being useful is NOT the reason they should be included. I was merely contesting the point that they aren't useful. The reason for inclusion is that RS do organize wineries in the same fashion, specifically because the region a winery is from is part of its "character" which is not necessarily the case for other businesses. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fundamentally disagree with the claim that "editorial discretion" is the way to "determine inclusion into list X". This is definitely not in accordance with Wikipedia policies, especially WP:NOT. Actually, the list of all wineries of the world would have hundreds of thousands of entries; the number is Bordeaux alone is close to 10,000! Tomas e (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying how the theoretical mega-list of all wineries is broken down into smaller lists is up to editorial discretion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So who decides where we draw the line on inclusion? We need to decide whether inclusion needs a red link (notable, needs article) or not (non-notable). If this is a good rationale, why is the line drawn at vineyards? Why not lists of vintners by region? Why not the several million wines available? Where are the boundaries here? mikaul^talk 05:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where we draw the line on other subjects really is not relevant to this AfD, but since you asked I see no reason why those things can't be included as part of a larger article ("list" or otherwise) as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-outdent<- It's entirely relevant, for wine it's almost the whole point; the question was rhetorical. These articles list wineries that are about as notable as their wines and their winemakers. Please read WP:WINEGUIDE. Like restaurants, wine is a subject with very specific inclusion criteria. As the above-linked essay points out, wine notability is extremely prone to POV and OR, so we need to be especially careful with inclusion and sources, as well as wines/wineries, need to be very high-profile. 98% of those redlinked wineries (and their wines etc) are nowhere near notable enough for an article, so they will always be either navigationally or developmentally pointless in a list. Informative? Only if the list is complete and accurate – so should we get hold of a Yellow Pages and copy it out here..? Do we check it every year to delete the ones that have failed (a very real issue) and add the newcomers? I really don't think so. That's why we have directories, and why WP is WP:NOT one. So let's say we're left with the blue links, which are scarce enough that they barely warrant WP:EMBEDding into an article. Basically, these fail to be even remotely viable lists, by any criteria, long before you get into individual wines. Back to eateries: take a look at List of Restaurants in the United States. That, I'd suggest, is much closer to the sort of level and scope we should be aiming at for vineyards. State level, taking in every mom & pop operation going (and they often are about as notable as that) is just way too broad. mikaul^talk 23:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a place for content about ones that are not notable enough for an article. This is the place. The ref for a list like this does not have to establish notability--if it did, there should be an article in addition. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per ThaddeusB and DGG, these are notable lists, were not all items in the respective list are notable. That they are not referenced, have external links and can have more useful info like size, date, ___location .... can and should be fixed. --Stefan ^talk 05:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's cold up there and there are lots of mosquitos. Can you make wine from blueberries? What is wrong with lists of notable wineries by state? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Delete All as the source of these lists is not provided, and they don't support an notable overarching topic. A better title for these ad hoc lists would be List of an indiscriminate selection wineries and vineyards by state, region or other arbitrary category, and without a source to attest for its completeness or accuracy, they are little more than original research. Otherwise I concur with the nomination and would recomend deletion on the grounds that these lists are little more than linkfarms for winery websites. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete All or Modify inclusion requirements for the list. Without the requirements, any mom-or-pop operation could be listed here (including those people that claim to make their own wine a few bottles at a time). If these are to stay, the inclusion factor for these needs something of a third-party source that discusses the winery beyond acknowledging its existence - which I am sure does exist for some. If that requirement is not enforced, then these lists are indiscriminate and not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete on the Illinois and Ohio lists as they are linkfarms without any notable winery included. Keep the Barossa Valley list as its been fixed to our standards. ~~Leaning~~ delete on the rest per Gavin Collins and Tomas e. Them From Space 03:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
changed to delete per Agne's analysis below. Them From Space 02:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The more I read here, the more these look like candidates for categories, not lists, so that only those with articles (ie notable enough) get included. mikaul^talk 05:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no reason why those that are blue links and notable cannot be added to a category, but that does not preclude a list that would list those and other winery that have mention but are not fully notable (*) in appropriate region lists (whether that's state, country or some other region...) (*) When I say "not fully notable" I'm talking about where there are some sources, third-party but likely not secondary, and more than just trivial/standard coverage such as in a winery directory; in these cases those wineries should be part of this list, but likely will not have an article, but can be sourced to the third-party source. This would be, for example, how List of internet phenomena is made out, where there's a bare requirement to show relevance in 3rd party sources but only those with more details are broken out to their own articles. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are plenty of sources, people just don't like to work on business articles much. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Which sources in any of the articles establish WP:CORP notability and make these articles anything more than a business directory in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)*Comment the above comment about Utah breweries is just ill-informed. Five Utah brewers can be found on the 2008 Great American Beer Festival results list of winners: Squatters, Desert Edge, Wasatch Brew Pub, Redrock, and the Utah Brewers Co-op. Probably all of these lists should go, but there's no reason to single out Utah.[reply]

