Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 10

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 9 September 11 September >

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 speedy delete. Patent nonsense Tone 10:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian athlete

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

Unnotable posting of an idea for a drink. See also Talk:Russian athlete. — Sebastian 06:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy huh, A7 covers such a wide variety of things but this manages to squeeze through to waste all our time Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The keep votes are significantly weaker that those requesting deletion. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama Joker poster

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

Minor blip in the "OMG Obama!" universe, wholly unworthy of a standalone article. See past discussion for Michelle's arms and Barack's fly-swatter, namely the idea that simply being mentioned in a smattering of reliable sources is not enough of a threshold to make a subject article-worthy. Tarc (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What do you find to be WP:OR in the article? Jpatokal (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability. Bfigura (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:N states that a topic is notable if it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", a criterion which the poster easily meets, as the references include articles in the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, MSNBC etc which are entirely about the poster (and not, as asserted above, "trivial mentions"). The poster is already easily the most recognizable Obama artwork since the Barack Obama "Hope" poster and a Google search for "obama joker" gets 4.4 million hits, compared to eg. 28k for "obama fly-swatter" or 867k for "michelle obama arms". A quick date-sorted search on Google News indicates that, over one month after breaking, the story is still receiving plenty of coverage and has even become a standard symbol of anti-Obamaism, as in Many protesters at the meeting held similar signs, which depicted President Barack Obama as The Joker from Batman and said "Organizing for National Socialist Health Care. (NBC). Jpatokal (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not disputing that it has received coverage in some reliable sources, but there is also the "presumed" aspect of the notability guidelines to consider, which dovetails into WP:NOT#NEWS. The article doesn't even do a thing to assert its own notability, which is why the PROD should've been allowed to stand and save us a lot of time. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Briefly put, the image's notability above and beyond being an artwork stem from it capturing current public disillusion with Obama, in much the same way that the "Hope" poster captured the pro-Obama zeitgeist last year. I've added several refs and quotes regarding this to the article. Jpatokal (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this article was created by User:Grundle2600, who is topic banned from political articles. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources in the article show that the poster passes WP:N. I don't see why anyone would match a poster with WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article, which mentions the poster, although not intrinsically about it, appears to be just 6 hours old [1]. This editorial on the poster is just 3 days old [2]. There are also a number of extremely recent articles about the poster on Google News. [3] Metty (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sourcing is not the issue, as I made note of in the nomination rationale, so continuously bringing up a point that no one is contesting is getting to be a bit pointless, don't you think? With 24/7 media saturation and the unfortunate tabloidization/sensationalist bent of mainstream media that sensationalizes some pretty trivial garbage during a slow day, just being "reliably sourced" simply isn't enough to justify an article. At the risk of crossing the "other stuff" line, I will, again, point out the arms and the fly. News heads talk about the First Lady's arms, other news heads talk about the talk...The President swats a fly in an interview, news heads talk about it...a kid photoshops an Obama poster, someone else adds a word and makes posters, the news heads talk about it...
    Will any of these three events have any lasting, indelible notability this time next month? Next year? These are the sort of deeper issues that should be discussed when we decide if a topic has sufficient, lasting value/significance to warrant an encyclopedic treatment; not "I saw it in 10 different sources this week". If all we can say is "yea, it happened and some people talked about it", that doesn't cut it as far as the "presumed" aspect of the WP:GNG goes, im my opinion. Tarc (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's almost exactly my point. The fly is a one-off event similar to the rabbit incident mentioned previously and isn't getting mentioned any more, however the poster is being used again and again (see the first article I referenced in the comment for an example). The poster wasn't just used once and forgotten. There is even more than one version of it [4] and several different captions other than socialism (which I'm looking to put into the article). Metty (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get too excited at there being different versions. It's a fairly standard meme. There's a widespread and far more controversial meme about Glenn Beck doing the rounds, and I don't think we're going to create an article about that. Fences&Windows 01:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Journalism is the first draft of history" Abyssal (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Not nowhere near important to be on Wikipedia. --A3RO (mailbox) 07:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Political satire has always been permitted. Both parties and all Presidents are subjected to it. I do not see this as racial in any way shape or form. While I'd like to see it all stopped, that will never happen. So I guess it's fair game... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.80.61.113 (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets the general notability guideline, as can be seen from all the reliable sources at the bottom of the article. Even if this turns out to be a negligible blip in the course of history, Wikipedia is not paper and has plenty of room for such information. --Itub (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has plenty of media coverage. Also, this is a currently used symbol by a notable political group, found at all of their gatherings. There are two references in the article on the statement that it is used as a symbol by the Tea Party protest movement. Dream Focus 23:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article clearly satisfies notability requirements. Multiple reliable sources have covered the poster's controversy. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to this article because a) The poster is not an event; it's a form of political "art", and b) The controversy surrounding the image's removal from flickr and the poster being used by anti-Obama protesters demonstrates periodic news coverage. Although some may find the image distasteful, the article meets necessary criteria and is in no way an endorsement of the poster's message. APK say that you love me 02:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Fare Music Foundation

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

this is basically an advertisement for a non notable private music college. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have nominated Jim Ankan Deka for deletion, which is part of the same walled garden. A third article in the series Bhabananda Deka may be borderline notable. Abecedare (talk) 01:47, 5 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 00:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow arch studios

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

Spammy, promotional, unreferenced non encyclopedic article about a non-notable recording studio. Speedy declined due to the alleged notability of 2 bands that rehearse there, but notability is not inherited. WuhWuzDat 22:01, 4 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 23:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter James Knight

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

This is a contested prod. It was prodded with the text: "Only claim to notability is the fact that this person committed a murder, which is (unfortunately) all too common. The only references are primary sources (court documents). Knight does not meet WP:N." I claim some authorship of the article. I say it is notable because he is the only murderer of abortion clinic staff in Australian history. Secondary sources are easy to find - see Google. I contend that Supreme Court judgments are in fact secondary sources (the evidence presented in court is the primary source, the judge and jury's synthesis of that evidence being secondary). Richard Cavell (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Murders are unfortunately all too common. Even if this was the first abortion-related murder in Australia, I don't see why that would make it especially notable. It could perhaps be a mention in an article on abortion-related violence (if we even have something like that). I disagree that Supreme Court judgments are secondary sources: they are the primary sources that secondary sources (like newspaper journalists) rely upon. As for the sources, the Google search provided by the nom gives many hits, if you restrain this to "Peter Knight" and abortion, it is already much less. Skimming through the top hits, I don't see any that meet WP:RS, just blogs, advocacy sites, etc. As the original prodder, I stick to my opinion that this person is not notable, but am willing to change my mind if good sources are presented, the Google search not being convincing at all. --Crusio (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article has a section on violence outside of the US, mentioning cases in Canada and New Zealand and, yes, Australia. Everything worth knowing about this case is already included there. --Crusio (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep murders with special features are notable, especially considered that "He later stated that he intended to massacre everyone in the clinic, and progressively rid Melbourne of all its abortion clinics." This is one of them. There are actually over 50 of secondary sources in Google News archive (though some are duplicates) They include the LA Times and the London Evening Standard--thus showing international interest, not only national in Australia. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 5 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 23:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bukidnon State University Sportfest

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

Non-notable within-university sports event. No significant coverage by reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Contested PROD without explanation. Bluemask (talk) 07:51, 4 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 23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ipod terra

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

Unsourced crystal ballery. Rumour page. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Association of European Rarities Committees

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

fails WP:ORG, lacks third party coverage [6], despite article existing for over 4 years with no real improvement...I'm thinking due to lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This feels like inappropriate use of the Google Test. The vast majority (30 out of about 33?) of the countries covered by AERC are not English-speaking, and so relevant publications will not feature in a search of English-language news sources. In addition, the publications of ornithological organisations in AERC countries are in the main not available on the internet. I know that the British sources found by Google are a fraction of the mentions of the organisation in the British ornithological literature, and if we extrapolate that across all countries, even allowing for reduced coverage in Eastern Europe, say, we've still got significant coverage in 3rd-party sources. This subject probably doesn't fail WP:ORG therefore. SP-KP (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
provide evidence of significant third party coverage then. LibStar (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps ask that in a slightly less agressive way? SP-KP (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hardly an aggressive way, the best way to save an article from deletion is to provide sources establishing notability. I'll happily withdraw the nomination if anyone can find substantial third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since my last edit, I've just quickly pulled a selection of European ornithological journals off my shelves and had a flick through. In Dutch Birding, I quickly found three mentions of AERC in a single volume (six issues). In Alula, a Finnish journal, I found two mentions within two volumes (eight issues). In one volume (12 issues) of Birding World, a British journal, I found two mentions. If I can find that many mentions in fifteen minutes, in just three journals, I'm struggling to see how we can regard AERC as an organisation with limited third-party coverage. If you want to verify this, try asking at WP:BIRD for a second opinion. SP-KP (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

simply having mentions may not be enough. indepth coverage is preferred as per WP:GNG, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." LibStar (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have used a better word than "mentions". To give you some examples of the type of coverage I found above, one item was about the establishment by AERC of a pan-European policy on national ornithological list categories and noted how this had been adopted by a number of national rarities committees, a few of the items reported on cross-European co-operation on taxonomic decision-making, co-ordinated by AERC through its Taxonomic Advisory Committee, and the recommendations that were being made as a result of that co-operation. So, not just trivial or mention-in-passing coverage, which is perhaps the impression I gave. Hope that helps? SP-KP (talk) 12:12, 4 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 23:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Given the circumstances, this may be speedily renominated if necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believers Never Die Part Deux Tour

edit
Believers Never Die Part Deux Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable concert tour that fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nothing any more special about this tour than any other. We are not here just to list tour dates. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 4 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 23:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's Note: The article has being re-listed for a final time (thus last chance) due to no participation for several and lack of consensus. JForget 23:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete G3 (hoax) by user:PMDrive1061. Non admin closure. Have a nice day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the Note

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

This article does not assert its notability, or appear to have any. Saebjorn! 23:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Patton123 (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Suite

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

Failure to demonstrate WP:NOTE --Robert Horning (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a start-up proposed space hotel based out of Barcelona, Spain, which was mostly a press conference and a website that is mostly dead. While it is true that this company actually existed and a Google search can produce several news reports about this press conference, the effort appears to be dead and indeed can be considered vaporware. There is not even a single mention of this project since the original press conference over two years ago. Essentially, this is not a notable project and there does not appear to be any reason to believe that this space station or hotel will ever be built. Nobody who is associated with this project either before or since has achieved any sort of notability either. Simply put, this article is about something which is nothing, and certainly in the space development community they have not achieved anything that would merit an encyclopedia article or for that matter even a reference on any other article that would be related to outer space and its exploration and development. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Also, it would have been nice if you could have notified me (the creator) of this AfD. International overage of the station has continued since the August 2007 announcement:

...

Furthermore, the Galactic Suite company keeps a list of news articles in Spanish that have been published about the company that extend well into August of this year. I strongly urge you to reconsider this nomination. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


See Talk:Galactic Suite#Delete for extended discussion. This isn't exactly something newly discussed. Also see Template talk:Space stations#Galactic Suite for additional discussion... where this article was removed from the Space Stations template due to non-notability. Both I and the rest of the community monitoring these pages would have appreciated some input prior to this request for an AfD. This company mentioned still smell like vaporware to me, and in the numerous technical forums about space technology, space geek blogs, and space technology conference proceedings, I have never heard this company mentioned except for the initial announcement. I might have missed something, but I still fail to see anything new here, or any reason to believe this company may actually be doing what they claim. It is not a notable space station, and there is no reason to really believe it will be built. I'd love to be proven wrong. All of the links posted above are about the initial press conference and a follow up press release claiming visitors have signed up for the station. At what point does vaporware become simply non-notable? This isn't even notable for being one more aborted space project that never happened. Should somebody with a press release and a website be considered notable?
BTW, this is one of the reasons for an AfD too, to see if somebody can come out of the woodwork and provide something new to the discussion, and perhaps significantly improve the article. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise, how about renaming this article to Galactic Suite Design, the name of the company who originally proposed the concept? It would require reworking the content of the article, and I would assert that the company is legitimate (even if the project isn't). Particularly given that most of the recent news about the company is regarding their attempt to enter the Google Lunar X-Prize competition, which seems to be their primary focus recently. I'm also curious, what team does GSD support or represent? --Robert Horning (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See, my problem here is that people are making the assumption that this project is dead in the water with no evidence other than a lack of word from the company. I rather see this as a reverse-WP:CRYSTAL. That said, it might be a reasonable thing to move to an article about the company, but the issue is that coverage has almost always been about the station rather than the company, so I'm not sure how much data we actually have on the company itself. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that does get back to a lack of sources and rationale for failure of notability. If we can't find data to write the article, it makes it difficult to create the article in the first place. The blog listed seems to be mostly explicit verbatim copies (technically a copyvio, but not our problem) of Spanish-language editorials and news articles from a variety of sources, so it isn't too awful as a place to start. Unfortunately, to read Spanish I have to use the babelfish machine translation tools, and that tends to give a distorted view of what is happening as well. Even more curious (but not necessarily rational for deletion by itself) is that the Spanish-language Wikipedia does not have anything written about this company or this project, in spite of the fact that so much material about it is in Spanish, and the company is located in Spain. There might, barely, be enough material in Spanish to write this article, and I'd rather try to translate it from Spanish into English (as many English-language articles have been translated to other languages) as that is where the source materials are. That isn't necessarily a solution, but rather an observation. A Google search really doesn't give you too much more than what is already listed in the article, and certainly doesn't say anything other than what is on the website.
My main question is: How long should a company who only produces a press conference for a product or idea be permitted to remain in an article about a technological device or product that is never made or built? I understand stubs written about future projects or products is fairly standard on Wikipedia, but what about maintaining those articles when it never actually happens? Sometimes there is notability in terms of an announced product that gets changed into something else, or those involved in a project move onto something else that is clearly notable. That is why I suggested that this article be reworked to focus on the company, Galactic Suite Design, as it does seem to be continuing to do other things. For the money it takes to go into space, there certainly would be discussions and announcements in terms of major parts contracts, land purchases, or other similar moves within the industry that would get press coverage if these guys were being serious and getting this project moving to completion. Even very secretive companies like Blue Origin occasionally get into the news for real, tangible and verifiable acts that are nearly impossible to keep out of the news, and these guys (GSD) seem to have no fear of publicity. --Robert Horning (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While a case might be made that this was a one-time news flare, I think Bsimmons' statement above would put that to rest. This was a very widely (and internationally) covered topic, and does express its notability regardless of the possibility of it being vaporware. Quite frankly, however unlikely this is to succeed, the fact is that reliable sources clearly state this company has significant funding and we simply don't know if they will pull this off. It wouldn't be the first time that a company chooses to develop something in relative secrecy. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has bothered me for some time. It has some coverage in (supposedly) reliable sources, but it's all fluff pieces. For example all the sources say it will be operational in 2012, which is obviously not true. I wouldn't mind keeping this if we can make an accurate article, WP:OR be damned. If the sources don't allow us to do that, then we are better off not having the article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoids Grade-Ups