Keep for all - Many of the wineries contained in these lists are notable it's just that no-one has bothered to create articles for them. Anyhow this is besides the point. The main thing, as noted by others, is that the lists themselves are notable. Hazir (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Over the last few days, I've done some extensive research on the wineries in the 8 lists and easily 94% of do not have sufficient third party WP:RS to pass WP:CORP. These red links clearly don't exist for navigational or developmental purposes as per WP:LIST. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find these lists useful. Hopefully with time, they will be improved (with additional info and references) and articles will be created for some of the individual wineries. I'm not sure what the big hurry is to delete. It's not as though these pages are garnering loads of spam. And 93.4% of what I say is true. Hazir (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the 6.6% of what isn't true is very easy to pick up. Several of these lists consistent of nothing but WP:SPAM links to the commercial winery websites. What is the point of Wikipedia keeping Link farms WP:DIRECTORY? What encyclopedic purpose does that serve? We don't maintain pages for List of unsigned bands in California with links to their Myspace pages. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all except the Utah article - I can't imagine that an LDS-dominated state would have more that one notable brewery or winery. Bearian (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the above comment about Utah breweries is just ill-informed. Five Utah brewers can be found on the 2008 Great American Beer Festival results list of winners: Squatters, Desert Edge, Wasatch Brew Pub, Redrock, and the Utah Brewers Co-op. Probably all of these lists should go, but there's no reason to single out Utah.
Keep all as per ThaddeusB, DGG and Hazir. They do follow the guidelines set out in WP:LIST. They are a valuable information source as they group the wineries by region. The lists are notable, even though some of the individual wineries contained within them may not be. They are useful to Wikipedia readers and there's no evidence that they've been inundated with commercial spammers. As suggested by Stefan, it might be useful to add some additional info such as date established, etc. Ozwinebuff (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin: I never really expected an en masse "delete" decision for all 8 articles. I decided to put the whole lot up for AfD because I knew no matter which individual list article I could put up, someone would point to the other articles and their sorry shape as a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS defense. In talking with other WP:WINE members, the hope is that the closing admin will look at the individual articles and delete the ones that are the more glaring violations of WP:LIST and WP:DIRECTORY while providing some rational for how the remaining articles are salvageable according to Wikipedia policies. Unfortunately the majority of the "Keep" comments so far has made little rational defense for how any individual article falls in line with current policies and guidelines and no one has made a policy based defense for keeping the entire lot. As for a rationale for deleting the whole lot-they all fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LIST to some extent but, admittedly, to different degrees of severity. The only discouraging outcome is a 30 second "no consensus" type closing. Whatever the outcome is, as long as there is some tangible policy based rationale giving by the admin for the salvageable articles then WP:WINE will be able to improve the creation and management of these types of articles on Wikipedia in the future. Appreciate your time. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you didn't want a referendum on these types of lists as a whole, then you shouldn't have mass AfD'ed them. Nothing else ever comes of a mass AfD (and almost all close as no consensus as a result). Furthermore, it seems that you yourself believed some can be saved, in which case you shouldn't have nominated them to begin with. If you can't even be bothered to judge them individually, why do you expect others to? Finally, AfDs are not supposed to be decided by the "current state" of the article, but rather its potential. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, it is not the closing admin's job to judge the articles - it is his/her job to judge the consensus on those articles. It would be inappropriate for the closing admin to independently evaluate the various list articles and decide some should stay and some should go. If individual ones have consensus here, the admin can decide based on that, but you are asking the admin to decide which are within policy and which aren't. That is not the admin's job. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I believe all of these article serve no encyclopedic benefit, hence the reason for the AfD. The gray area you're interpreting in my words is the concession that other people may think differently then I do. Even after I worked to WP:SOFIXIT or "save" List of wineries in the Barossa Valley by removing the WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:ADVERT drapings, I really don't see the benefit this article offers to the reader that a Category:Barossa Valley wineries wouldn't offer. And it is the closing admin's job to evaluate the weight of each side based on Wikipedia policy. A keep/delete contention given without policy based rationale is to be discounted. That is why this is a discussion and not votes. If it was votes, it would be as easy as adding up the yays vs nays and seeing which side wins. In reality, we know there is judgement on the closing admin's part based on the discussion. My note is mostly a request that the admin leave a rationale on why some articles were kept instead of a quick "30 second no-consensus" type close. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to note to closing admin I agree with what I think is agnes main point, lets use policies to close this, the problem is that even though I !vote keep I do not really know what the police states. IMHO for AFD of a WP:LIST WP:CORP does not apply (quote from WP:CORP This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article.), it applies for a article about a corporation, not a list of them, WP:ADVERT does not apply for AFD since it can be FIXED, same for link farms. Therefore my missunderstood OTHERSTUFF above, I used it to try to get a answer to how a list is notable and I'm trying to understand the difference between a first round kicked out project runway contestand and a winery in barossa, this discussion so far have not been able to convince me what the difference is, therefore I interpret the policies that lists of e.g. wineries in barossa is valid for articles. WP:LIST should be improved to clarify this, I agree that there is a conflict between WP:NOTDIRECTORY 6 and WP:LIST but am not sure which is applicable in this case. Maybe this needs to be discussed in a more general place. --Stefan ^talk 00:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP application is very significant since two of the three main purposes of lists according to WP:LIST is to serve as Navigational and Developmental tools. This presumes that the subjects in the lists are notable enough to merit articles. If the subjects are distinctly not notable enough to pass WP:CORP (as is the case with the vast, vast majority of the wineries in these lists), then they will never fulfill any navigational or developmental purposes. The gray areas is how these lists fulfill purpose #3-Informational. My contention is that if a lists doesn't full 2 out of the 3 purposes, then that last purpose it fulfills must be of substantial value-meaning these lists should offer substantial amount of information that would be of value of the reader. Community consensus has already determined that business WP:DIRECTORY do not offer enough value to merit a place in Wikipedia. The bigger question is, would a list consisting mostly of non-notable red link wineries ever offer enough informational value to not be a WP:DIRECTORY since it will never fulfill the other 2 main purposes of a WP:LIST? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully with Agne, who appears to specialize in this field. Everyone arguing to keep these isn't arguing the merits of the lists now, but will assume that they will magically fix themselves, even though Agne hasn't been able to find substantive content for most of these articles. He also raises a good point about the usefulness of lists such as these: if none of the subjects are notable how useful is a collection of them, especially when we can't inform our readers of anything about them other than (at best) their existence? As a reputable encyclopedia we can't keep articles around that violate multiple guidelines and policies (notability, spamming, verifiability, etc). Even if such a list is theoretically acceptable, if none of the content within it meets our guidelines it shouldn't be presented as an encyclopedic article. Them From Space 02:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict, comment to Agne OK good we have a clear and good argument, do we think these lists are a "a valuable information source" and that they are "grouped by theme", I think so, you do not. And even if they are, can WP:LIST (style guide) override WP:DIRECTORY 6) (policy). If your argument holds, many lists, including these should be deleted. The 2 FA lists examples above should be. (I will leave it at that, since to go any further I have to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF and I do not want to do that. :-) ) --Stefan ^talk 02:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They can't be informative if there's nothing to say about them. What use is an incomplete list of names without links? In the FL examples you provided, there is substantial value in the sense of being complete, finite lists of names which are notable due to their association with the other (notable) names. That's it. It doesn't apply to vineyards. mikaul^talk 02:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And e.g. icon wine or whatever it was, that agne removed from the barossa list, is not adding value? Other articles we do not delete since they are incomplete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDONE and neither are its lists, we delete since they are not notable. Or are you saying that a list of wineries can never have substantial value and therefore should be deleted by default? I beg to differ, add altitude, size, year of establishment, owner and they will have substantial value. I agree that they do not have it now, I agree there is a difference with the FL runway list, what I am trying to establish is why there is no way these lists can be like the runway contestants list??? THAT should be the argument for deletion, not the current state of these lists. --Stefan ^talk 03:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, a list of "iconic wines" is extremely WP:POV and WP:ADVERT. Iconic? According to who? Certainly not any WP:RS to give such a bias, subjective assessment. It was just a listing of wines made by each winery that was more appropriate for a sales brochure or WP:WINEGUIDE rather than an encyclopedia article. I love wine but I do not believe that Wikipedia should be an advertising vessel for wineries. Content like that offers no value to the reader or Wikipedia. But of the other stuff? For notable wineries, this info would certainly be in their articles with each listed in a category. That's easy but what about non-notable wineries? That is the question. Does a listing of non-notable wineries serve any benefit to the reader? I say no. I think there is the same lack of benefit and value as having a List of unsigned rock bands in California. You can find sources proving these bands exist and they even have official websites/MySpace pages to link to. But are they really worth being listed in Wikipedia? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 03:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agne27, I think you need to desist. Your recent edits to the Barossa article have devalued it and made it less likely that people will bother to contribute to it. The slippery slope argument about unsigned rock bands in California is getting tiresome. There is no evidence to suggest that these (IMHO) useful winery lists have been magnets for spammers. Hazir (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We now have an excellent example of how the WP:SOFIXIT mantra apparently will not work with these articles. I took the list that seemed most salvageable (List of wineries in the Barossa Valley) and removed its extremely WP:POV, highly subjective and WP:ADVERT oriented "iconic" wines listing. This served absolutely no purpose other than to advertizing wines made by the winery. I then paired down the list to the wineries that are confirmed as notable and passing WP:CORP. This changed the article from being WP:DIRECTORY of non-notable wineries into something that now serves all three purposes according to WP:LIST. I also added a WP:RS reference about the number of wineries in the valley. Unfortunately, two editors (in a blanket reversion) deemed that the article should be kept in this POV, advert, unreferenced, directory-oriented style. So to the editors espousing "keep" and WP:SOFIXIT. How do you fix an article so glaringly against policies when editors want to keep it in its original sorry shape? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 05:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EC This is out of control now and this edit that I was about to make will probably not make any good, Agne I am always respect your work on wikipedia a lot, but in this case we disagree, I just wanted to point out that this ref on Cult wines maybe not RS and Third party but a decent source I would think? and that information will very likely have been quoted by some RS, so sources can be found, even if I agree partially that that column should not be in that list; and what about add altitude, size, year of establishment, owner. Would that still make the list no value? You removed parts of what made the list more than only a navigational tool. That WP:SOFIXIT did not work since someone else was disruptive, does not mean that this article show be deleted, again we do not delete because of what is on the page, we do it because of what can or should be on the page. --Stefan ^talk 08:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases like "iconic wines" and "flagship wines" are loaded WP:POV and WP:ADVERT terminology better suited for sales brochures or WP:WINEGUIDEs rather than an encyclopedia article. The link you reference is a retailer who has a vested interested in selling these "iconic wines". Wikipedia doesn't have the same interest in selling wine so we shouldn't be including such advertizing language in our articles. I think the example of the Barossa list shows how difficult to near impossible WP:SOFIXIT is with articles that are in incredibly poor shape and are already encyclopedically questionable. If the outcome of this AfD is to "keep" Barossa and bring it up to standards, how in the world are we to do that when some editors are hell bent to keep it in the same sorry state that warranted the AfD in the first place? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 14:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All The vast majority of wineries in any region are going to be non-notable, these lists are really only directories, and there isn't a lot of encyclopedic value to have a list containing them all. We don't (and shouldn't) have a list of Bakeries in Seattle, or Fast Food restaurants in Boston for the same reason - a winery needs to do something more than exist to be notable enough to belong on a wikipedia list. I don't have a problem with red links on a list - they need to be to articles that ought to exist - just no one has written them yet. For the vast majority of wineries on this list, they simply aren't any more notable than the a local artisan bread maker. The Bethling ^(Talk) 04:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All I am of the belief that these lists need to be kept on Wikipedia. For example, one could argue that Barossa Valley is the centre of the wine industry in Australia, so it would be important to keep List of wineries in the Barossa Valley. There are several wineries on the list that are worthy of having an article on Wikipedia, and I plan to write some of them, starting with Seppeltsfield. The same can be said for all of the other articles as well. Each list highlights several of the major wine producers in each region, and thus bears keeping. Rrwhine (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the article on the Seppeltsfield Winery in Barossa Valley. I will work on others as time permits. Rrwhine (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work - This just goes to show that quality articles can be written for many of these wineries, it just takes effort. I am of the belief that the winery lists encourage contributions such as Rrwhine's. They should be improved upon e.g. [as Stefan has done] rather than deleted. Hazir (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice work, but it only goes to show that quality articles can be written for a few wineries. All a list of red links will encourage is WP:CORP violation and spam. It will serve no navigational purpose and actually hinder development, as it's far from clear which ones are notable and worthy of creation and which are pure cruft. The vast majority will be the latter, I'm afraid, regardless of the notability of the region. mikaul^talk 10:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. No one ever said that none of the wineries in any of the lists were not notable. Only that the vast majority are. We still have the same dilemma of whether or not Wikipedia should be a WP:DIRECTORY of mostly non-notable wineries. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 12:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes or No To Winery Lists? - what do you think?