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

This does not assert notability, and it only contains trivial details on single toys. TTN (talk) 22:39, 4 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 23:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 evidence of independent notability; no merge-worthy content. ~ mazca talk 18:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoids (Europe)

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

This is a trivial list of toys that does not assert notability or importance. TTN (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article seems to assert notability, for example that Marvel made a comic about the toys. Based on that, I would be inclined to keep. But I may be missing something. Rlendog (talk) 03:25, 6 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 22:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Syktyvkar State University. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorokin Research Center

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

Non-notable research facility, according to a Google search, though perhaps a search for the Cyrillic spelling could provide more sources. Ordinarily I'd merge with the parent organization, but the university of Syktyvkar does not even have an article.  Sandstein  20:29, 4 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 22:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This material should be moved to Pitirim Sorokin.Biophys (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have put the material there too. Slightly redundant, but reasonable to include it in both places: the university has a center that studies Sorokin; Sorokin is studied at the university center. The redirect would naturally point to the university article, which links to the Sorokin article. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With WP:NOTAVOTE in mind, it seems that overall, consensus indicates this individual is not sufficiently notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hedi Enghelberg

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

This is the pompously written autobiography of an author who, if Google hits are any indication, is unlikely to pass WP:BIO.  Sandstein  20:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse the article need some small re-write but overall it by a mile passes the notability line.--Judo112 (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence to support that statement? Can you point at significant discussion of the subject in sources that can be called reliable? Drmies (talk) 02:30, 17 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 22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to keep.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sander, unless I am wrong, the article subject is male. Editors should read articles carefully before contributing to depriving the world of knowledge.Turqoise127 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:PROF #1; book available in numerous academic and university libraries. I just don't know if the statement is sourced, but it warrants attempt to source. Are many editors just not aware of WP:PROF guidelines? I am not sure if COI is an issue here, but notability guidelines ought to be known by editors.Turqoise127 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It warrants attempts to source": yes it does, and you could have done so to bolster your case. As it happens, however, WorldCat is not kind to you: there appear to be no academic or university libraries that have the book on the shelf--the book is held in the US by only three libraries. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to be condescending. Before you start wikilawyering again, you might do well to actually read the policies you slap other editors around with. Item 1: that a book is held by a library does not mean it has made a significant impact on a discipline. Are you confusing WP:PROF with Wikipedia:Author#Creative_professionals? Item 2: The article is very bloated, full of talk about the subject's parents and their history, but in between the lines I see quite clearly that the claim is never made that this person is an academic or a professor. So where do you get the applicabilaty of WP:PROF from? "Notability guidelines ought to be known by editors"? Yes, and most editors here know them, it seems to me. You might benefit from another reading of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming this person as some kind of an academic intellectual capacity since is an author, I could be incorrect- I will always admit if I am wrong. If you read WP:PROF past the "Criteria" paragraph, Within "Notes and examples", Point 1, last bullet: "...In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries ....when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." Per WP:CIVIL, incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours... I never displayed any of those. And WP:AGF is a cute premise, but the real world is a bit harsh.Turqoise127 (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your implication that editors here don't know the guidelines, that is pretty rude, I'd say. Telling another editor, "Editors should read articles carefully before contributing to depriving the world of knowledge." That is also pretty rude. Once you start assuming bad faith, as you suggest you are doing, you are going to have to live with the the consequences: accusing people of bad faith (by stating uninformed opinions, for instance) will make editors question your good faith. Your quote from WP:PROF includes the word "person"--the paragraph is talking about "scholars in humanities", so the policy clearly does not apply here: we are not dealing with an academic or a scholar here; the subject has a university degree in engineering who writes poetry, novels, and works on terrorism--and that last work, which could conceivably fall into some kind of scholarly discipline, was self-published. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My intentions are not to be rude, my approach may be harsh though, I concur. I apologize if I offended anyone, and to you if I am being rude in your opinion. I wish to withdraw my "keep" vote here, I did not know the work was self-publishedTurqoise127 (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Being autobiographical is no reason to delete. Please provide proof that this is the case and allow consensus to decide if the contributions are relevent enough to keep. Articles that have actualy been created by the subject who actively edit and contribute is not against policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial proof has been decided, please read the entire AFD for said proof, instead of just the nomination.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Wei

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

Participant in a Taiwanese talent show with one released album. Nothing establishes notability per WP:MUSIC. Best I found is this article with a photo and quote of hers.[10]. Tikiwont (talk) 17:27, 4 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 22:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that this person does not pass either WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG. NW (Talk) 19:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Bay

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 15:53, 4 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 22:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that this person does not pass either WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG. NW (Talk) 19:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tylar Jacobs

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 15:52, 4 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 22:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that this person does not pass either WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG. NW (Talk) 19:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Kornikova

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 15:51, 4 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 22:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Macdonald

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

Unremarkable children's and mystery author. Google search finds only trivial coverage. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Library Journal said "Death's Autograph" was "A highly recommended first novel. Kirkus Reviews said it was "lucid, irony-edged, unfussy narration makes antique-book lore interesting even to the uninitiated, and her charmingly off-beat heroine is a character most readers will want to hear from again." (See these and several more editorial reviews of this novel at Amazon [12]). "Blood Lies" got several editorial reviews. "Die once" got several favorable editorial reviews [13]. "Ghost walk" got favorable editorial reviews [14]. So did "Road Kill." [15]A biography of Macdonald is available from "Contemporary Authors". Coverage in specialized encyclopedias implies notability. How careful a search did the nominator do WP:BEFORE making the AFD nomination? Edison (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Edison.--Judo112 (talk) 12:19, 12 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 22:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and a "per nom" !vote. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Review

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

Non-notable university literary magazine. Unable to find any independent coverage, much less sigificant. Notability of some of its published writers is not inheritable. — DroEsperanto (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:44, 5 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 22:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The notability of literary magazines can generally be measured by the notability of their contributors -- that's not an "inherited" sort of notability, but the way the world works. Literary magazines aren't written about much in popular media, but more often in the specialized literary media that aren't well-represented online. Google Books shows more than 2800 hits, an astonishing number, more than pop culture subjects like Batman, Bob Dylan, and Benny Hill, and even if only 10% of the hits are relevant and substantive that's more than enough to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That 20k drops down to 691 if you exclude the University of Chicago itself from being the author and ensure that the text "University of Chicago" appears, and even if that seems like a lot, a great many number of them seem to be bare mentions or citations, or acknowledgements, not any in-depth coverage. Despite your assertion, I don't quite see how this isn't a simple case of WP:INHERIT. — DroEsperanto (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Wolfowitz and per my own knowledge about chicago reveiw and its existance.--Judo112 (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You haven't really given an argument. No one is doubting the existence of this publication, but its notability, which isn't inherently accrued by its having published a number of famous writers in the past. Publications must be independently notable in and of themselves to warrant inclusion Wikipedia, and this is primarily built off of "significant coverage in reliable third-party sources" (which I have been unable to locate), not "what you know". Wolfowitz's argument amounts to a bit of WP:INHERIT and WP:GHITS, as I have explained above. If a book isn't notable just because its author is, then a magazine which was only in small part contributed to by notable writers definitely isn't notable unless there's significant external coverage. — DroEsperanto (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts from the nominator to change peoples opinions is often pointless and leads to unnecessary meta-discussions. I still stand with my decision.--Judo112 (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also the chicago reviews webiste on the External links gives this article a minimum of notability needed to establish a keep för the article.--Judo112 (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How so?— DroEsperanto (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep With all respect to the nominator, The Chicago Review has a longstanding repuation as a major journal. It's won 3 O. Henry Awards and works that first appeared in the CR have been republished in the Best Ameican Short Stories, Best American Essays, Best American Poetry on many occasions--I have added a few examples, but a quick scan of these volumes reveals many more. Most serious short-fiction writers would describe the Chicago Review as a "Top-25" journal. It happens to have a long and storied history, which I am hopeful that some editor will compile from other sources and contribute to the article. Vartanza (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those awards are for stories published within the Review, not for the Review itself and do not confer notability onto the magazine that published them (especially considering it's only won three, versus almost 200 for The New Yorker). Despite the name of the list, not every magazine that publishes an award-winning story is notable; the magazine itself must be the significant subject of multiple independent and reliable sources for it to pass the WP:GNG. If it is truly has "longstanding reputation as a major journal", this should be easy to verify with outside sources. While the references you added would make excellent sources for verifying information in the article, they can't be used to verify notability because they both come from the University of Chicago itself. — DroEsperanto (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I assume that the nominator is acting in good faith, but even a cursory study of the relevant source material reveals copious third-party references. I have included a few regarding the early influence of the CR and the 1959 controversy. That should certainly push us across the notability threshold, although it would be generous of someone to expand the article based on the widespread discussion in nearly all major sources on the Beat Movement, bios of its leading participants, etc. Vartanza (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to W.I.T.C.H. Closing as "merge" as suggested by the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WElcome magazine

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

Non-notable "side magazine" for a comic book series.Blargh29 (talk) 02:40, 4 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 22:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Europäische Freiwillige. Once there is nothing left to merge, please simply redirect the article. NW (Talk) 19:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freiwilligen

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

slightly expanded dicdef which already has a wiktionary article. Fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Ironholds (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a dictionary definition.
The page is specific to all of the Freiwilligen divisions from the German Army in WW2 and has a link to them all.
It also links to the pages which are separate at the moment on both sections of german freiwillege volunteers
Chaosdruid (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so am I referencing the usage in general or specifically ?
For example the names of most of the units - "SS Freiwillige" can be ref'd from books/pubs about the units; or the use in general society ie from historical docs talking about them as a whole
Chaosdruid (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither, you need to provide coverage of the term, not just of the units with it in their name. Example; say there was a universe where the military unit "Division" doesn't have independent coverage. Providing references for the 1st US Airborne Division isn't something that will help it pass WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TO be honest at this point I feel like giving up ... there are supposed to be three other processes attempted before AFD and the use of TW has caused this to be prodded and then AFD wiithout even a suggestion of any of the other routes until Tikiwont.
Put it into my space (option 2) rather than AFD (option 4)
I have a failed graphics card so will be offline for a couple of days - please place it into my sandbox
thanksChaosdruid (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three other processes? What ones? Ironholds (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be discouraged. While familiarizing oneself with the topic and evaluating a merger or redirect is indeed among the steps before an AfD, doing some internal research is also among the steps recommended before article creation. Anyways, I think userfying it so that you can use it as base for working on the existing pages seems to be the way forward, I'd just suggest the title Freiwillige which is the correctly spelled title and already a redirect in main space.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:48, 5 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 22:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratifiers for Democracy

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

No indication of notability, no reliable references found -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete, no opposition against userifying or recreation when it is notable. tedder (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How Soon Is Now (David Guetta song)

edit
How Soon Is Now (David Guetta song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable song; not even released yet. Could almost be deleted as 'blatant advert' I suppose?  Chzz  ►  11:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nomination effectively withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Chicago Band

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

Non-notable student organization with only minor coverage in third-party sources. Excluding Wikipedia and the University of Chicago's website, the only google hits are to other scramble band websites saying that they compete against them, a google books result that mentions a time they played music for an event (that's the extent of the coverage), and a 1.5-page 1921 piece about them in "Jacobs' Band Monthly", a publication for marching band enthusiasts, which doesn't seem to confer notability. All the sources used in the article are either from their website, merely mention them in passing, or talk about the drum that they used to own.— DroEsperanto (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them seem to be bare mentions, such as "The world s largest drum, be longing to the University of Chicago band, will be seen at the Chicagoland Music Festival tomorrow" or "The University of Chicago band played There'll Be a Hot Time In the Old Town Tonight' and went unrebuked, although. that Is a tabooed melody at the ...". I'll keep sifting through them, though, in case I missed something. — DroEsperanto (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that this page is up for deletion, so here's my plea. Our band, unlike other bands like Princeton, has managed to stay out of the news spotlight. We are small and don't do anything stupid to attract the news. We are also completely student run, adding extra pressure on us to get noticed. So it would seem that there isn't much about us online, making us appear "less" notable. However, we (I) am trying to raise funds to purchase articles from the Chicago Tribune from 1896 to 1943 (the years the band was most active). These articles contain a good portion of the history that has since been lost even to our records. I have been in contact with publishers asking them if I can site and include their material. If this page must be deleted, I ask for a complete deletion (no merges) as I will no longer edit. Uofcband (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to the library, you should be able to view all the Chi Trib articles free. You don't need their permission to cite the articles (but you must not violate their copyright: don't just cut and paste material or post the articles on a website without permission).Edison (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should hope that a 110 year old band, a band that once possessed the world's largest drum, a drum that was contaminated by radioactive leftovers from the world's first self-sustained nuclear reaction, would be as about as notable as a college band could become. If User:Uofcband could find a source that say the band won any awards/competitions, recorded any records or played at any very special events, that would be helpful. Abductive (reasoning) 22:21, 9 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 22:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe independent and reliable source cited above, Jacobs Band Monthly,from June 1921, is a strong show of notability, and says(p 22) "the university band of today is one of the paramount features of college life at the big Maroon institution." Google News Archive shows many historic news article covered this pioneer college band. They had the largest bass drum, [17], [18], [19]. Notability of a band's equipment surely accrues to the band. The band's premiere football appearance was noted by the Chicago Tribune in 1898[20]. There appear to be many articles covering the band hidden behind pay to view policies of newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune, so sources exist to improve the article. The notability covers not just the present small band, but the once renowned football band of a Big Ten school, with a notable tradition from 1898 and continuing for four + decades in its initial form, until intercollegiate football was banned at the university. I added a ref with [21] a detailed history of the band from 1898 to 1917 from the University's magazine. Edison (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, Owning a notable drum does not make you notable. Second, source 4's headline ("EXPECT A SHIFF GAME.") and its abstract suggest that the article is about a particular Maroons football game and therefore there is no reason to expect the band that played at that game (or was expected to play at that game, since the game hadn't even happened yet) would garner significant coverage. As I stated above, this seems be the case with all the Google News archive stories, and pointing to a high hit-count is irrelevant; the onus is on those voting keep to show even a handful of those sources are high-quality that discuss the Band itself (not its drum) in detail. (Plus, your search link is misleading, since it will include any news story that includes the phrase "The University of Chicago" and the word band somewhere in the story, which would encompass things like "A group of students at the University of Chicago decided to band together to...". If a source really discussed the University of Chicago Band (which has been its name since its founding) it certainly would include the band's name at least once.) Finally, Source 5 is derived from the University and is therefore not independent and can't provide notability.
I accept the notability implied by the 1921 marching band article with hesitation. Maybe I'm being cynical, but I would expect that a special-interest publication would be likely to inflate the importance their topics due to their love of marching bands. — DroEsperanto (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I respectfully disagree about the drum. The drum was part of the band, requiring humans to play it (and I assume one to just roll it). WP:INHERIT is for things like a book being notable because its author is notable and so forth. Abductive (reasoning) 07:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see the difference. I've always interpreted it as "things aren't notable because of their relationships to other notable things, unless that relationship itself is particularly notable in and of itself". Also "Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable" seems to take suggest that this is a case in which WP:INHERIT applies, too IMO. A product requires a human to create it, too. — DroEsperanto (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People are reading things into the essay WP:INHERIT that are not said explicitly there. It would not imply that owning a sports team confers no notability on the team owner, or that once owning the Hope diamond confers no notability on Evalyn Walsh McLean, whose article says she was famous for owning the diamond and another legendary diamond. Biggest diamond, biggest drum. It conveys some notability. Edison (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. I agree with nom's characterization of WP:INHERIT - and beyond that, when the article's creator says "Our band ... has managed to stay out of the news spotlight. We are small and don't do anything stupid to attract the news" ... um, that's pretty much an assertion of NON-notability. To address Edison's comments, first off, upon what basis does he claim that Jacobs Band Monthly satisfies WP:RS or that this band is discussed in "significant detail" in it? Secondly, it's scarcely a stretch that a university band was considered a factor in student life, but that measure of ubiquity is exactly why features common to most schools are not accorded automatic notability passes: how many student union articles pass at AfD? Finally, WP:V requires not that sources may exist, or that with sufficient digging people hope they turn up: it requires that sources are verified as existing. I have no problem with the article being userfied pending that, but an article can't survive in mainspace without them.  RGTraynor  09:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A monthly publication, with paid subscriptions, and an identified editorial staff about bands and music cannot be deprecated as a source writing about bands because... ready for this? It writes about bands! That is like saying some website or publication which writes about todays popular music is not a reliable source for popular music because it writes about popular music. I cannot understand how a detailed history is not significant coverage. Second WP:INHERIT should not apply to the band and the instruments it owned. Third, notability is not temporary, and any statement by a member of the present pepband that it lacks news coverage does not remove the notability of a Big Ten football school band for 40 years from 1898 to the end of intercollegiate football at Chicago in the late 1930's. Edison (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. A publication is reliable or it isn't. A specialist publication could be construed to be better than a general one to pass judgement. Let's just say they're equal. Abductive (reasoning) 17:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that the source was unreliable overall, but because of their nature as a niche interest magazine, they may be inclined to write about non-notable things that their readership may find interesting (e.g., just because Woodworker's Digest writes a piece about a new tool they like, that doesn't make the Woodcarver 2500 notable). Re: the Big Bertha issue, I still believe that this is a classic case of case of WP:INHERIT, and I am interested to hear User:Edison's reasons why he/she believes it is not. And I agree with Edison re: the nottemorary statement. — DroEsperanto (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some articles about the band in the Chicago Tribune, viewable at a library: 1)"HARPER ASKS A BAND:University Man Is Ready to Blow a Cornet Again. USED TO BE A LEADER. Music Needed to Go with Proposed Military Drill. SENIOR COUNCIL HEARS PLAN Harper Led the Village Band. Must Be Up to Date. Don't Fancy Being Escorts." Dec 2, 1897. p. 5. 580 word article about the organization of the band, significant coverage. 2)"Expect a stiff game." Nov 22, 1898, page 4. 39 words about the band's first appearance. In prospect or retrospect, it is still includable in an article if marginal for notability. 3)"Ban is on "A Hot Time. Chicago University Band plays catchy air no more." Jun 24, 1899, page 1. Someone ordered the band to stop playing the aforementioned song, and against playing catchy tunes to support the home team and dirges when the opponent was at bat. Great student indignation on campus. 807 word article about the band, front page of the paper, significant for notability. 4)"HUMBLE CORNELL'S PRIDE:MAROONS DECISIVELY DEFEAT THE TEAM FROM ITHACA," Oct 15, 1899. p.17. marginally significant for notability, useful in article: 67 words about how "Hot Time" was played by band despite taboo, and Chicago rooting improved, in long story about playing. 5)"Indians refuse to play Chicago," Nov 23, 1899, page4. 47 words in longer story about how the Minnesota and Chicago bands will play, and UC president lifts ban on "Hot Time" for occasion.Marginal for notability, useful in article. 6)"Classic music at football game. University of Chicago band to play the Traumerei today," Nov 3, 1900, page 6. 358 words story about the band changing to only playing classical music, and no catchy tunes or college songs. Clearly significant coverage. Student resentment. 7)"Rooter chorus at the games," Oct 8, 1901; In protest against band's failure to play catchy or college tunes or fight songs, a chorus will supply them. Marginal for notability but useful in an article. In summary, from 1897 through 1901 I found significant coverage in 3 articles in the one paper I have searched. In addition, the article from 1921 in Jacobs' Band Monthly counts. That publication appears to be a reliable source, since it is cited repeatedly in a 2006 book about Sousa published by University of Illinois Press. Satisfies WP:N and WP:BAND criterion 1. Notability even just from 1897 to 1901 is sufficient, since notability is permanent. Edison (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, impressive work! Good job finding those. Okay, nomination withdrawn per WP:SNOW. But since you have access to the articles, would you mind adding some new info and citing them so they're listed as references in the article? — DroEsperanto (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Talionis Fraternitas

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

Fraternity at only a few law schools. Excessive detail about internal affairs, excessive list of officials and alumni, no evidence of notability except the hazing incident DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think there is a fair chance that the Supreme Court case is notable, and I suspect that there would be far more available internet coverage on it had the incident taken place in the US or UK. It appears that the case set a precedent for what kind of baggage a person could have and still be admitted to the law bar. On the other hand, I see very little which makes the fraternity notable beyond that single incident. I think my preference is to rename and refocus the article to be about the hazing case, but I'm not entirely sure about it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems unlikely that the focus of the SC case is the organization itself rather than hazing generally. Agree strongly with DGG's criticisms of the article, although they don't demonstrate lack of notability. It would be useful if some people with access to English or Tagalog historical newspaper or other materials could opine on the existence of significant coverage. Bongomatic 04:27, 5 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 22:20, 10 September 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) 19:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laptop theft

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

This article starts non-encyclopedic with multitude of original research and rather stupid asserts. After that it's merely and howto. Please help us releave wikipedia from this stuff. →AzaToth 21:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete How-to? Maybe. But that list of laptop thefts? Really? I find it highly unlikely that a list of important laptop thefts could be compiled, simply because there's really no such thing as a notable laptop theft. The tracking software section is essentially a list of short advertisements. At the most, this could be a subsection in the laptop article. [flaminglawyer] 21:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No such thing as a notable laptop theft"? On the contrary! Try this one:
  • I assert that, with coverage spanning several months in multiple independent publications, there very much is such a thing as a notable laptop theft.

    And with coverage of the subject ranging from Simson Garfinkel, Gene Spafford, and Alan Schwartz writing about it on page 212 of ISBN 9780596003234 to the annual FBI/CSI Computer Crime and Security Surveys from 1999 to 2003 having published statistics on it, I assert that the actual subject of laptop theft is notable, too. If you don't like government figures, you can go to ISBN 9780786425952 page 104, where Safeware Insurance's claims figures for laptop theft, from 1995 to 1997, are discussed, alongside two more high-profile laptop thefts. 1999–2001 figures from Safeware are on page 196 of ISBN 9780130082756, whose discussion of the subject as a whole consumes almost the entirety of chapter 9.

    The PNC is satisfied. If you want to relieve Wikipedia of this, take these (and many other) sources in hand and improve the article by writing. Deletion is not the answer. Uncle G (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This appears to be fairly well referenced, useful information. Most people who use a laptop at work get some sort of training about this and many are required to follow encryption and backup policies in case of theft. The list of notable thefts needs to be backed up with actual news stories, but I doubt those will be difficult to find. There are several content pages linking here and there could probably also be a summary in Computer crime.--RDBury (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added a couple of the refs listed above to the article and added refs for a couple of the 2006 incidents just to get the ball rolling.--RDBury (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Specific laptop thefts make the news when there are large amounts of confidential information involved. And laptop theft in general is a notable problem for which references should be available, for example regarding the technology meant to prevent theft or mitigate the damage. --Itub (talk) 21:58, 10 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 22:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On first impression, laptop theft would appear to be no different from bicycle theft or any other kind of theft. But the article convinced me that there's enough material out there to warrant a separate article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article could do with some more examples (like the ones above) but is otherwise a good article, well referenced and helpful. Particular subject has also been in the news a lot lately. Metty (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This indeed is a complete recreation of the deleted content from 2006. NW (Talk) 19:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rage Cage

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

A made up drinking game. This was deleted in AFD in 2006. Joe Chill (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corvette Challenge Registry

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

Contested prod - unreferenced list that does not indicate notability appears to be an indiscriminate collection of information MilborneOne (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eating Clubs (Mount Olive College)

edit
Eating Clubs (Mount Olive College) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and (given that the same editor will likely de-tag and de-prod them too) its sub-articles:
Adelphic Club (AfD discussion) led me to review Special:Contributions/Moc trojan, which led me to Order of the Circle (AfD discussion) and these. We're here at AFD rather than Proposed Deletion because there is a definite campaign to hide the fact that no sources exist for any of these articles, by repeatedly removing all requests for sources without answering them.

We're here at deletion processes in the first place for the reason that I gave in my Proposed Deletion nomination: This is unverifiable. Neither this article nor its various sub-articles (which are basically copies of this) cite any sources, and I cannot find any sources. The nearest that I came, for anything here, was finding a few clubs named "Hyperion Club". But none of them were related to Mount Olive College. I've searched for sources using the names of the purported clubs and the names of the purported founders, in various combinations. I've found nothing. As pointed out, the article's author cited no sources and repeatedly removes all requests for the same.