Keep Winery Lists: I was one of the 1st to comment on this AfD, but I assumed there was some precedent/guideline/essay that would apply more directly here. After reading the discussion to date, I see there's not. Neither WP:LIST nor WP:NOTDIRECTORY help me that much either. I find ThaddeusB's thoughts most aligned with my own. Its clear that Wikipedia encourages lists of certain types, e.g., high school lists such as List of high schools in Florida, List of high schools in New York; breweries, e.g., List of breweries in Scotland, List of breweries in Australia, List of Quebec microbreweries, List of Illinois breweries; lighthouses,, e.g., List of lighthouses in the United States, List of lighthouses in Manitoba; or try List of restaurant chains or List of nuclear reactors or List of radio stations in Ohio or List of caves in Slovakia or List of golf courses in Portugal, etc. (Now, before you start typing GOLLY GEE, WP:OTHERSTUFF!! in opposition, note that that guideline states: "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." That's why I'm citing other stuff here.)

So, the question to me is whether wineries are a type of item where we think its appropriate to maintain lists (typically by region I would expect), or the type of list we think isn't appropriate, like List of pizza places in New York City or List of petrol stations in Wales. To me, the cultural significance of wine and as a hobby or passion of many suggests winery lists are notable and appropriate for wikipedia. It would be nice if an essay developed out of this AfD to provide guidance on winery lists. (E.g., don't include redlinks for every winery, do include link to individually notable wineries that have individual pages, try to make list manageable in length -- all wineries in U.S. or France would not be usuable in one list). Alternatively if consensus is that such lists shouldn't exist, that guidance should go into WP:WINEGUIDE, an essay which currently suggests these lists should probably not exist, but the talk page suggests may not be a consensus view, hence where we are today. It would nice to have some consensus and some direction so we aren't constantly revisiting this issue.--Milowent (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an avid wine lover, I certainly understand the romanticism of wine. But, at its core, the realist in me understands that wineries are not that different from pizza shops or petrol stations. They are a business just like any other business under WP:CORP making a product. It is pretty freaking awesome product but still just a product like mustard. We don't have List of mustard producers articles either. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 05:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Agne, that is exactly the dilemma I see. Is a winery more like a lighthouse (or List of independent bookstores in the United States), or a mustard manufacturer. The project has made value judgments like this over time, presumably often without any grand plan but just what stuck and what didn't.--Milowent (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a fundamental questions to this dilemma is if the community is willing to give winery articles a "free pass" so to speak on establishing their notability according to WP:CORP? If the community is willing to ascribe wineries to a kind of special place and significances over other businesses (kinda like how we give WP:SCHOOLs and WP:ATHLETEs special significance over other buildings and people), then I can see a more valid reason for having a WP:DIRECTORY of non-notable wineries. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 15:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non arbitrary section break

Comment Can this version of List of wineries in the Eden Valley now be considered to fulfill the information case of WP:LIST?? If so the other lists should also be able to do that, IF someone would WP:SOFIXIT. (as a side question is my edit a copyright violation??) since I obviously used my reference to copy the data from?? --Stefan ^talk 13:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: what type of coverage is being cited in that wine companion book that you use? It feels like it is simply trivial coverage: that it, it simply lists the winery as existing, the year and production amounts, but otherwise does not attempt to further distinguish the wineries from each other. In other words, its the equivalent of a phone book. In that case, no, that one source is not sufficient for that list because you aren't showing why these elements are discriminate, and just listing out what comes from effectively a directory is created an indiscriminate list. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in the book is shallow, it was not intended to confirm WP:N. Since the article is NOT about one individual winery, but about all of them, we do not need all of the items on the list to be notable??? (please show me a policy that states that if it is the case!!!!), therefore the source tries to claim WP:V and to be a WP:RS. You can see (I think) all the text that I used here. --Stefan ^talk 00:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that is an improvement (even though there is still that dreadful WP:POV WP:ADVERT section for flagship/iconic wines). But we still have the same WP:DIRECTORY of largely non-notable wineries. How different is this article from a List of autoparts stores in Chicago? A local chamber of commerce guide could be found as a source for their existence with information on things like establishment and other info. Of out of the red links, I see maybe 3 wineries that would like pass WP:CORP and have an article. What, again, is the value of Wikipedia being a directory listing for non-notable wineries? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 14:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a comment here: We should be considering three levels of being worthy of inclusion:

Sufficiently notable to pass WP:CORP and have a reasonable sized article. No one will complain about this.
Barely notable to pass WP:CORP but any article would likely remain a perma-stub for a long time.
Not notable and fails WP:CORP.

The above lists should be containing elements of the first two types, and particularly important, should be used to present info about the second type of winery without having an article created on them; as long as there is something to show more than just that the winery exists. Thus , a final list may be composed of both blue and non-linked wineries, but there would be discrimination for their inclusion based on WP:CORP, and with editorial judgment to avoid creation of many smaller articles for the less notable ones. Now, again, in the above example, without knowing what this source is saying, it appears indiscriminate, with only 3 being of the first type and the rest of the third, and thus needs massive trimming. and likely deletion if only 3 end up on the list. (or merged to a larger region list of wineries). --MASEM (t) 14:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of merging these smaller regional lists into a larger country based list has come in talks with other WP:WINE members. A List of notable Australian wineries or List of notable American wineries may be a feasible solution to keep these articles focused on notable wineries and provide some encyclopedic relevance. I'm not 100% convinced yet that these list articles are really worthwhile but it would definitely be better than the status quo. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 15:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether perma-stub or not, I'd much sooner see linked lists for wine, because black links implies a complete list that includes wineries notable by way of association with the others. If a winery is only marginally notable, it can support a stub with production etc, keeping the list tidy and fulfilling the navigational and developmental list criteria. On this basis I could foresee a decent, substantial (but not over-crowded) country-based list emerging that might even be useful and informative. mikaul^talk 19:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General consensus does not seam to imply that all list items in a list must be notable? See runway contestants. --Stefan ^talk 01:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did offer a reason for the difference earlier on: the runway contestants constitute a complete, finite list in which entries are often notable solely by virtue of their membership of the competition, ie in order to create a complete list. The consensus you refer to appears to me to be an assumption based on the same principles, but they don't apply here. Firstly, a finite list of wineries is not possible, and secondly mere membership of that non-finite list does not confer notability. I'm not sure what value that consensus has if it's not based on viable criteria. mikaul^talk 01:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless the external links are removed ánd at least some of the wineries are notable enough for a wiki article. Otherwise this is just yet another spamhole in violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LSC