(I haven't looked for sources for Delta Pi Delta or Omega Upsilon yet, but given that I've been unable to find sources for 100% of this editor's contributions that I've checked so far, I'm expecting more of the same at this point.) Uncle G (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh  06:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BioniX Wallpaper Changer

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

The article is essentially an advertisement. The body is two lists of product features, a list of system requirements, and a little copy that is nothing but positive. I can find no evidence that this program is even notable enough to be included, and feel that it should be removed. Nburden (T) 19:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table topic

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

Dictionary term of no specific notability Alvestrand (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been PRODed twice, and PROD contested. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is a unique and notable concept, mentioned in over 800 news stories - and that is limiting it to stories that specifically mention Toastmasters to avoid most false positives. It is also covered in 80+ books. In depth coverage is found here, here completely unrelated to Toastmasters, in this book unrelated to Toastmasters which doesn't have a free preview, here, here, here, here, and many, many other places.
Incidentally this is exactly why speedy delete doesn't apply to concepts - you can't judge a concepts notability just by reading an article attempt and guessing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If these are references, and not just articles that happen to use the word, add them to the article. As it stands, it's totally unreferenced. Toastmasters may be notable, but the fact that they use the term "table topic" doesn't automatically make the word notable. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't judge articles solely by their current state and there is no deadline for improvement. As it happens, I am currently busy improving Wikipedia in other ways, but you yourself are welcome to source the article if it bothers you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you might want to work on this article first while it still exists, because there is a five-day deadline on this AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the list of references given on the talk page. I'm not impressed. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:45, 4 September 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 19:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting WP:DICTDEF: "Wikipedia: a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. Wiktionary: the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote." I think this one is a dictionary term by this definition.
Anyway, if it's a term, I claim it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If it's a topic, I claim it's not notable. --Alvestrand (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn . Non-admin closure. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bayonetta

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

The article is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and is speculating about a game that may or may not be released. In addition, in reading the article, it appears more like an advertisement than an encyclopediac description of the game and why it is notable. Lithorien (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per Nifboy's reasoning. --Lithorien (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google News has 364 articles about this game listed within the last week; there are contests and other activities surrounding its pre-launch already up. I'd have to say that there's definitely enough in terms of reliable sources to assert notability on this one. WP:CRYSTAL would apply if there wasn't that kind of major buzz surrounding it. Keep Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My only real objection to what I've found about the game is that, if you go strictly on coverage, ones like Duke Nukem Forever have had exponentially more coverage, and still don't even exist. And there's nothing that I've found to particularly say this game is groundbreaking and notable outside of just existing. And is that really how low our video game criteria should be? I'm not arguing one way or another, I'm just asking... how low is our threshold for notability for games? --Lithorien (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quoth our Notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Existence doesn't matter. "Groundbreaking" doesn't matter. All that really matters is that there's enough sources to write a half-decent article. Given that, our threshold is probably lower than you were expecting; we still keep stuff like Project H.A.M.M.E.R. around. Nifboy (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources in the article (GI, Gamespot, Brian Crecente) establish notability. That doesn't stop the article from sucking, though, so I'll probably take a chainsaw to the poorly-written gameplay section shortly. Nifboy (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article appears like an advertisement but it does not violate the crystal policy. So what if it is cancelled it has got lot of source to back up and plus it far from being cancelled. This afd should be immediately closed and withdraw. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snappa

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

Non-notable drinking game. Miscellaneous drinking games that were just recently made-up don't really count as encyclopedic. Google only turns up a handful of references, none of which would be reliable sources that establish notability. Bfigura (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was The result was delete all that haven't been pointed out below. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rihards Gorkšs

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

Fails Wikipedia notability guidelines, having not played in the fully professional league or cup and not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Contested prod: "has played in the Virsliga - the top flight league in Latvia" (or "also for the Latvian national U-21 team" for two of the lads listed below), but these arguments don't address the rised concerns. Gorod nad volnoi Nevoi (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following Latvian League players' pages for the same reasons:

Rolands Krjauklis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aleksejs Kuplovs-Oginskis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sergejs Labeckis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dmitrijs Čebotarjovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aleksandrs Šumilovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ruslans Koroļovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aleksandrs Ivanovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andris Utināns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jevgēnijs Simonovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jānis Pāvulāns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vladimirs Cīmanis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jurijs Sokolovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sergejs Vaļuškins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jorens Gorkšs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vladimirs Kamešs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dmitrijs Mihailovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Igors Kozlovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andrejs Žuromskis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Staņislavs Pihockis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dmitrijs Čugunovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vadims Gaiļus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eduards Višņakovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sergejs Golubevs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Germans Māliņš (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nathan Junior Soares de Carvalho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aleksandrs Fertovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ritus Krjauklis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aleksejs Boruns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ivan Rodin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bekar Giorgadze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vitālijs Smirnovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Raivis Hščanovičs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Māris Eltermanis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gorod nad volnoi Nevoi (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rolando Svanidze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aleksandrs Abramenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aleksejs Maslobojevs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Azamat Baimatov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Edgars Bitēns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Edijs Blekte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aleksandrs Čekulajevs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kārlis Dāboļiņš (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexandru Dedov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kristaps Doniks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pāvels Doroševs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gints Freimanis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vladislavs Gabovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
David Gamezardashvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Artjoms Gončars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jevgenijs Kachanovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jurģis Kalns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Artūrs Kļimovičs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andrejs Kostjuks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Einārs Kozlovskis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aleksejs Krucs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andris Kuvšinovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jevgēņijs Laizāns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oļegs Laizāns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Maksims Kirilovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oļegs Malašenoks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vladislavs Masaļskis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Filips Mihalovskis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ģirts Mihelsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sergejs Misins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dmitrijs Naļivaiko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Artem Osipov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ervīns Pērkons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dmitrijs Pinčuks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rinalds Pļavnieks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Edgars Portnojs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andris Riherts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gatis Rožkalns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jevgēņijs Semjonovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andrejs Siņicins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deniss Sokoļskis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aleksejs Soleičuks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Viktors Spole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reinis Vaivods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Daniēls Vīksna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Didzis Vilks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aleksandrs Vlasovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andrejs Žuravļovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gorod nad volnoi Nevoi (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Azamat Baimatov seems to have played in European Champions League qualifying according to this - not sure if that is enough but it's something. Nominating 80 articles at once makes it very difficult to actually check to see if they all fail notability guidelines (evident with the first couple of delete comments that missed players that meet WP:Athlete in the first 30 nominations before another 50 were tacked on. Camw (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re Baimatov, I've been told before that qualifying rounds for UEFA competitions are not sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE. If they do, there are several other articles above on players that have played in UEFA Cup qualifying rounds. Jogurney (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the notability criteria, All leagues that are a country's highest level are assumed notable. If the league is professional then it must be deemed notable. Also as the list says, it is incomplete. Eddie6705 (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"From the notability criteria, All leagues that are a country's highest level are assumed notable" - which criterion states that any player who's played in his country's highest league is notable? Does that extend to the highest level leagues in San Marino, the Faroe Islands or American Samoa? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he is talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability and that is for the league itself, not players in the league. Camw (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I edited that page, adding Belarusian top two levels with a reference to official regulations (which stipulate that for a player to be registered to play he has to have a professional contract with his club, with exceptions only for youth team players and players who currently serve in the army). Geregen2 (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Artem Osipov withdrawn as he played in the fully professional league. Gorod nad volnoi Nevoi (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NZ On Screen

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to NZ On Screen. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases, self links and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Self-promotion is WP:NOT the route to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken - stuff.co.nz is a mainstream news portal, for Fairfax newspapers including The Press and The Dominion Post, second and third nationally in terms of circulation[23]. XLerate (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I guess that counts as enough coverage for the article to assert notability. The article still needs to be reviewed for COI concerns but I don't see a pressing reason to delete it now. The creator should keep in mind that this article isn't a licence to link to the site in other articles, as Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for self-promotion. ThemFromSpace 00:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the site itself is a Reliable source for many articles on New Zealand film and television, so I do expect it to appear in numerous references. dramatic (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was referring to the nzonscreen site, not stuff.co.nz where I agree that it should be used as a reference. ThemFromSpace
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smartish Pace

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

Unremarkable ("obscure") poetry magazine. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Claims to have published Pulitzer Prize winners, but notability is not contagious. Likely COI. Disputed prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hellish Mad Rush

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

As yet unreleased album so no evidence of notability - fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I seemed over eager here but it is only a few weeks until the album is released and I wanted to make sure it was there to refer to from day one. Deleting now will only necessitate me putting the page back up in October. I have now added referenced links confirming the release by the artists and by the label. -- Gusdeadman (Contact Me, My Contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Confirmation of release date is not enough. The album is not yet, and will not be when released, notable as per WP:MUSIC. – ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deleting it now will only necessitate it being added in October if is becomes notable - which generally means getting into an accepted music chart, as per WP:MUSIC. Not every album has an article - incidently, the references you added are from the company's blog (not generally accepted as reliable) and a Myspace page (again, not a reliable source). These are not independent of the band, which is the quality we look for in references. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But at the moment it is not-notable and we have no reason to believe it will be in the future, hence this is pure crystal ballism. So what if it has to be recreated if it becomes notable at some future time? That's not a reason for keeping it now. – ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not-Delete, There is no rush, I just put it up when the information became available. Why the rush to delete it? Why not just give me advice about how to make it better. At the moment it looks to the world like you are saying my article is not cool enough to join your gang. This is also not an advertisement, if it was I would have filled it with opinion and directed the user with a call to action to buy it. This is documentation, it is information. Wikipedia is filled with stuff that most of us have no interest in, but we don't tag it for deletion because of that. This article is useful detail for anybody researching the heyday of British Independent music. Gusdeadman (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looks to the world like... sounds a bit egotistical to me! You have been told (both here and on a user talk page) what you need to do to make this article one that can be kept - you need to demonstrate notability, specifically Music Notability, and within that, specifically Song, Single and Album Notability. You need to find reliable sources that show that the album is notable. No one has said that it is an advert from what I can see. If there is no rush, then I fail to see why you can't wait until the album has been released and shown to be notable (at the very least, it needs to chart). I'm not sure what you mean about the heydey of British Independent music - 'heyday' refers to A period of success, popularity or power; prime. (Wikttionary definition of heyday) - an album cannot be part of that if it (a) has not been released yet; (b) has not been successful yet. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nothing egotistical, so please don't get personal, I was merely pointing out that as a relative newby this is the impression that new users are likely to gain. Recommending this article for deletion is contrary to Wikipedia's own deletion process that recommtends "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." this has not been followed. I will improve the page as I learn about the necessary attributes but the process is not easy and all the experienced people need to take this into account otherwise it looks "for all the world" ie everyone who is not a wikipedia expert, like bullying or elitism. Whether it is or not is not the point. This is what it looks like.

      WRT the use of the word Heyday, the album is retrospective with all the tracks recorded prior to 1991 and so is part of the Heyday referred to in books and documentaries about the Independent record movement. I should not have to fight about every word I use. Ask me questions about the article but please leave your judgements until you have all the information. Gusdeadman (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Firstly, I apologise if it sounded like a personal attack. It was merely an observation! Yes, their first three singles were recorded in the late 80s - but as nothing happened since then, I do not feel that that they are part of any heyday, and your use of the word seemed inappropriate.
      • Yes, you are right - if the article can be improved we should help with that - however, there are no reliable, independent sources of information about this album, or indeed the band (that's why the Band's article is also up for deletion). The band released 3 singles in the late 80s, none of which appear to have charted from what I can find. This is their first album. The facts about the band on their article are all unsourced - their is no indication that the band or the album are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Yes, we will help a newbie (many of us have helped newbies find reliable sources for their articles) - but, while I can't speak for any one else here, I do know that I searched for sources of informey ation that would enable the article to be kept - I did a quick search (about 10 mins) before putting delete above, and have looked again (in more depth) since. The guidelines on deletion do not say that a newbie creating an article is given extra leeway. I did the same with this article as I would with an article nominated for deletion by an editor who has been editing for 8 years with a million edits - I look for reliable sources of information about the subject. For this article, I have looked, and found nothing.
      • Our job here is to create an authoritative, reliable encyclopedia, following the criteria for inclusion. If a newbie feels that we are being unfair when we nominate their newly created article for deletion, then I am sorry - butno where does the policy say "ignore it if a newbie creates an article which does not meet the criteria and if there are no reliable sources to corroborate what is in the article". Personally, I have helped a few editors to find references for their articles, even when the article initially looked as if it might not be notable. It doesn't matter if I know a lot about the subject matter or not - if sources are available, as long as I know enough about the subject (even if it's only from the article itself), I can often find sources (newspapers, journals, scholarly works) which will back up the information. If you can find such sources to show that the band, their singles and their unreleased album are notable, then that would be brilliant - as long as they are what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources. Find them, I'll help you add them to the article to show notability. I'll change my recommendation to keep. But until you provide them (as I couldn't find them myself), I'll hold you to the same standard as any other editor, whether they have 1, 100, 10000 or a million edits. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A non-notable album by a non-notable band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Darley Dale. NW (Talk) 19:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Forest

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

Non-notable holiday park. The article started as an article assuming that there was in fact a real forest there and a Country park, which in the UK has a special meaning. I was asked to photograph this and my visit confirmed my web search that this is simply a holiday resort. It does have a 'David Bellamy Award' [ http://www.ukparks.com/bellamy.asp] as do hundred of other parks (447 it seems). Winners of the award are told "Your award is a fantastic marketing tool, and David Bellamy is more than happy for you to use his endorsement to publicise your park far and wide. In fact, he is keen for you to do so… because you will then be encouraging more people to support the businesses which support the environment. There is another very sound commercial reason for publicising your award to the full… because no matter whether or not your potential residents have any interest in the natural world, they will recognise David Bellamy as a popular figure made famous by television… and it's this person who is now saying to them: "Here is a residential park which I can really recommend to you!"". Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment As the creator of the article, the nominator makes a good point and I therefore will not object to this article being deleted.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 20:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homecoming (2008 Short Film)

edit
Homecoming (2008 Short Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film. No indications in the article, nor can any be found in internet searches, that this film meets any of the criteria of WP:NF. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, I was wondering if there was a problem with the fact that the creator has used links to IMBd pages as an alternative to using links to other Wikipedia pages for the main cast...?? Thanks.--Coin945 (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem isn't the links. The problem is that this film has received no notice outside of the mere mention of its existence by IMDB. The films fails all criteria of WP:Notability (films). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g11, advertising for selfpublished book. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goldilocks Mission

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

Contested prod. Book with no assertion of notability. No article on the author, and I've tried alternate spellings. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chocko

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

Incorrect, unverified, and erroneous definition of word. In the Australian Vernacular the word 'Chocko' actually means an Army Reserve soldier, see Wikipedia article on list of Australian Military slang Xlh (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. The concerns based on WP:BLP1E seem very valid, but there's no consensus in this discussion to delete based solely on that rationale - there do indeed seem to be a large number of sources to demonstrate some notability. I would suggest that a merge to Plus-size model may be prudent based on the potential lack of continuing notability beyond the one photo - but again there's no consensus in this discussion to do so, and a merge can be discussed on the talk page. ~ mazca talk 19:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Miller

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

Fails WP:ENT and WP:BLP1E. Not sure about this one. The coverage is certainly there, but only in reference to the publicity a single photo of Miller has received. As a model, she doesn't appear to have any real claim to notability, and it's kind of iffy to me to have an article on someone solely because she has a roll of fat on her stomach and a few news sources decided to talk about it.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If not its own article, maybe merge into Plus-size model or something like that. Its a notable event. --Milowent (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The plus-size model article already covers this topic.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I hear you (Mbinebri). But when you say As a model, she doesn't appear to have any real claim to notability, I start to wonder what real claim any model has to notability. Lee Miller was a model for Man Ray in photographs that are reprinted in books, exhibited, and discussed, so I think she'd qualify (cf "Kiki de Montparnasse"); but she soon outgrew that, and the article on her spends little time talking about her modeling and more about her other, very real achievement as a photographer. The other models? Well, they wore this frock or that frock, and appeared on this or that issue of this or that magazine, and maybe got lots of money and a footballer husband. See Category:American female models: they've been bred like rabbits, and those are just the US non-"adult" ones. I thought I'd sample their notability. None of the names meant anything to me, so I picked "Cheyenne Brando" as it seemed the silliest. No discernable mention of anything I'd call notability, other than having been in the news. Another daft name: "Velvet D’Amour": she appeared in fashion shows twice, and was (is?) very fat (or whatever's the right euphemism for this). Another wacky name: "Yaya DaCosta". She's modeled for a great number of companies, or so we are told (there's not a shred of sourcing), but nothing's said about her modeling. And she's had bit roles in movies. My gut feeling is that if there were any requirement for notability beyond being written up in gossip rags, thousands of these articles would be out. However, if buzz does count, then just for French: here (Lizzie) Miller is in Libération, and here she is at Le Matin, complete with a paean by someone described as a philosopher the philosopher Michela Marzano and (more excitingly) a video that invites the hetero male demographic to invoke WP:HOTTIE. -- Hoary (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC) ... amending with name of and link to philosopher -- Hoary (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tyra Banks has obvious claim to notability mostly for modeling.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Hoary: You're preaching to the choir, man. If it was up to me, half the model articles on Wikipedia would be deleted by the end of the day for lack of sourcing and dubious notability. But it's not so easy to prove the subject's non-notability because there's generally an incorrectly assumed correlation between having appeared on a certain magazine cover or in a certain fashion show and the existence of significant coverage—i.e., if so-and-so was on the cover of Vogue, she must be important enough to have the coverage somewhere, even if it's not demonstrated in the article. Unfortunately though, the editors at Project WikiFashion that I would bring up this issue to are the exact ones creating these unsourced, dubious articles by the dozen. The model category is also over-used for non-models. That all said, and as TParis00ap pointed out, some models are clearly notable, like Banks is.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never heard of Banks, and after reading her article I'm still sure I'd never heard of her. It's an odd article in several ways, but I suppose she merits an article as a minor sleb. Let's just looking at the first and larger part of the chunk about her modeling work: Within Banks' first week in Paris, designers [who?] were so entranced by her presence on the runway that she was booked for an unprecedented twenty-five shows – a record in the business for a newcomer. [Both "unprecedented" and "a record"? And what's the source?] She has done extensive print and/or runway work for fashion/advertising giants,["Giants"? Peacock!] such as [list of brand names].[Source?] She has appeared on the covers of high-fashion [as opposed to low-fashion?] magazines such as Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, Cosmopolitan and Elle.[Source?] This is wretched. If it's being touted as a model for worthwhile articles about models, it's depressing indeed. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was an example of how model articles should be. I did say Tyra Banks was a noteworthy article in response to your saying your not sure of a model notable enough. Tyra Banks is definitely noteworthy having hosted 2 seperate major television shows, the biggest being "America's next top model" and ...well, this isn't an AfD for Tyra so I'll just suggest you read more about her before saying she is a minor celeb. But as you've pointed out, her article needs work.--TParis00ap (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She may still be modeling but her notability is based on one event/article. She may have noteworthy issues in the future, but I just dont see it here.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see more than one article--the ones in other languages than English count also. As for notability being based on o e event, it is not, it is rather based on her continuing career--it is only now being discussed, but that is irrelevant, and not within BLP 1E. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You claim her notability is based on her continuing career, but the refs/ELs given do not discuss Miller's ongoing career or even her past career. She is discussed only in the context of one photo and its impact.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to be clear, DGG, you argue that even without the recent publicity -- even if that stuff had never happened, even that photograph had never been taken or at least seen the light of day -- she would be sufficiently notable to warrant an article? Because if you reject BLP1E, that has to be your argument, it seems to me. And it just isn't a credible one. Do you really think it's a coincidence that the article was created a week ago, after the single event for which she might be thought notable broke? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of your point here. The sites you've linked to all discuss the same old Glamour photo.  Mbinebri  talk ← 20:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or more precisely, pair of photos. The point is that there is a surprising degree of coverage by newspapers, magazines and the like outside the anglosphere as well as within of this "event" (or, if this were a sane world, non-event). For the two photos and the text about them, this person seems to be getting about as much comment on her appearance and modeling as do established models; indeed, I suspect that she's getting far more. Certainly there are things -- or at least there's one thing -- that the punditocracy can find to say about her. (Contrast the regular modeling sleb, for whom Wikipedia might dutifully provide birth and upbringing, "discovery", list of appearances, and the occasional temper tantrum or personal vice.) ¶ Above, you cite WP:BLP1E. This now consists of three fastidiously written paragraphs. The first is about a person [who] essentially remains a low-profile individual; however ridiculous this kerfuffle might seem to you or me, she doesn't essentially remain a low-profile individual. (By this time next year she may have reverted to that status.) ¶ The second paragraph explains why/when it would be better to have "Lizzie Miller" be a redirect to an article on the relevant "event". The event (in my view non-event) here is partly the unconventional (for a conventional fashion mag) portrayal by an otherwise conventional fashion mag of somebody who breaks the mags' self-imposed rules, partly (I think) the welcome that this got more or less directly from one or two pundits, and partly a wave of meta-talk: News articles and pundits saying "Look what a storm of news and punditry this has led to!" (The "style" pages have to find something to witter about, and the "news lite" pages perhaps wanted a change from nutty birthers and angry teabaggers.) If this should be directed to an event -- well, the event seems best (and neatly) known as "Lizzie Miller. ¶ The third paragraph is problematic. It reads If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. [...] The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources. If this is a significant event, Miller's role within it is unassailably significant. Obviously we won't know how persistent coverage will be until enough time has elapsed for it to persist, or not. This is certainly not an article I'd have created, and I'd tend to say that time should be allowed to elapse: after all, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". However, it's blazingly obvious that Wikipedia is regarded as a news digest by many of its creators (note the right hand side of its top page). ¶ My own hunch is that significance in modeling (as opposed to general slebrity) comes from your appearance and the discussion thereof, and that Miller's appearance has already generated more discussion (however repetitive or vapid) than have the totals of most selections of half a dozen members of the category:American female models. In an evil deletionist ogre mood, I'd be inclined to go through that category with a scythe (or machine gun), otherwise, I'd let those interchangeable waifs, and her, remain. After all, she has been commented on by a philosopher in a Lausanne tabloid. (Hmm, would an anglophone tabloid invite any philosopher to comment on anything?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd personally prefer not to see models on Wikipedia at all, not merely because they're prominent in their, um, profession, anyway. But if we gotta have 'em, I say she deserves to be included as "notable" even for this one shot (see link from article). It seems more notable to me than being on the cover of Vogue or whatever. Ohiostandard (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weymouth F.C. season 2009–10

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

Although Weymouth F.C. has been a professional football club since 2005, they do not currently play at a national level of the English football league system. Therefore, they are probably not deserving of an article about this particular season in their history. – PeeJay 13:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demergence

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

Non notable neologism WuhWuzDat 13:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter M. Haas

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

Fails WP:PROF. A tenured professor at UMass, otherwise does not rise above the crowd. Gigs (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marconi Calindas

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

Delete per Wikipedia:Artist and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Rowe (artist) : all professional painters sell their art in galleries, but being a professional painter is not a sufficient criteria for having a biography in Wikipedia. I don't know what Wikipedia's criteria are for song writers, but I feel uncomfortable that the song writing part of the career is used to promote (and to seek commercial gain from) paintings : "For sale @ Aspect Gallery in San Francisco, CA." is written on the image description pages : this sounds like an advertisement. Teofilo talk 12:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't feel this guy meets the necessary requirements laid out at WP:ARTIST or WP:NMG. He's written a few songs but none seem to have been taken in by popular opinion. His most notable work is as a journalist, but even this does not seem to meet the requirements for inclusion. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  13:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete - this artist and journalist is popular in the Northern Mariana Islands, hence deserves a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:mvc (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Energy vampire

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

The sources quoted do not establish the term "energy vampire". Consequently this article fails WP:MADEUP. There are sources that can be found on Google Books that use the term generically (such as some stress management books) but this does not establish a class of vampire as the term is used in a jocular sense. If anyone thinks that the generic jocular sense of the word needs definition then this should be on Wictionary rather than here. There may be an argument for a re-written version to be under psychic vampire if anyone were interested enough; it should be noted that any re-write should address poor quality sources included such as churchofsatan.com which fail WP:RS. Ash (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The sources quoted do in fact establish the term "energy vampire" or "psychic vampire". The problem would appear to be simply that the nominator rejects the sources or finds their claims incredible. They may well in fact be unworthy of belief; but like any other texts expounding the concepts of a belief system, all we can hope to do is put them in context and accept their teachings as accurately describing a belief system. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(reality check) I'd be interested to know which sources actually use the words "Energy Vampire" (the nomination did point out the option of moving the article to "Psychic Vampire" which may or may not be the same thing, with a lack of sources any conclusion looks like original research). According to my check of the sources:
  1. ISBN 1-86389-831-X does not seem to exist on Google Books or World Cat, perhaps the ISBN has a typo? The only place I can find this quoted is in "Australian folklore, Volumes 5-8 By Curtin University of Technology. Centre for Australian Studies", which as it happens does not use the term "Energy Vampire".
  2. ISBN 1578631513 does not include the words "Energy Vampire" according to a full search on Google Books,
  3. ISBN 1-870450-33-7 not searchable so I can't check,
  4. the website given for Robinson, Eugene, does not include the words "Energy Vampire",
  5. the Washington Post article recently added does not include the words "Energy Vampire",
  6. the CNN article recently added does use the words "Energy Vampire" but I would point out the direct quote "I call them energy vampires" shows that this source does not establish the term in any sort of common usage as the author thinks they made it up themselves.—Ash (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(comment) After a thorough check of sources I disagree, see above.—Ash (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Clearly, the phenomenon of "psychic vampirism" is recognized within a cultural context: I am not arguing that such a thing is recognized as "real", but rather that the phenomenon, as a topic, is culturally recognized. The term that is primarily used to describe the topic could possibly be a matter of dispute, but the article's existence should not be. Whatever404 (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(note) The nomination is for "Energy vampire" not "Psychic vampire".—Ash (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, if you think this article could reasonably exist under another title, then you should be petitioning for a rename, not deletion. Whatever404 (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Arts and Economics

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

I don't believe this degree actually exists. This article has been around a while, so beware Wikipedia mirrors out there on the web when searching for sources. Gigs (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Potential editorial decisions should be worked out on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgian supercentenarians

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

Is such a list really necessary? None of the individuals is notable enough for their own article, and the list will be constantly changing as new people achieve the distinction and others die off. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a list of nothing but red links (three or four of them at that) doesn't have a place here. If it were a more notable subject, I would recommend expansion. However, since the notability (as mentioned by RadioFan above) is not clear, I agree with the proposed delete.
  • Keep. For a start, please could you at least wait until the article is "complete" (in terms of the sections). Many other nations have pages like this and also list people (now deceased) who reached 110. There are many editors who keep tabs on these sort of pages so the fluctuation of the article is not really a problem. Citations can be provided if necessary. I believe this has been submitted far too early. Nominating an article for deletion only 6 minutes after its creation doesn't leave enough time for this to be a sensible vote.If you take a look at List of Dutch supercentenarians as a comparison, that's the sort of style that this article would be expected to reach. Currently it only has one small section, but there are many others which can and should be added. SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the views on WP:DEADLINE go both ways. Editors can also wait to create articles until there is sufficient content and references for the article to pass WP:GNG. I personally lean towards this view because it prevents clutter. creates less work for others and makes for much higher quality articles overall. Also citations are definitely necessary, without them notability is not demonstrated. --RadioFan (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*The purpose of Wikipedia's processes is to support content creators. Not the rest of us. New pages patrollers, deletionists and other process-focussed users perform a valuable function that I do not wish to denigrate, but people who are working to write an encyclopaedia in good faith have a basic entitlement to work in article space rather than userspace if they wish. This is the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Because this is a five pillars matter (specifically pillar #3), it's a fundamental, founding principle of Wikipedia, above all other rules.