Maybe I'm being dumb here, but isn't there already a fairly clear guideline explaining that entries on standalone lists should all be notable in themselves? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social Work in the Relationship Education Movement

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

This appears to be an unsourced essay, and tags asking for improvement have been removed. All of this material is covered better in multiple other articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An essay, not an encylopedia article. Northwestgnome (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ditto. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fade (2008 film)

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

Non-notable film by non-notable local filmmaker; leans way too much on an interview on the local public radio station. Orange Mike | Talk 03:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I did not know that the number was an officially recognized threshhold, which would make it acceptable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division I men's basketball players with 2000 points and 1000 rebounds

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of NCAA Division I men's basketball players with 2000 points and 1000 rebounds

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

Arbitrary division. Why 2000 and 1000? There's no significance to those umbers. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It's not arbitrary; a 2000-point/1000-rebound double achievement is highly lauded in the college basketball community. Not only do a very small percentage of players ever record just 2000 points or just 1000 rebounds, but a fraction of a percent ever manage both on the Division I level. In fact, the 2000/1000 division is even recognized in the official NCAA record books as its own subsection of college basketball. It has the list for both men and women achievers of this. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful, important enough to be called out in the NCAA record book and a relatively rare achievement in college basketball. Why is 3000 hits significant in baseball? Because it's an achievement relatively few achieve. Rikster2 (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Discworld concepts

AfDs for this article:

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

"Minor concepts" seems non-notable by definition. They are described "which only appear in the background, or are not well fleshed out." Also, no real independent sources Blargh29 (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lumping a large number of not-notable things into one list doesn't make it notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. i wonder what mr pratchett would think. probably create a fictional planet called wikipederra, where gnomes dressed in ragged wizards cloaks work ceaselessly to create a magical tome containing all the trivial information that exists. as soon as the planet becomes KNOWN for collecting trivia, it disappears into a CognitiveDissonance Hole, and is forever forgotten.(hm, maybe this has already happened many times...)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I barely know anything about Discworld and I still lol'd. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that fits The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy better than Pratchett's worlds, but I'm sure he'd use it. (No comment on nomination.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth remembering Sir Terry approves of and contributed to The Discworld Companion, which is basically the same thing in paper form... Daibhid C (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A list of minor things. Joe Chill (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of the individual parts need to find proper homes. Doing it this way does not make much sense. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is going to be deleted, please tell me where these topics should go, because I don't want to rewrite them from scratch. Also please remember that deleting this article isn't going to get rid of this material. Most of these sections started out as tiny one-paragraph articles written by Pratchett fans, and if this article goes, those articles will just pop up again, this time with nowhere to go. So instead of one AFD, you'll end up with 20.Serendi ^pod ous 08:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no other obvious place to put them, then I suppose either the page for the book where they were first mentioned or the main Discworld (world) page. But a lot of them could be seen as subsections of existing Discworld pages (Boffo, for example would fit under Witches (Discworld) and Anti-Crimes perhaps under Ankh-Morpork Thieves' Guild). Daibhid C (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some strategic merging; thaum, knurd, fingles, slood, boffo, DARS and octarine are safe. For now at least. Dark light and anti-crime fit into the running Discworld theme of creating opposites to things, which might make a decent section of Discworld (world) if I could figure out how to include it. Serendi ^pod ous 10:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I made this page years ago and it only exists because merging a whole lot of non-notable articles was quicker and easier than nominating them all for deletion. Rho (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that this is inherently not notable, no real-world significance demonstrated, no significant coverage in independent sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a collection of background information in an important cultural work, moving everything to the book where it was first mentioned is unrealistic. Putting the information on slood from Unseen Academicals under The Lost Continent would be ridiculous. 68.40.178.129 (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 03:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Blakeley

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

Sorry, but this subject is utterly non-notable. The page has a GNG tag on it since last June and the subject, a minor blogger and video editor, made the presses once for a stunt he was involved in at CES last year. Now, the article has been a target for unfounded speculation about legal matters surrounding his girlfriend.(1) To summarize; it's another BLP1E case, where its subject is not notable outside a single (somewhat non-notable in itself) event. It's also becoming a magnet for unfounded allegations and various attacks. Alison ^❤ 01:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One stunt in a trade show should not warrant an article. --Jmundo (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, BLP1E. Ein Spiel (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (Note: account blocked as a sock of a banned editor - Alison ^❤ 06:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as per BLP1E. 147.200.199.37 (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, WP:BLP1E. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E indeed. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm not sure that this is a BLP1E. Blakeley has been involved in other notable events. For example, he has been discussed in the Wall Street Journal for his food blog [34] which has also led to a book which has been reviewed in a number of locations [35]. While the article as written only talks about the CES matter, there are other sources about his other activities. There are a lot of sources about his blog and the associated book. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He co-wrote a book that was reviewed by some bloggers. So? I'm sure that I can dig up some author of a book which has been reviewed on a blog, maybe even a notable blog. One is not notable because of being mentioned in the WSJ, either. This article is not a biography, either -- it's a piece about someone known for one event, and that's the only thing it mentions. Ein Spiel (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Um, where did I ever claim that his book had been reviewed by a blog? The book has multiple reviews in a variety of sources and likely deserves an article in its own right. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey um.. you linked to the blog... That's kinda the same thing as "claiming that his book had been reviewed by a blog". --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. That one is a blog. Um, Red face. Ok. Hmm. I do have other examples that aren't blogs such as [36] but the put the emphasis on the other author almost completely. Hmm, this argument may not be as strong as I thought it was. The basic thrust that he isn't a BLP1E I think still seems to hold. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure BLP1E. The website, book or accompanying publicity stunt don't convince me as they discuss the product in detail and the creators only in passing. Gazi moff 08:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD G4. Salting, if necessary, may be requested at WP:RFPP. NAC. Tim Song (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Gutierrez, Jr.

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a mere future candidate for Congress. No other claim to notability. Note that this article has been deleted twice already via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Gutierrez Jr and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Gutierrez, Jr. --Blargh29 (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Salt per nom. Obvious fail per WP:POLITICIAN and the other two previous AfD's that unanimously decided the fate of this article. I would vote for the salting of Armando Gutierrez, Armando Gutierrez Jr, Armando Gutierrez, Jr., Armando Gutierrez, Jr, Armando Gutierrez Jr., and any other iterations that these SPA's might try in the future, so that we don't have to see this on the AfD list again. SnottyWong talk 01:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since all of those links I posted above aren't red, that means that redundant articles with alternate punctuation have already been created. Looks like the only one you missed was Armando Gutierrez. Can you add it into the infobox? SnottyWong talk 01:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all of these articles are absolutely eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4. No need to bring them to AfD again. I've added the speedy deletion template to each article, so it will likely get taken care of long before this AfD gets reviewed. SnottyWong talk 02:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo (nightclub)

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

another nightclub that fails WP:ORG and has no real claim to notability. couldn't find any third party coverage [37]. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No media coverage, no sources, and no inherent notability of the club ___location or performers at the venue. Perfect example of failing WP:N. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this nightclub. Joe Chill (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor established. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 14:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Rolando Arroyo Carmona

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz¹¹ 15:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as a well established journalist being held as a political prisoner. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage found in above news link. It is broad both in terms of number of RSes covering this topic and time period, and deep enough to meet WP:N. There are a large number of similar nominations by the same editor so my response is a bit generic, sorry. OK with merge per CoM to list article. Hobit (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E.--Staberinde (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage to pass BLP1E as part of the historical record. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG, coverage is sufficient to pass WP:BLP1E. Dreadstar ☥ 06:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There no or very little opposition here to the opinions that notability is established here however the delete opinions raise the opinion that the article fails WP:BLP1E. This is reasonably argued against by some of the keep arguments however and the other AFDs of similar people have not all reached the same outcome. Therefore am closing as no consensus defaulting to keep as the article does not come under the area where WP:Deletion Policy permits default to delete. Davewild (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Argüelles Morán

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz¹¹ 15:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Being on the AI list is sufficient sourcing that the matter is considered politically significant. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as a political prisoner. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage found in above news link. It is broad both in terms of number of RSes covering this topic and time period, and deep enough to meet WP:N. There are a large number of similar nominations by the same editor so my response is a bit generic, sorry. OK with merge per CoM. Hobit (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Political prisoners are not inherently notable. Edison (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E.--Staberinde (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple independent sources and notability beyond a single event.[38] Dreadstar ☥ 08:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Black Spring (Cuba). RMHED (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus that BLP1E should apply here. Kevin (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Fundora Álvarez

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz¹¹ 15:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an article on political prisoners in Cuba. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage found in above news link. It is broad both in terms of number of RSes covering this topic and time period, and deep enough to meet WP:N. There are a large number of similar nominations by the same editor so my response is a bit generic, sorry. I'm okay with merging per CoM to a list article. Hobit (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Edison (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E.--Staberinde (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus that BLP1E should apply here. Kevin (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normando Hernández González

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz¹¹ 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage found in above news link. It is broad both in terms of number of RSes covering this topic and time period, and deep enough to meet WP:N. There are a large number of similar nominations by the same editor so my response is a bit generic, sorry. Hobit (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Edison (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E.--Staberinde (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus that BLP1E should apply here. Kevin (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo López Bañobre

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz¹¹ 15:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage found in above news link. It is broad both in terms of number of RSes covering this topic and time period, and deep enough to meet WP:N. There are a large number of similar nominations by the same editor so my response is a bit generic, sorry. Hobit (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E.Edison (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E.--Staberinde (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus that BLP1E should apply here. Kevin (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Léster González Pentón

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz¹¹ 15:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage found in above news link. It is broad both in terms of number of RSes covering this topic and time period, and deep enough to meet WP:N. There are a large number of similar nominations by the same editor so my response is a bit generic, sorry. Hobit (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Edison (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E.--Staberinde (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 03:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of tenants in St. David's Centre

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of tenants in St. David's Centre

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

Pure directory information, running afoul of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, and unlikely to ever become encyclopedic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is merging with the main article possible? Kushal (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The only thing one would be able to do would be to redirect the title, because none of the information is appropriate for an encyclopedia. For that, one might as well just delete the blasted thing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it survive as a Category? What do you think? Kushal (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Where would it go - on the pages for the corporate entities that lease space? Seems a bit like overcategorization, and could set a nasty precedent. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't find any stand-alone articles similar to this on wikipedia for other shopping centers (a dissimilar exception is lists of the former tenants of the various world trade center buildings destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001). Maintaining lists like this is also a pain, and shopping centers usually have websites containing this information which can be linked to (and they'll update them more often than free volunteers here, most likely). The main article for a shopping center might ideally include a list of the anchor tenants, see, e.g., Mall of America, Abu Dhabi Mall, Hougang Mall, or mention the opening of some notable new store that received press at the time of opening, but having a full list of stores seems like a bad idea (i am sure we can find some that do if we looked, but I don't think its a good idea). So, its not that wikipedia can't have lists like this, but it seems that consensus may be that it shouldn't.--Milowent (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a shopping centre directory. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "guideline that isn't a guideline", WP:ANC, advises against tenant lists in shopping centre articles.--Pondle (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the WP:ANC essay.--Milowent (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ANC. Wikipedia is not a shopping centre directory. I also note that most or all of the sections about possible future tenants is unsourced. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created the page to separate the main atricle from the list of tenants which was taking up half the page, making it look very messy and as if it had been copied from a website. The new list page I created was to categorise the list of tenants into appropriate categories. I have recently edited it to make it a bit more suitable. References were available in the original bulk and would be available to recover from page history - simple. You also complained about the opening paragraph sounding to much like an advertisement. Despite finding that comment ridiculous, I have updated it to suit your taste. I think that this is a useful list and it is a lot tidier than the original. I leave it to you to decide. If you do say no, is there any other wiki on the wikimedia network that this would be suitable on??? Thanks, Lwebdan (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think such lists are useful, but guidance like WP:ANC suggests wikipedia is not to be the source of that information--we leave it up to the websites of the centers themselves. A List of pizza places in New York City would also have use, but everyone seems to agree that we'd shun such an article. (see also, for a tangentially related discussion of the types of lists we have on wikipedia, my comment as part of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_wineries_and_vineyards_in_Maine#Yes_or_No_To_Winery_Lists.3F_-_what_do_you_think.3F). --Milowent (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus that BLP1E should apply here. Kevin (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

José Luis García Paneque

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz¹¹ 15:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is broad and deep here covering many sources and many years. [39], not BLP1E. Closer should note that there are a LARGE number of nearly identical cases and while a merge to an appropriate article is reasonable, deletion isn't. Hobit (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Political prisoners are not inherently notable. Edison (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E.--Staberinde (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus that BLP1E should apply here. Kevin (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iván Hernández Carrillo

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz¹¹ 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list of political prisoners in Cuba. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such article. --Damiens.rf 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on similar articles. Hobit (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: be aware this in one in a series of about 40, most very similar in sourcing levels, but different people took the time to comment on different ones. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Political prisoners are not inherently notable. Edison (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E.--Staberinde (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus that BLP1E should apply here. Kevin (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Rodríguez Fernández

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

Notability tied to just one event. Damiens.rf 15:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grsz¹¹ 15:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N and coverage has been long lasting, so not just one event. For example [40]. Coverge on google news spans about 10 years. Hobit (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that there are a large number of nearly identical AfDs. Different people commented on different ones (there are like 40?) so I'd ask the closer to please review the group (all nominated by the same person). Thanks, Hobit (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not a directory of prison inmates, and political prisoners are not inherently notable. Edison (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E.--Staberinde (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. lots of concerns by several (majority) of editors about WP:RS in that article JForget 21:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Frontier

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

Game has not received significant coverage from reliable publications. Article cites primary sources (sourcefourge, Mod DB, wiki) and a short slashdot submission with wishy-washy information. Marasmusine (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: You know it's going to be hard to make a case to keep an article when it has its own wiki and even there no one can manage to list anything that would count as reliable sources in their media coverage area. As said in description, it's all first-party stuff listed in the article and there doesn't appear to be anything else to tie it do. As "press" on their wiki it links to self-posted press releases on some B-rate gaming websites. Not even the general of reviews or discussions to go with. Going to have to pass. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was the project that developed the bots that later got introduced to Sauerbraten and furthermore acts as a development platform for new concepts that might get introduced to sauerbraten. --87.123.79.125 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's assuming that article could stand up to a deletion discussion. Even if it was looked over and certified in top form, this is far from the kind of game that gets notability via legacy of series. It's okay if a game it low-distribution and publicity, but we still need sources sources sources! Links to self- or own-published material can't count as third-party reliability and notability in this case. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Blood Frontier is just a footnote in the development of Sauerbraten, then mention it in the Cube 2 article (providing citations can be found). It does not justify a whole article on this game. Marasmusine (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. You're right! Why must you always be right?! Errr... well, just by looking, the article for Cube 2 is in a lot better shape and information added in there could probably solve this problem without sparking any tags on another. It would need proper citation for the things mentioned by the IP above, and after that the mentions of this game would have to be highly limited to its software/engine and clear itself of anything regarding plot, etc. ...Unless done, still have to sit on delete though. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Blood Frontier: The Latest Open-Source FPS on Phoronix (note that the site has its own article) for one example of an article that shows up via Google results. This discusses the release and its kinship to Sauerbraten; I cannot edit the Blood Frontier article due to not having a neutral point of view. Blood Frontier is intended to succeed Sauerbraten, it is not a test platform for it; as open source projects we merely have a free exchange of ideas, information, and code. Angeles (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (Quinton "quin" Reeves, Lead Developer)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. On the subject of google results, do you know of any Blood Frontier coverage that isn't just "here are some screenshots" or a press release? Marasmusine (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your total honesty about this is great! A POV issue doesn't automatically mean you can't edit the article; if you're just adding a few lines of text to connect the dots I don't see how that would be a problem. You do, however, deserve a cookie for thinking ahead in a way few people ever bother to. I'm in agreement with Marasmusine in that some really generic search results aren't quite enough though. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing discussion for Keep: I'm glad I could be of some assistance. Only other major site I can think of is BlackBoxBETA; but there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of articles written by independents (in a variety of languages), a large portion of which are blogs (or other 'review' type sites, which I'm unsure constitutes a valid source), most notably FreeGamer and IndieGameQuest. I use Google Alerts, so while I do see these articles, it is only to track the movements on the internet and I don't really pay that much attention or note down ones of any significance. Angeles (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (Quinton "quin" Reeves, Lead Developer)[reply]