I find the idea that content creators are "creating work for others" is a deeply disturbing one, and I respectfully ask you to reconsider your understanding of this matter.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The European list has tables specifically about Europe, not individual European countries. This page does also list the living supercentenarians, but not those who are deceased as they never had the title of the oldest person in Europe. If you take a look at lists such as List of British supercentenarians you'll see that these lists have information specifically about supercentenarians from that nation, and as such it wouldn't be possible to merge them (we'd end up with a list of European supercentenarians with an addendum of old Belgian cases). How could these articles be merged? SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your distinction. Don't Belgian supercentenarians just comprise a subcategory of European supercentenarians? Are there Belgians who aren't Europeans? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the European supercentenarians page is to list all Europeans together, not separate them by nationality. Where do you think the tables for the oldest Belgians would go on that page? SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The European page is listed in rank order (by age), with the country listed for each entry. Just intersperse the Belgians into the list in their appropriate rank order. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And who is going to add the other hundreds of European supercentenarians to the list and update the rankings of living people amongst them? We can only do so much, which is why the lists are limited in size. We can keep tabs on short lists because they only need updating every week or so. If we were to list everyone it would need updating constantly. In any case, now that I've added a variety of reliable citations, the article meets WP:N so I don't see a reason for it to be removed/merged. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely my reason for nominating the article for deletion in the first place! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments above, and then please explain how you think this might be feasible. SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noting the country of origin in that article, which is already the precedent, is feasible enough. The format of the table can be adjusted so that it can be sorted by country as well as age, so in that sense the reader will see all people from each country grouped together as well. Having many short articles like this does little to show the relationship of these people to each other; the European article has a much more fitting scope. ThemFromSpace 16:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos Jimis

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

Subject does not appear in the listed sources. No further sources could be found. ↪REDVERS The internet is for porn 11:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Mendy

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

Fails WP:ATH Steve-Ho (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Church Universal and Triumphant

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

This article bases notability of this organization on the claimed membership levels but no source is available that makes any definitive claim. Elizabeth Clare Prophet published a lot of lengthy texts on what she considered spiritual enlightenment but this does not establish notability sufficiently for a Wikipedia article. The organization fails WP:ORG due to a lack of real third party reliable sources, references such as the "Encyclopedia of American Religions" do not establish notability as they are in the business of identifying every possible self-declared religious organization. The article should be deleted as it adds no value to Wikipedia not already established by the exhaustive Elizabeth Clare Prophet article. Ash (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Looking at the searches linked above, there does appear to be substantial coverage of this movement. Obviously, unreliable sources should be removed, but there appears to be more than enough to meet the GNG. Quantpole (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily meets the "I heard of it before seeing a Wikipedia article" test. The Summit Lighthouse and its affiliated organizations are in fact quite notable. Google News gives us three decades worth of hits. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They were all over nationwide reporting in the late 80's and early 90s for their famous retreat to the underground bunkers, you shouldn't have to rival the size of Roman Catholicism for inclusion, and Wikipedia is not Brittanica. It would be a little like saying don't create an LDS church article since it's already covered by the one on Joseph Smith. Chris Rodgers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to having been prominent in the news in the late 80s and early 90s, a search on Google Scholar finds plenty of books and articles either directly about or mentioning aspects of the CUT published in the last 10 years. Also, since Elizabeth Clare Prophet has left public life, the future path of the church will presumably not find ideal coverage in her WP article. Gracehoper (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archeia

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

As the lead text states, The first and apparently only reference to Archeiai are in the book "Angels Of Love & Light" by Lynn Fischer. Consequently the article fails to be notable and should be deleted as irrelevant trivia. Wikipedia does not exist to reprint any fantasy or made-up on the spot terminology ever published by anyone (unless it becomes veritably notable). Ash (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JBsupreme (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nutan Marathi Vidyalaya

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

DELETE. Generally speaking, I could care less if Wikipedia has articles on every high school in the known universe... as long as that material can be verified. This cannot. So get rid of it please. JBsupreme (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anyone who wants the content to merge it somewhere need only contact me on my talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wessex Hall

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

Non-notable university accommodation, currently unreferenced with extremely limited possibilities for addition of reliable sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is pretty old accomodation, so I wouldn't be surprised if sources could be found. Examples from google: [29] (mentioned on 3 separate pages), [30], and there seems to be more available. This sort of accomodation is more akin to an Oxbridge college than just a block of student flats. Creeps over notability theshold as far as I'm concerned. Quantpole (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Don't know anything about this subject, but a similar sounding AfD recently concluded as a keep: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dunmore_Lang_College
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As with Articles for deletion/Wessex Hall, anyone wanting to merge this somewhere can leave me a message. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Patrick's Hall

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

Non-notable university hall, there's no reason for a separate article, any usable material could appear on the University of Reading page (and there won't be a need for much of that). The article here has suffered recently from addition of a great deal of unsourced information, not an improvement to the encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from Rahrahsmile101: I don't know what you have against Reading University but please do not interfere with articles you clearly do not know much about. St Patrick's Hall is a notable as it is the 2nd oldest hall in Reading (and according to some the 2nd oldest purposed built hall in the UK after Wantage) and it has a lot of history and means a lot to many people. This article is also of great value to prospective students because there is little helpful information about the halls on the Universities website. I would have thought that the fact that many of the halls wikipedia pages have been reformed since they were last deleted is evidence that people do want these pages. The point of an encyclopedia is after all to contain as much information as possible not as little as possible! As for the article's accuracy I am a recent Reading graduate and so I know that it is completely accurate however I will be adding more references very soon. I also hope to improve the pages for the other Reading halls if no one else gets round to it before I do as most are inadequate apart from Wantage and Wessex. As you probably know wikipedia has a University project at the moment aiming to improve coverage of all Universities and I think this is an important part of that. Thanks (former University of Reading student).
  • Keep. Basically the same as for Wessex Hall. This isn't just a block of student flats but something more akin to an Oxbridge college. Due to the age of the institution I think reliable sources are likely to be found, if a little difficult from a google search. However, The University of Reading: the first fifty years which is found on google looks like it will contain decent info. Quantpole (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Quantpole - both Wessex and St Patrick's are more like Oxbridge Colleges (in terms of structure, traditions and facilities) than a block of student flats or UPP (University Partnership Project) halls. They are a very significant part of the University's history and the town's as well and not just where students sleep but where they play sport, practice music, have society meetings, eat, study etc too.--Rahrahsmile101 (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC) — Rahrahsmile101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment you are both offering opinions instead of evidence of notability. As it happens those opinions are also incorrect -- Reading does not operate a college structure the way Oxford and Cambridge do. In any event the way to have an article kept is to show notability through reliable sources. I nominated it for deletion because after searching I don't think such sources are available (using links to facebook groups certainly isn't going to do it). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nomoskedasticity if you're going to criticize others as much as you seem to like doing then at least get your facts right yourself! I never said that Reading was collegiate nor implied it and from first-hand experience I am very well aware of the differences between Oxford and Cambridge and Reading as I know all three of these Universities very well. I only said that there are some similarities between a Reading hall and a college of a collegiate University. Perhaps Durham would have been a better example - their colleges are not teaching bodies and are very similar to Reading halls (and the older halls at Bristol & one or two at Leeds and Nottingham). As for the sources there are plenty available but I don't happen to live in a library and do have other things to do with my time! If you're so concerned why not find the references yourself rather than just criticizing the hard work of others? I think you'll find publications such as: J.C. Holt 'The University of Reading: the first 50 years', W.M. Childs 'Making a University: an account of the University movement at Reading' and Dr Sidney Smith and Michael Bott 'One hundred years of University education in Reading: a pictorial history' will be of use. I think these books should be used in conjunction with modern website links as the books can tell readers about the hall's history and the modern websites about what it's actually like to be a student there today. --Rahrahsmile101 (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC) — Rahrahsmile101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: Related AfD going on right now: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wessex_Hall. As I noted there, I don't know anything about this subject, but a similar sounding AfD recently concluded as a keep: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dunmore_Lang_College --Milowent (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In all cases where the residence hall is not of special note in some manner, or actually historic, or has significant wider functions. I see nothing to indicate it has the teaching In all cases where the residence hall is not of special note in some manner, or actually historic, or has significant wider functions. I see nothing to indicate it has the teaching function of an Oxbridge college. All residence halls have commons rooms; may have eating facilities, study rooms and so on. What the article talks about is a full list of the dishes served at the dining hall, which is about as unencyclopedic as possible. The place for these is on the university web site. The other AfD was I think a strange extension of the notability criteria, especially considering there were no 3rd party sources at all--except sources on the person the hall was named after. Here there isn't even that. I should be very surprised if a book about the university gave it more than a passing mention, but if it does, cite the pages. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As someone who is neither a student nor member of staff at Reading I enjoy reading these articles when curiosity gets the better of me as the history of our Universities is a big part of the past hundred years and more of Britain's history and the halls are important as they are the places where the students actually live and spend most of their time and consequently have the most memories of when they leave. Student activities after all say more about a University than the exact number of books in its libraries or the number of professors it employs - its the very essence of the place. The other beneficial element about having such articles on wikipedia is that it aids members of the public like myself because everything is in one place - if this page did not exist then I would have had to scan numerous webpages (many on the University's website and many others), get hold of some books and find a former student to grill. More students should be invited to contribute to such pages as they're the ones who can really tell us what goes on in the University (something that cannot be learned from reading the sometimes biased accounts in the University's own literature which is a form of propaganda. So please leave this article (and add more to it if possible!) for the benefit of the many people who use wikipedia to find the answers to all kinds of questions they may have. Its real asset is in the breadth of topics on its pages. Thanks. --Funtimes101 (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC) — Funtimes101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any encyclopaedic information into University of Reading, unless someone wants to create an article about Reading halls. There might be scope for an encyclopaedic article, but Wikipedia is not repository for university prospectuses. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. My preference would be to create a new article University of Reading Halls of Residence along the lines of University of Exeter Halls of Residence. An alternative plan would be to merge the content into the page on the the campus; this really needs an editorial discussion to establish a strategy. Either way the content should be heavily edited but not deleted. The comparison with Oxbridge colleges is, of course, fallacious. In addition to the reasoning of DGG, Oxbridge colleges control their own admission - you apply to the college whereas at Reading you apply to the University. TerriersFan (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are other St. Patrick's Halls, including one Australia that was the first house of Victoria's parliment [31]. There are far too many dorms in the world and articles on dorms on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not FaceBook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abductive (talk • contribs) 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ansver Oksman. Cirt (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triangel

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Article primarily talks about the painting, and both sources seem to relate to aspects of the painting, not to its notability. Perhaps relevant portions could be merged into Ansver Oksman. --darolew (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air-powered Cars Soon to Come

edit
Air-powered Cars Soon to Come (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

essay,WP:NOTCRYSTAL, article on Compressed air cars already exists, prod removed by creator H8erade (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essay, WP:OR, etc. etc. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art Hearing Park (Hearing Park)

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

This is not my nomination. Here's the nom:

This article is about a private park in a private, gated community of less than 500 homes. It has as much relevance as an article about someone's swimming pool. WQUlrich (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to save the incomplete nomination. tedder (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. both. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gui d'Excideuil

edit
AfDs for this article:
    Gui d'Excideuil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Also nominated: André de France