Our guidelines on reliable sources rule out those websites as contributing towards WP:N: indiegamequest and freegamer are self-published, and BBB don't provide the kind of third-party coverage we look for [41]. Marasmusine (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Phoronix has its own article on Wikipedia, it seems safe to assume that it is a reliable self published source which covered Blood Frontier and satisfies WP:SPS due to the fact it has been cited by reliable third party publications ^[1]^[2]^[3]. This in turn means the other SPS's become valid as the article need not be based primarily on them. I realise, though, that I am most likely fighting a losing battle here and will just ask that the Wikipedia article redirects to our home page until such time as search engines no longer list Wikipedia in the top results (whether that be by natural evolution, or at Wikipedia's request). We never created the article, but it has become our largest source of traffic to the project; and I suspect a great deal of articles would not stand up to such scrutiny as we have faced here either. I have already spent way too much time validating and revalidating assertions made against this article, so please feel free to close this AfD and continue with deletion. Angeles (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC) (Quinton "quin" Reeves, Lead Developer)[reply]

The Phoronix coverage isn't significant enough for WP:N, but if anyone else can vouch for the site's reliability (being notable doesn't necessarily mean being reliable, as I found out when I wanted to cite Home of the Underdogs a little while ago), we could cite it at List of open source games and redirect there (sorry, redirecting to your website isn't a possibility.) Marasmusine (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the mentions on websites like Slashdot seem to be (just about) sufficient for notability here. Robofish (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er... you do know that the Slashdot entry is just a copy-paste from a personal blog([42]), right? Marasmusine (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Slashdot source does not cover it. It is far too close to being WP:Primary and also selfpublished. I know a single editor gets to decide whether a post goes online but I don't think we can judge a quick decision of a single editor at another website to publish someone's selflove e.g. "and the game is great! It's nice to see these talented guys showing a true free software attitude" as a guide to wikipedia notability. I think throw this one out. Polargeo (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of third-party published sources. --Teancum (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A Google News Archive search returns mostly blogs or passing mentions, while the sources prevented by Angeles (talk · contribs) (including the Slashdot one) are unreliable user-generated blogs that do not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Enterprises

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

Delete. Nothing in the article suggests that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There really isn't anything in this article to establish notability--Blargh29 (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that a number of other fictional companies associated with The Young and the Restless have been deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anuradha Sharma Pujari

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

The only significant media references to this writer are in blogs. Please note also possible conflict of interest of article creator; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katha Books for more information. Chick Bowen 01:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found citations noting her work as editor of a popular publication in Assam and noting her as a significant and popular author in that region. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The article Anuradha Sarma Pujari which has its own source needs to be merged with this article.~~ ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Done[reply]

Keep per improvements made by User:ChildofMidnight, which establish notability of the subject. Note that further sources are likely to be available in Assamese, although even the current version based on English language and online sources is in decent shape. Abecedare (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ChildofMidnight's improvements that show notability. -SpacemanSpiff 01:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 21:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben's Imaginary Band

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ben's Imaginary Band

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

One man band with no significant coverage. No charted albums; fails WP:BAND. ~~Also appears to be written by COI author.~~ Triplestop x3 00:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"One man band with no significant coverage. No charted albums; fails WP:BAND. Also appears to be written by COI author. Triplestop x3 00:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)"

First of all, please expand on why you think it is written by a COI author. Second, based on the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, inclusion of an article on wikipedia based on importance should be determined on a case by case basis, and those guidelines are meant to be used with discretion. Third, there is evidence to support notability of Ben's Imaginary Band in several verifiable sources written and statistical and I have reason to believe that a full search for these sources was not conducted before the request for deletion was applied.

Thank you.

Nikolaevich —Preceding unsigned comment added by LyovNikolaevich (talk • contribs) 00:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a search, and there was no significant coverage. Triplestop x3 01:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly expand on how you see there to be a Conflict of Interest in this article. It seems somewhat hypocritical for an online encyclopedia to disregard its own medium (the internet, that is) as evidence. This I must admit is my first major inclusion to Wikipedia, as I like the band and was surprised to find no information about it on here.

Thanks.

P.S. @Triplestop, I am curious as to how you find the verifiability of these two musicians; they are what the article I wrote was based on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casiotone_for_the_Painfully_Alone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Woodward —Preceding unsigned comment added by LyovNikolaevich (talk • contribs) 01:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the original creator of this article; after further reading the wiki guidelines for notability I can see that this musician is in no way notable, and thus would like its speedy removal. I also apologize for assuming you didn't do a full search, Triplestop, though I would suggest using a constructive tone rather than a derisive one, as you never know when the article you are scrutinizing is someone's first.

Thanks Nikolaevich —Preceding unsigned comment added by LyovNikolaevich (talk • contribs) 10:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Sprayberry

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

can't see how this 11 year old passes WP:CREATIVE. hardly anything in gnews [43]. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~WP:CREATIVE? Inapplicable.~~ He might pass WP:ENT if it can be shown he has a significant fanbase or cult following, or if his roles roles in multiple notable projects were significant... but I can find no reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I meant WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Understood. Well... doesn't seem to pass either one, much less WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 7 November 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 01:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nope, nothing Shii (tock) 06:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although a vote count would likely lead to "no consensus" as a result, reading through the discussion and evaluating the arguments presented pushes me to conclude that deletion is the appropriate decision in this case. In particular, some of the "keeps" cited notability guidelines such as WP:PORNBIO, but these arguments were adequately refuted. All things considered, the subject simply isn't notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Trump

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

Former porn actress with a local criminal history failing WP:PORNBIO and WP:NOT#NEWS. Jmundo (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviewing the sources, she satisfies the general notability guidelines for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Not notable. This article is not about her not notable enough porn career, but more about her criminal history, which is just a list of minor crimes. The page reads like an WP:attack page. Note also the word "alleged" appears four times, it should not appear at all in a BLP, either a reliable source confirms she did these things, or this should be removed. Martin451 (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Martin451. Her porn career is not notable, and the rest is a series of minor crimes that are not notable of themselves. I do not believe that these minor items add up to showing notability. Kevin (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Morbidthoughts. She easily meets basic BIO and PORNBIO guidelines. Xihr 01:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She has not received nominations for well-known awards, or has made a unique contributions to a specific porno genre as required by PORNBIO. --Jmundo (talk) 03:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She has also (AFAICS) never been a playboy playmate, or made unique contributions to a pornographic genre. Point 5 of PORNBIO says "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." I don't think press coverage that is nothing to do with her porn career counts for PORNBIO, so she fails PORNBIO notability. The rest of the article is just news of a minor criminal, which also does not meet notability guidelines. Martin451 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Morbidthoughts. Passes GNG. Dismas|^(talk) 08:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. NOT#News doesn't seem to apply as the coverage goes beyond a single event. The sources seem reliable, despite being local papers. Epbr123 (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The offline sources are not only local but routine news reports ("Police find fake checks, IDs; Women jailed", "Drugs found after car pulled over", ""Robbery plan sours; escort, 3 others, held") --Jmundo (talk) 03:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A BLP disaster zone, individual has at best extremely marginal notability, best to delete this mess. RMHED (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the GNG and current version of PORNBIO #5; extensive press coverage over white supremacist association makes her name a very plausible search term. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per RMHED and nominator. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bring in the Noise, Bring in the Phunk

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

This is an article on an unofficial DVD about the Black Eyed Peas. Because it is an unauthorized release, it is fails notability in WP:MUSIC. The article is simply two sentences long, not counting a paragraph-long review quote, which needs to be removed as it is a copyright violation. –Dream out loud (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell, this is an unofficial release by someone otherwise unrelated to the Black Eyed Peas, resulting in failure to pass WP:MUSIC. I also recommend its removal from the Black Eyed Peas chronology, given its unofficial nature. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this unofficial DVD. Joe Chill (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Ryan (newspaper publisher)

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

Fails to meet WP:BIO. Being the executive/publisher of The Baltimore Sun seems kind of notable, but there's no significant RS coverage to prove Ryan's notability. I already had to remove a BLP vio (slanted quote that was unsourced) from the article, too. JamieS93 21:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Weak Keep'~~ Keep being the head of a major publication is intrinsically notable. Journalists tend to cover each other, so there's a problem in sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC) -- changed to Keep on the basis of Eastmain's comment.[reply]
Keep. I added some references. The references that were already present in the article, but not available online, were from Editor & Publisher and Associated Press, both of which are reliable sources. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Am closing this as no consensus as there is significant disagreement over whether this fails W:NOT#NEWS or not and the debate has already been relisted once. However I strong recommend considering the merge or just redirect option suggested by SmokeyJoe if nothing further can be written on the topic than what is already there - that is a normal editing decision however. Davewild (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky (dolphin)

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

The article is about a pink dolphin in a Louisiana waterway. It seems to be WP:NOTNEWS. Warrah (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 21:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would encourage people to take a closer look at this subject before deciding to support deletion. While an article about a dolphin in the United States doesn't sound like it would meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines at first, the subject of this article isn't your average dolphin. This dolphin has been the subject of significant coverage in at least two reliable secondary sources: The Daily Telegraph and News.com.au. Reading these articles, I've gleaned two things establishing the subject as highly unusual: (1) the animal is believed to be the only pink dolphin in the world and (2) the dolphin has become a tourist attraction. I think these two things help establish the subject as one of the select few dolphins notable enough for their own articles, together with the fact that the subject meets the general notability guideline, as explained above. As for the WP:NOTNEWS argument presented by Jujutacular, I firmly disagree. WP:NOTNEWS states: "News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." I fail to see how this subject is disqualified from inclusion by that policy in any way. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia does not exist to promote tourism. Edison (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Edison, WP:NOTNEWS doesn't mention tourism once. In fact, WP:NOT does not mention tourism at all except at WP:NOTTRAVEL, which certainly doesn't apply here. I have to ask you: In what way does this violate WP:NOTNEWS? I personally don't believe it does. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not state that WP:NOTNEWS mentions tourism. I said this fails WP:NOTNEWS. Note that it is a "news story." One news story, picked up by a second paper the next day. Also, and as an independent observation, Wikipedia does not exist to promote tourism. This falls under "not indiscriminate information," "not a travel guide," and "not a directory" (of animals who are "tourist attractions" or who have been covered by a news story). Edison (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, but also I don't really think that the two articles add up to "significant coverage" - really all they have to say is that a pink dolphin lives in a lake in Louisiana. The fact that the dolphin exists doesn't mean Pinky's notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calcasieu Lake, where the content already exists. Insufficient material for a stand alone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable based on press coverage. International press coverage! Everyking (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am jen

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

Non-notable musician. Four CDs all self-published. References are equally primary sources such as linkedin, facebook. No assertion of notability is given in the article. Frank | talk 19:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This musician has four albums in their discography, but they are all self-published. The subject plainly fails WP:MUSIC. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor established through significant coverage in secondary sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Club Sonderauflage

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

Non-notable bootleg. Canniba loki 01:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An apparently authorised version was released in 2006. http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=22328 http://www.auralexploits.com/product_3190.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contains Mild Peril (talk • contribs) 03:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently? Authorised by whom? These non-reliable sources only shows another bootleged version released in 2006.--Canniba loki 14:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon sells it so I'm guessing it's legit. The Italian record label Earmark seems to specialise in re-issues. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:NALBUMS? A bootleg is notable, if it have significant independent coverage in reliable sources.--Canniba loki 15:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is true, the Grey Album is a known bootleg album off the top of my head. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Bootleg release sold on Amazon and the subject is... somewhat notable. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Grey Album is a notable bootleg because it received significant independent coverage in reliable sources (i.e. professional reviews). A bootleg sold by Amazon does not mean that is a notable album.--Canniba loki 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May have been a bootleg at one point but is actually an unofficial recording. The album has been released on Earmark records in 2006 and is listed on allmusic and VH1, both are reliable sources. J04n(talk page) 02:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NEO GEO

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

Fails WP:BAND, prod contested Josh Parris 01:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination (fails WP:BAND), and redirect to Neo Geo. TJ Spyke 03:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if deleted, redirect to Neo Geo 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blairism

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

This looks like a mess of WP:SYNTHESIS rather than an actual term or ideology. Excluding the WP:BLP fun of just naming people, we have essentially a summary of Tony Blair's views and some theories as to what is popular about them. This article doesn't do much other than Blair and Brown disagree, this article just uses the terms Brownite and Blairite in the same Americans would use Bush and Obama, defining their administrations, not their policies. This doesn't add anything really, but I'll admit this is probably a good reliable source on point. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. You don't think that 'Blairite' is a term that's regularly used independently of what Blair did in office? I think you'll find it is, and that the media still talk of a 'Blairite' faction (in both Labour and the Conservatives, as it happens). Bastin 10:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep - but perhaps rename to "Blairite". The term is a significant one in the past decade of British politics. --Paularblaster 17:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - this term is widely used to describe Tony Blair's leadership style or policy agenda, even if there is disagreement about its substance.--Pondle (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "+Blairism OR +Blairite" gets 15,000 Google news hits. The media obviously thinks such a thing exists, so it'd be churlish of us to think we know better. There's also thousands of scholarly articles using the terms and hundreds of books. Alan Milburn is still often described as a Blairite,[44][45] so it's by no means just a description of what Tony Blair thinks. Fences&Windows 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I don't think listing Labour politicians as Blairites is a real BLP concern. Such references should be cited of course, but this is hardly an area where we risk libelling or harming someone. Fences&Windows 22:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not really sure what consensus is here, although it's not for deletion in any event. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brownism

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

Like Blairism, excluding these BLP concerns, it seems like a WP:SYNTHESIS of 'here's Gordon Brown's views and here's who agrees with him', except unsourced as well. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Really we need separate pages on "Brownist" and "Brownite", with this is as a disambiguation page. --Paularblaster (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate at minimum. "Brownism" has a much more significant meaning that is prior in historical right; it described the followers of Robert Browne, an English church reformer who wanted a congregational church polity. Those articles want expansion, and I may get around to it some day, but that was what I thought I would find when I followed the link. The instant subject would appear to be more fully covered in the article Premiership of Gordon Brown. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Blair-Brown government or to something else. The rift between two groups with in Britain's Labour Party is an important topic, and perhaps it's unfair to compare this article to the better written (Blairism), but I think it's a subject that needs to be treated for what it is, a dispute within a political party. Mandsford (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to whatever article deals with Brown. Decidely not notable enough as a term for a WP article. Collect (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can put in the name of almost any american president followed by the word doctrine and get an article. Why should british politicans be any different? I also note Blairism was kept. Stupidstudent (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stupid is not so stupid. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Phi Kappa

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

An unsourced and, as far as I can tell, completely unsourceable article (all relevant search results are mirrors of this article). In all likelihood a hoax, but a non-notable/non-verifiable organization at the least. ShelfSkewed Talk 04:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it's a hoax, but I do think it fails the guidelines set out at WP:ORG. It certainly hasn't been the subject of significant coverage by secondary sources. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it may be a hoax. Nevertheless, even if not, a search reveals no coverage at all of this organization. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teega