    Delete - WP:N tells us that for a subject to be notable there must be reliable sources that are substantively about the subject and that sources which merely mention the subject do not establish notability. The primary source for these characters no longer exists and there do not appear to be secondary sources that are substantively about these characters. Note that a mere mention of the character in a source that is not about the character does not meet the notability guideline. Otto4711 (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep both. These articles are about two lost French medieval verse romances - not the eponymous characters as such. The deletion argument would apply to any of Category:Lost works - inevitably if the work is lost there can be little substantive discussion. Nonetheless these can certainly be notable, and are worth having stubs with all the available information. We can sure that if a text ever turns up there will rapidly be lots of sources. Both articles also appear in French WP. From this search there appears to be an article in the Hutchinson Encyclopedia. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both — I have added references and improved categories. As mentioned above, these are on the French Wikipedia too. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Both - although I don't speak French, and half of the Ghits I see are irrelevant, stuff like this is at least enough to prove existance, which I believe is relevant in this particular debate. I see a great potential for sources in both of these articles, it's just a matter of finding them.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 15:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep though more exact sourcing and a fuller discussion would help. The person writing the articles is a true expert, and I've reminded him to add to them--If he says they are mentioned in many other romances, I'd take him at his word. This is a very different situation from the articles about characters in modern sci-fi. I notice the nom forgot to notify the ed involved both when he prodded, and here. I notified him of the prod when I deprodded it, and I'm telling him its here now. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: Johnbod - WP:WAX; the existence of other articles on lost works has no bearing on this discussion. If other works are not notable than they should not have articles either. WP:CRYSTAL; If copies turn up in the future and sources are generated then the articles can actually be written. That both things have articles in the French WP is irrelevant to whether they have articles here as each language's WP has its own standards for inclusion. Re; Unionhawk - no one is questioning that these things at one time existed, but existence is not the standard for inclusion. Re: DGG - as I stated in the nomination and as is clearly spelled out at WP:N, simply being mentioned in a source is not the standard for inclusion. Substantive coverage in independent reliable sources is. Otto4711 (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, who was that Assyrian (or whatever) monarch who was only a name on a list, & who was kept at AfD (and the nomination brought up by several at the nom's RFA afterwards)? I think that is the precedent here. We all seem essentially agreed that the stubs contain pretty much all the information the world of scholarship has, it just there isn't much at all. But they would love to have more, which makes the books notable (in fact candidates for FA status, now they have decided no topic is too small by its nature). Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that the correct analogy. A great deal is known here that can be added--there are the allusions in all the various poems that mention him, all of which have been cited and discussed. As Andrew says below, this can certainly be expanded even if the text is never recovered. The reason this is notable, is that those citations show that this fictional character had a substantial influence on other works. Now, for Assyrian monarchs, and most names on lists of figures from the ancient world, there is the very real possible that additional archeological and literary data may become available--there is a continuous stream of new discoveries and many undeciphered inscriptions. The problem of what to do about names on a list is most acute with respect to biblical figures where only the names are mentioned--the best set of examples i know are the genealogical lists in Ezra 2:2-61. And even here there is the possibility that archeological may reveal traces of these people: I believe that extra-biblical evidence has been recently found for a few figures mentioned in even pre-exilic accounts. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep ... I started both articles (and their French equivalents, if I remember correctly) hoping that someone else (with better access to a library than I have) would add references to other medieval mentions of these two characters. There are quite a few. I admit the articles are pretty weak right now, since that hasn't happened ... If they are kept, I will expand them myself to demonstrate notability, but I can't do it for the next few days because I'm travelling. I suggest keeping if possible. Thanks Andrew Dalby 09:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • With a few minutes to spare, I can justify changing my view to strong keep -- on grounds hinted at by others, that it is really helpful to be able to find material like this in a reference source even if the amount of detail available is not much. If such characters are mentioned in more than one surviving text, as Gui d'Excideuil and Andre de France are, the best place for the information about them is an article on each character, saying just what is known and giving references. Thank goodness Wikipedia can find room for brief articles of this kind even if other encyclopedias can't. But I admit more is needed, in each case, and I'll do my best to supply it! Andrew Dalby 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all I had no difficulty adding a citation to the Andre article. Per WP:BEFORE and other policies, articles should not be nominated for deletion if this will disrupt good faith efforts to develop the articles. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both Gui d'Excideuil needs better sourcing, but as Unionhawk said above, you only have to look to find good sources for these two books; you don't have to delete articles simply because they require cleanup at the time. André de France has better sourcing, and should certainly not be deleted. Jprulestheworld01 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and improve. I never knew such things existed. Pretty cool with lots of EV. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both I've added sources to both which make it clear that they had an important influence on contemporary literature. --Zeborah (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Countering systematic bias couldn't have a better poster child than this. I managed to find some French books referencing this poem, see [38][39][40][41] and giving the author as Pons de Breuil,[42] and some details of his life.
    • From a book on proverbs: "Le troubadour Pons de Breuil avait ecrit, a ce que nous apprend Nostradamus, un roman jadis tres goute, dont le titre etait las amor enrabyadas de andrieu de Fransa. Il se pourrait que le proverbe dut venu d'une allusion au heros de ce roman, mort d'amour pur une reine du pays, et frequemment cite comme le parfait modele des amants" which translates to "The troubadour Pons de Breuil had written, as we learned from Nostradamus, a novel once very fashionable, whose title was Las Amor enrabyadas de Andrieu de Fransa. It is possible that the proverb comes from an allusion to the hero of this novel, death of pure love of a queen [?], and frequently cited as the perfect model of lovers" or something along those lines, referring to the proverb "mort d'amour et d'une fluxion de poitrine" or "death of love and chest inflammation"??? Hmm.
    • "Pons de Breuil, gentilhomme provencal du pays des montagnes selon les uns, & italien selon les autres, joignica la poeme & a la musique le talent de jouer tres biens de toutes fortes d'instruments. Il n'etoit pas ne riche, & cependant il portoit la properte dans ses habits jusqu'a la magnificence, tant il est vrais qu'avec de l'esprit & de la bonne mine on supplee a tout. Il aima tendrement Elys de Merrillon femmes d'Ozil de Mercuit, & lui sut attache jusqu'a sa mort. Qu'il ait fait pour elle plusieurs chansons, on ne peut geure en douter. Il etoit poete et amoureux. Ayant perdu sa maitresse, il fit le voiage d'outremer avec le comte de Provence son seigneur, & mourut en Syrie; il avoit fait un tres beauchant funebre pour Elys. Il adressait ses ouvrages a Beatrix au Provences, & a Marie reine de l'Angleterre & de France. On a encore de lui un poeme de las amours enrabyadas de Andrieu de Fransa, qui mourut par trop aimer. Il y avoit un roman de cet Andre de France, qui s'est perdu." possibly translating to "Pons de Breuil, a gentleman of the Provencal hill country according to some, and Italian according to others, joined the poem to music & was talented, playing very well all kinds of instruments. He was not born rich, and yet his bearing was magnificent, as wit and good looks make up for everything. He dearly loved Elys of Merrillon, wife of Ozil of Mercuit, and maintained this attachment until his death. He wrote many songs for her, one can have little doubt. He was a poet and lover. Having lost his mistress, he took a voyage overseas with the Count of Provence, his lord, and died in Syria. He had made a very fine funereal song for Elys. He dedicated his works to Beatrix of Provence & Mary, Queen of England & France. He then wrote a poem, las amours enrabyadas de Andrieu de Fransa, who died through love. There was a novel about Andre de France, but this has been lost". Someone with better French than I needs to go over this. Fences&Windows 01:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both: Historically significant romances. Joe Chill (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I love the fact that this sort of article exists in the Wikipedia as a reference, even if it consists of little more than a definition. Strong KEEP. --AStanhope (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kepp both per Joe Chill and DGG --Mokhov (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Linda Carty

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

    WP:BLP1E. Non-notable other than the fact that she committed a crime and is on death row in Texas. Javért  |  Talk 06:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether she commited the crime is questionable. Besides, anyone who is lined up for judicial killing in the most industrially advanced country in the world is notable. State sanctioned killing is controversial and cases therefore notable. Domminico (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    The fact that she is technically a Briton would make it a little notable. Heywoodg (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - fails on WP:BLP1E - not notable except for committing a crime. There is no Wikipedia page on the actual crime, so the crime itself does not appear to be notable - as such, it is unlikely that the perpetrator is notable. None of the co-accused have pages. Crime occurred 8 years ago and page has only recently been created to raise awareness - as such see WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS - 198.240.128.75 (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, she's notable for more than just the alleged crime. She's notable for her appeal, for which reliable sources have been provided, and for Her Majesty's Government's reaction to her impending execution, for which, again, reliable sources have been provided. And the key point is, she's also notable for passing the General Notability Guideline.

      I agree that this article will have the incidental side-effect of raising awareness of the United States' barbaric provisions for judicial murder, but we don't delete material just because it's embarrassing to the US.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • My position is that the crime is not notable (the victim was not notable, there is no article on the crime, etc) and the perpetrator is not notable. The fact that the woman is appealing is not notable in itself (many criminals launch appeals) and the British government's reaction to the appeal does not seem to be notable or out of the ordinary compared to it's position with regard to any other British citizen convicted of a crime overseas (for instance the reaction is far more muted than that for Michael Shields). A similar case would be that of Tracy Housel (who is not featured on Wikipedia) - a Britain who was executed in 2002 in the US after being convicted of murder.

      Also, please remember that the purpose of this disussion is to reach a concensus on whether this article should be deleted. It is not a soapbox for promoting views for or against the death penalty, or on the US in general. Thanks - 198.240.128.75 (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I do understand your position, and I believe it is refuted by the General Notability Guideline. I think it incontrovertible that this woman passes. The fact that Tracy Housel is not featured would appear to be other stuff does not exist.

      I hold strong views on the death penalty, as do many other people. The death penalty itself contributes significantly to this woman's notability.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • But General Notability Guideline are just that, general. On WP:Notability, on the right hand side there are specific guidelines for certain topics - in this case the specific category is people/BLP etc and is available through WP:PEOPLE. If you scroll down, you will get to "People notable only for one event" WP:BLP1E. My position is that Linda falls into this category as other than the murder/trial/appeal/sentence, there is nothing she is notable for. To be honest, I'm not convinced that the actual event or the appeal is notable either - a large number of people are on death row, many of them proclaim their innocence, some are British - I don't see what distinguished this case from any other one - what makes her more notable than any other Britain on death row? I mean we both agree that just being on death row is not notable *in itself* (as per your response to Domminico) so there has to be something else - either notability of the crime, victim, appeal or something else. I don't think the victim was notable - she is not even named in the article. The crime is unusual but I don't think it justifies an article. The appeal looks to be standard and the British government response seems to be minimal - I have not heard of any ministers or similar making any noise about a miscarriage of justice or similar - 198.240.128.75 (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actaully, maybe merging this article into One_&_Other might be more appropriate - this has a selected list of people on the 4th plinth - opinions? - 198.240.128.75 (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes it notable is that this article has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.

      The specific guidelines (WP:PEOPLE, WP:PROF, WP:ATHLETE, WP:PORNBIO etc.) do not have the full force of WP:N. Put simply, individual WikiProjects or groups of editors interested in specific topics do not have the authority to create guidelines that overrule the GNG. The BLP provisions are a special case, having received an enormous amount of attention, but I do not think BLP1E is relevant here. As I said, there's the crime, the appeal, and the public plea; I think to call these things "one event" is stretching the concept beyond breaking point.

      I do understand that the GNG is open to criticism. It's simplistic in the extreme, and from an individual editor's point of view it can lead to the "wrong" articles being included (or removed). But the great benefit of the GNG is that any editor can look at a topic and decide if the criteria are met. In other words, it's what enables editors to research and write articles without having to go through a committee process first.

      This is why I think meeting the GNG is a bright-line inclusion criterion and should lead to automatic keep at AfD (barring copyvios, attack pages etc.) and you'll note that the consensus appears to be with me on this.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think this article is more accuratly covered by WP:N/CA as this is specifically for criminal events and the people involved in them. In section 2.2 (Criteria for inclusion of articles on participants/Perpetrators), it says that "Editors should consider creating articles on perpetrators if at least one of the following is true". I won't paste the whole of the guideline here, but the 3 main reasons are (i) They are notable for something beyond the crime itself, (ii) The victim is a renowned world figure or (iii) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual. (ii) and (iii) do not apply here (I think you will agree on this), so the issue is does she fall into section (i). This section has an important sentance which is "Perpetrator notability is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question." My position is that the crime, the appeal, and the public plea are all related to the crime and so are not independant and should not be used to confer notability - 198.240.128.75 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Wikipedian guidelines are like scripture: somewhere in the labyrinthine network of rules, you can find support for any position. I think the consensus here is, correctly, that the general notability guideline should prevail and that the appeal and crime are not the same event for BLP1E purposes.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but lets not jump the gun and go for an early close - this afd has only been open for half a day and there will probably be more contributions from other editors over the next week or so. Anyway, I have put my my points across, so I am done - 198.240.128.75 (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Minor comment: Just to notify moved the article to Linda Carty, with correct capitalization. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of characters in The Elenium and The Tamuli. The content is still available under the redirect for anyone who wishes to merge it. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Knight Orders (David Eddings)

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

    Contains only WP:OR plot summary, no coverage by third party sources, fails WP:N. Too large to merge to the articles about the literary works. A merger into a new article about the fictional world, as suggested by the editor contesting the PROD, is also a bad idea as long as that target article would also consist only of unsourced, unnotable plot summary - we'd need some substantial third party coverage about the entire subject matter first.  Sandstein  05:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • In principle, I agree that we need much fewer articles about all this, but as long as the actual content of all of them is unsourced plot summary, it needs to go. I don't object to userfication to the userspace of somebody who wants to undertake the work S Marshall proposes.  Sandstein  09:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge too large to merge? merge some of it. Probably not an appropriate article. When I deprodded it , I suggested a merge, and some possibilities to rationalize the articles, and I do not know why it was brought there when there was a preferred solution available. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 10 September 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) 06:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I considered that the keep "votes" are in general much weaker than those in favor of deletion, but there is still no consensus either way. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nathalie Quagliotto