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

Non-notable browser. No indication of notability despite being around with a maintenance tag requesting references for a year. Appears to be being maintained by the software author and is bordering on G11. noq (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tedickey (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croats in the United Kingdom

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

No content beyond population size and a list of a few people who might fit the definition of Croats in the United Kingdom. Article makes no claim to notability. Previously considered for deletion, but alongside two other articles which have more content. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, or a collection of miscellaneous information. Edison (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete - there are links to Croat groups in the UK showing their activity. There is a small community in the UK, and they have links with various figures important to Croatia. The authors Marcus Tanner and Robin Harris, for example. The latter received an award from the Croatian government. Then you have the footballers and so on. The community have also held major events (run by the Croatian Students and Young Professionals Network and places like the Greater London Assembly and the Royal United Services Institute (for national day) - those are arguably the most prestigious venues for National Day events held outside Croatia. A small community, but relatively influential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.139.104 (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've added some unsourced material about Croatian associations but there is still nothing to establish notability. Have these events you mention received coverage in third-party sources? And I fail to see what Marcus Tanner and Robin Harris have to do with it. They're British writers who write about the Balkans, not Croats in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...If there's anything notable about this group, someone should find it soon. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alleanza Cattolica

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

Note: I am submitting the AFD on behalf of the IP, their argument follows. tedder (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam about a little italian group active in some areas of the Latium and Abruzzo. Not encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.235.53.162 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article definitely needs improvement, there seems to be enough attention on Gnews to indicate notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Edwards321. R Davidson (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a Roman Catholic lay association. Received some notice from the Vatican[46], their activities are newsworthy[47], and they've been harshly criticised by ideological enemies[48]. Seems to be notable. Article could probably best be expanded by someone whose Italian is more surefooted than mine. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woking and Horsell Cricket Club

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

Delete Non-notable local club. Article was prodded. The reason given for contesting the prod was that two people who were later to become famous (Eric and Alec Bedser) played there when they were young. However, notability is not inherited from such a connection. None of the references given in the article is significant independent coverage, and I have found none. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 00:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 00:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bioregional multi-member district

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

Delete. original research. neologism. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google shows fewer than 30 hits when dupes are not counted, and these don't amount to substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, therefore notability is not established. Possibly original research. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowstar

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

COI issues and looks like a vanity page. The claims to notability involve working with a notable producer, but I can't find any references to back that up. Creator had also removed producer credits from the noted tracks in other WP articles and replaced it with the subject of this article. Shadowjams (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definite COI/vanity article. As to the subject's notability...well, that's a bit trickier. The subject of this article, it is asserted, has worked with a number of well-known American singers and rappers. However, I wasn't able to find anything to back most of these claims up, leading me to believe that this might be a hoax. For example, the subject of the article supposedly produced a single by the rapper Flo Rida recently; however, this article is the only Google hit for Arrowstar and Flo Rida. There is one exception, however; it seems that "Flight School" by GLC may, in fact, have been produced by someone named Arrowstar. That's according to several web pages I located using Google; however, none of them qualify as reliable sources. One last note: the subject of this article has a (relatively new) account on MySpace on which he also claims to produce for Kanye West. That page also provides zero evidence to back up that claim. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of non-trivial sources, some parts cut of whole cloth. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BS.Player

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

Non-notable media player. Still reads like advertising after being claimed as such in 2005. Wikipedia is not a software directory. The external links contain one major review, and several minor reviews (including blogs). Being reviewed does not establish notability, as every piece of software will eventually get reviewed. Miami33139 (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable player? Not true. BS.Player is the first media player for PC platform^{[citation needed]}. BS.Player have 60 milion users^{[citation needed]}. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mat2000 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Mat2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please back up these asserted facts with sources. Miami33139 (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no notability, and considering that everybody I have known that has run Windows has been using Winamp since the days of Windoze 95, I'd be surprised if Mat2000 could substantiate the claims he makes in his commentary above. That said, I accordingly challenge Mat2000 to surprise me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was VERY popular in Russia for video playback^{[citation needed]}. Ehpc (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds easy to source then to show that supposed fact. Miami33139 (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacked relevant news articles. Alexius08 (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kat (band). I've closed this as redirect rather than merge as the merge target contains much the same content already. Kevin (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of KAT band members

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

Contested prod. The article has no other content then a single image and a header. Article is not notable enough to warrant a separate article. Either delete or merge with Kat (band) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kat (band); content fork.--Canniba loki 15:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the band. It's a nice image and does its job well, but creating a separate article just to place it in doesn't make much sense. This probably could have been moved and redirected without the need of an AfD, with an RfC held if anyone objected. Them From Space 22:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damini Kumari

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. a search on her name reveals around 100 results, with most of them being social networking sites or forum posts. She written a few published article's but i cannot find more of then mention. Similarly we have no article on either the TV station or the show she anchors for; This is no definition of notability, but could show the lack of importance of those shows. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 19:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nomination has said it all. All I'll add is that I am surprised that there are no Google News hits either, which suggests that the TV anchor has not received any independent biographical coverage. Abecedare (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Considering that sources have been provided after the last delete opinion and that (assuming good faith) the nominator has withdrawn I think there is sufficient consensus here that the topic is notable. Davewild (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubtronica

AfDs for this article:

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

Some time ago I have placed this note on the article's talk page:

To PROD dubtronica article
I suggest PRODding this article. There are several reason reasons for doing so:

Google.Books returns 1 search result for "Dubtronica" request, and that result is a trivial note on this term: [49]

I've surfed through first five pages of search results on the term and Google and found only trivial mentions of this term.

The article itself states that dubtronica is not "universally accepted" as term. This self-critiquous remake, however, sounds like original research as there's no citation provided for it.

The article's titular sentence states that dubtronica mixes electronica and dub in a subtle way. However, it never further explains what that subtle way is.

The term is incredibly vague, as dub is electronic music par excellence since the point of its creation.

Electronica is not a particular genre of music, that makes the term dubtronica even more vague.

The article linked at the end of this article is both of doubtful notability and still seems the only source of information for this mythical genre -- Appletangerine un (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The PROD was removed, and I was suggested to set the AFD discussion for the page. Please discuss whether this article should exist. The previous discussion for its deletion met no consensus and can be viewed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubtronica -- Appletangerine un (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sub-genres is notable enough, and there are neough RS that mention the genre.
- "Google.Books returns 1 search result for "Dubtronica" request, and that result is a trivial note on this term "- not all RS are indexed by Google.Books
- "I've surfed through first five pages of search results on the term and Google and found only trivial mentions of this term." - well, it already proves that the term is in use by musical press.
- "The article itself states that dubtronica is not "universally accepted" as term. This self-critiquous remake, however, sounds like original research as there's no citation provided for it." - the mere fact that you are proposing this article for deletion proves that the term is not universally accepted.
- "The article's titular sentence states that dubtronica mixes electronica and dub in a subtle way. However, it never further explains what that subtle way is." - let's just remove "subtle".
- "The term is incredibly vague, as dub is electronic music par excellence since the point of its creation." - you are deadly wrong. The original dub music of Jamaica had nothing to do with electronic music. It was simply instrumental versions of reggae songs played on slower RPM. Netrat (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The 27 Google News results and 22,000 Google hits show that this a fairly widely recognized (sub)genre. There's a decent article from the Miami New Times for starters. Probably better trimmed down and merged into Dub music.--Michig (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Netrat. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Michig sourced the article with reliable sources, I call for closure of this voting. I'm Appletangerine, but I'm in the public cafe so I can't login with my account. However, initial concerns about unnotability of the subject turned to be untrue so the topic is absolutely legal now. -- 82.209.225.13 (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Lever

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

Unsourced article about living person. Notability is unclear as there does not appear to be substantial coverage in reliable sources. snigbrook (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The note from Magic Castle provides some street cred in the stage mage circles, but doesn't meet WP:N. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] New Linux look fuels old debate

[2] Intel aims for open-source graphics advantage

[3] The State of ATI Drivers on GNU/Linux

[1]

[2]

[3]