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

    non-notable, blatant WP:COI on the part of the author. Sources do not prove notability (hey, I've been on the front page of The Canberra Times, but I'm not notable) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: This user has twice removed maintenance tags from the article (first time POI and NOTABILITY tags, second time removed a SPEEDY template), and so is possibly being disruptive. Notified on user's talk page (next reversion would violate WP:3RR). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Regardless of the other issues raised, she does meet our notability guidelines. She has been the subject of a Globe and Mail article: it's Canada's largest national daily and while the article is behind their subscriber wall, it exists and she is the sole focus.The mention in the Toronto Star blog article helps, too: though it's a blog and she's not the sole focus of the piece, the Star is Canada's largest circulation daily, in Canada's largest city. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete—the article text on its own would qualify for A7, as the article has no indication of why the article might meet our notability guidelines. If the sources are indeed good, why can't someone add a simple sentence clearly asserting notability? Why is the subject notable? —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. One mention in the Globe and Mail is a start, but hardly significant coverage from multiple sources per WP:RS (and is generally indicative of a "local/regional interest arts scene" article). As it stands I see no evidence of notability. --Kinu t/c 06:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know how you get "local/regional" arts scene when the G&M is a national newspaper and the Star is covering her in a different region (Toronto is not Montreal). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps my word choice was not as accurate. I was postulating that this was analogous to, say, an article in the New York Times about London artists. The subject is perhaps of local importance, but merely being written about in a nationally-distributed medium doesn't seem to meet the spirit of WP:RS and automatically grant it greater notability, in my opinion, especially when the "multiple sources" aspect is concerned. --Kinu t/c 17:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure what spirit of RS you mean, but it seems you and I have different interpretations of the basic notability criteria of WP:BIO, and what is meant by "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Good day to you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • By "the spirit of WP:RS" I mean that being written about in a newspaper doesn't grant one the threshold of notability; after all, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. On a daily basis, theoretically, scores of artists have a piece written about them or their work in a major newspaper's arts section. By your logic, this would automatically mean that they meet WP:ARTIST, which seems unreasonable. Just as "notability" and "newsworthiness" are two distinct phenomena, so too are "notability" and "being noticed." --Kinu t/c 22:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "On a daily basis, theoretically, scores of artists have a piece written about them or their work in a major newspaper's arts section." Really? I wish I could read that paper, that would be some arts section. Theoretically. Look, I'm not going to keep arguing with you. Please have the last word if you want. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are sufficient secondary sources that cover the person, that is notability as far as wikipedia is concerned. Ty 09:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't answer my concern, though. Michael Jordan is notable because he is a professional athlete, not because there are sources about him. The sources support the claim of notability, but are not the sole reason for notability. Again, I don't see why this person is notable, and that needs to be explicitly mentioned in the article. --Kinu t/c 14:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're confusing the general usage of the term notability with the specific wikipedia definition per WP:N, which is precisely dependent on the availability and quality of sources. If they are considered to pass the threshold, then the person is notable. The article will then have content which the sources supply, in this case, presumably, about the person being an artist and the type of art they do, which in itself does not have to be particularly distinguished in any way, though it may be (my comment is no reflection one way or the other). Ty 01:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps I'm trying too hard to figure out which part of WP:ARTIST the subject meets... that and the presumed reliability of the scant number of sources rubs me the wrong way. The TKartspace article is a first-person interview/blog type site, and I can't speak to its reliability. The Globe and Mail article is inaccessible (I don't particularly care to register just to read that one article), the Star article actually appears to be their blog site and seems like a cursory mention in which she is not the primary subject, and the Fergus/Elora article is a brief mention in an art review about a larger academic project. I don't have any particular vested interest, but I am trying to figure out how the "significant coverage" and "reliable" aspects of WP:GNG are met here; rather the coverage seems "trivial" to me. --Kinu t/c 02:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was waiting to see if the article improved and adequate sources demonstrated, but I'm not convinced. It's not trivial, as it directly addresses the issue of her art and her as an artist, but there's not enough of it. Ty 02:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well spotted. A copvio then also. Ty 02:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a {{db-copyvio}} tag to the article indicating as such. While the Blogger terms of use indicate that the author maintains copyright, the content (copyright held by the author or otherwise) does not appear to have a license that is compatible with Wikipedia. I'll let another administrator deal with it, as to delete the article myself would appear to be bad faith. Even if it's not a copyvio, the text makes it looks like blatant self-promotion, regardless of how notable the subject may be. --Kinu t/c 02:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep--I fixed the article a bit so that it does not appear to be copied. I looked at her website and read most of the articles and was actually lucky enough to catch the Gary Michael Dault article. It talks about color, proximity, and doubling. Whoever wrote this article didn't mention that. I researched some more and the artist appeared to be in a show in New York at Art Raw gallery and Australia for a biennial. That person also didn't mention this info.Pianoplaying (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)pianoplay[reply]
    • — Pianoplaying (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Risen Tunes

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

    Unsourced (myspace is not a source), non-notable, written in a promoting manner. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Lewis (offensive lineman)

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

    Practice squad players are not notable per WP:Athlete; subject does not meet other guidelines for notability as set forth in WP:N. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - As NFL practice squad player, should automatically be notable per WP:VERIFY as lesser talented players from lower-level football leagues are notable.►Chris NelsonHolla! 13:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A few flaws here: first of all, practice players are not automatically notable--that is a given. I don't know what you mean with "notable per WP:VERIFY"--no verifiable notability is proven for this and other practice squad players. That they should be notable because lesser-talented players are notable is doubtful and confused: determining who has less talent is impossible, and ordinarily (unless WP:N is met in other ways) players (such as?) from lower-level leagues (such as?) are not notable. Reread WP:ATHLETE, without trying to make it fit your recent spate of new articles. You seem to suggest a general law for notability for almost everyone in an NFL organization, and that is counter to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - having never actually played at the professional level (yet), fails WP:ATHLETE. If he makes the active roster, I'm not against recreation.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 16:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Marcus Walker

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

    Practice squad players are not notable per WP:Athlete; subject does not meet other guidelines for notability as set forth in WP:N. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    De'von Hall

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

    Practice squad players are not notable per WP:Athlete; subject does not meet other guidelines for notability as set forth in WP:N. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Julius Pruitt

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

    Practice squad players are not notable per WP:Athlete; subject does not meet other guidelines for notability as set forth in WP:N. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 14:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kory Sperry

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

    Practice squad players are not notable per WP:Athlete; subject does not meet other guidelines for notability as set forth in WP:N. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep I found some third-party sources, [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. I also usually deem recognized collegiate athletes as being notable, but some current guidelines aren't in favor of that.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry Giants, but I don't see a lot of significant coverage there--brief articles in a campus paper, a local paper, a local TV station's website, and a few scouting reports. He didn't get drafted and he's not playing. As for the "two-time All-Mountain West selection," that's overstating the case mildly, I'd say: in 2008 he was second-team all-MWC choice, and in 2006 he was pre-season second-team all-MWC choice. My italics. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A search of the Newsbank database turns up many other articles on Sperry. See, e.g., (i) Miami Dolphins sign tight end Kory Sperry, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - September 9, 2009; (2) One fine catch Sperry gives CSU ferocious blocker and able receiver, The Denver Post, October 31, 2008; (3) TIGHT END SPERRY BACK IN FORM WITH FIVE CATCHES, TD FORT COLLINS, The Denver Post, September 7, 2008; (4) CSU's Sperry shut down by Colorado, The Daily Times-Call (Longmont, CO), September 1, 2008; (5) Sperry held to 11 yards by Buffaloes: Former Pueblo County High School standout makes return from knee surgery, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA), September 1, 2008; (6) Bitter end? Sperry isn't Long rehab complete, Ram looking forward to collision with Buffs, Rocky Mountain News (CO), August 23, 2008; (7) Sperry returns to action after injury, The Daily Times-Call (Longmont, CO), August 6, 2008; (8) Sperry’s fill-in still unkown, The Daily Reporter-Herald (Loveland, CO), September 12, 2007; (9) CSU Injured Sperry back as mentor Veteran TE remains active after torn ACL, The Denver Post, September 12, 2007; (10) CSU tight end out for season, The Deseret News (Salt Lake City, UT), September 12, 2007; (11) MRI confirms Sperry is out, Laramie Boomerang (WY), September 12, 2007; (12) Injured tight end Sperry will redshirt for CSU, Rocky Mountain Collegian, September 12, 2007; (13) Sperry out for season but plans to return, Rocky Mountain News (CO), September 12, 2007; (14) Rams TE Sperry down for the count, Rocky Mountain Collegian, September 10, 2007; (15) Sperry might apply for medical redshirt, MRI scheduled for Monday, Associated Press Archive, September 9, 2007; (16) Sperry shines in Showdown CSU tight end scores 3 TDs, but laments game's outcome, The Denver Post, September 2, 2007; (17) After 3-TD game, CSU's Sperry set for big things, Rocky Mountain Collegian, September 7, 2007; (18) Sperry's agility, size on display in 3 scores, The Gazette(Colorado Springs, CO), September 2, 2007; (19) CSU's Sperry focuses on college ball, The Daily Times-Call (Longmont, CO), August 18, 2007; (20) CSU Sperry makes big impression, The Denver Post, August 8, 2007; (21) Sperry conquers mental block(ing). Rocky Mountain News (CO), August 8, 2007; (22) Ex-Hornet comes up big for Rams: Kory Sperry catches game-winning touchdown in CSU's victory over Colorado, Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, September 10, 2006; (23) CSU FOOTBALL Sperry's goal: every-down guy, The Denver Post, March 26, 2006; (24) COLORADO STATE NOTES Sperry in position to make own way Promising H-back well-suited to succeed Dreessen, The Denver Post, August 24, 2005; (25) Force-fed and now feasting TE Sperry’s experience leads to major role, The Daily Reporter-Herald (Loveland, CO), August 6, 2005; (26) Sperry set for action Sophomore TE in Rams’ game plan, The Daily Times-Call (Longmont, CO), August 6, 2005; (27) CSU'S SPERRY IS NO LONGER THE WIDE-EYED FRESHMAN, FORMER PUEBLO COUNTY QUARTERBACK GROWING INTO A SOLID PERFORMER, Rocky Mountain News, November 5, 2004; (28) Sperry's fine play pleasant surprise The freshman tight end from Pueblo County High School is learning the tricks of his trade from Rams standout Joel Dreessen, an NFL prospect, Th Denver Post, October 29, 2004; (29) Just one of the guys To his teammates, he's just Kory, but to his opponents Sperry is a multitalented threat, The Denver Post, ugust 27, 2003. That should suffice to establish notability, no? Cbl62 (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jim Hawkins

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




    The subject has requested deletion of the article in otrs:3648175. Because of this, and marginal notability, I believe we can delete on policy, and on doing the right thing. Thank you for considering the request. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong keep As someone who has been a broadcaster on BBC Radio 4 (a national radio station in the UK), Jim Hawkins clearly passes the notability threshold. His demands to have the article deleted show that he doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. If there are BLP issues there is a process for dealing with them. Jim, suggest you contact your Radio 2 colleague Ken Bruce who will be able to tell you all about having a page about yourself on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (expand comment) Jim Hawkins seems to meet WP:BIO via WP:ANYBIO section 1 and WP:ENT sections 2 and 3. Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral, per conversation with someone claiming to be the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per request of article subject. Votes for KEEP are not respecting the subject's wishes, IMHO. ArcAngel (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not because of the request, but because Wikipedia doesn't host articles on all professors, all businesses, all radio show hosts, and so on. Notability criteria are discriminatory and I don't see any evidence supporting Jim Hawkins being a notable radio show personality. There are thousands of radio show hosts. A google search shows no basis of notability beyond "hosts an unexceptional show on a radio station" [49]. His BBC profile shows a couple of minor awards, again not enough to substantiate "notable radio presenter" [50]. There's (apparently) nothing else. There isn't a criterion for radio hosts but a look at criteria for academics shows quite a high standard communal standard is set, for notability in professions which have many individuals. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      FT2 - a broadcaster on a national radio station should be above the notability threshold. If BBC Radio Shropshire was as far as he'd got then I'd be persuaded that perhaps the notability threshold hadn't been reached. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Disagree. Merely "presenting an ordinary show on any national radio station" just isn't an appropriate criterion for notability of radio presenters. That's overly broad, especially when we check the criteria held in other professions. For example in academia, "being a professor at a major university" isn't enough, nor is "having published papers" (WP:PROF), and in politics "being a local minor politician" isn't enough even though they have a higher profile in the area than many people (WP:POLITICIAN). In fact in every area that formal criteria have been agreed, the requirements set by the community are quite a high level. The other criteria at WP:ENTERTAINER aren't particularly met either - there is no evidence of a history of especially significant roles, nor an especial fan base (beyond any usual presenter), nor "unique, prolific or innovative contributions". FT2 (Talk | email) 07:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Note footnote 7 at Notability (people). It fairly concisely sets the yardstick to measure people like Jim Hawkins against. tedder (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Jim Hawkins presented a news programme on BBC Radio 4 - see article. Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This article has been the subject of serious abuse and sheer stupidity by some Wikipedia contributors. But Jim Hawkins lives and works in the public ___domain with a high profile in Shropshire and the West Midlands. He is therefore a proper subject for Wikipedia. --Bodders (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Evidence? Significant independent third party coverage of Jim Hawkins? (As opposed to one or two mentions in the local press to his area)? FT2 (Talk | email) 07:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Hawkins is a celebrity in Shropshire. He hosts the most listened to radio programme in the county. He frequently hosts and opens high-profile charity and community events. He broadcasts private details of his life on his programme and on his twitter account. It is only on wikipedia that he demands privacy. Waterworldington (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      A large audience would make the show notable, not the presenter. Choosing to tell the world about himself elsewhere isn't relevant to notability. This discussion would need evidence of the other claims. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      He does have a large audience. For some reason his bigger radio programme on Saturday evenings which is broadcast on BBC Radio Shropshire AND BBC Radio Hereford & Worcester AND BBC Radio Stoke does not seem to be mentioned in the latest edition of his article. I doubt it would be too difficult to get some audience figures for his weekday and Saturday programmes. He also has a large following on twitter whom he has requested all 1200 of them to edit or delete his article. I do not quite understand why he finds the article so ofensive when in my view it just mirrors information he has on various BBC biog pages. Waterworldington (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm completely speculating here because I don't know the subject, and in fact had never heard of him before this. His quest for removal appears to me to be a control issue. Since he can't directly control exactly what appears on the article he doesn't want it to exist. I'd like all of the "right to privacy" advocates in this debate to consider the implications of a successful deletion bid based on that position. If everyone has such a right here, what is to prevent the publicity companies handling all sorts of very notable people from requesting deletion of their clients from Wikipedia?
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keepCleary and obviously notable media personality; if there are vandalism concerns the article can be protected. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question for those !voting "keep". Above, Mjroots says the man is notable because he's been a broadcaster on Radio 4. Could anyone elaborate on this? As it now stands, the article merely says "His previous work has included BBC Radio 4 and Century FM", which is pretty much what his portrait on BBC Radio Shropshire says (without elaborating). Has there been any significant, disinterested coverage (other than mere bloggery, etc) of his appearances at Shropshire, on 4, or anywhere else? -- Hoary (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      This is not a !vote. Reason given for keeping/deletion are what count at the end of the day. It was me that said he was notable because he had been a broadcaster on BBC R4, not NonVocalScream. There seem to be some sources available via a Yahoo search, inluding coverage of bookcrossing and a bronze Sony Award in 2009. Mjroots (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      If someone is a media personality at all then there is very likely to be enough interest in that person to warrant at least a small article about them here. As long as there are third party references regarding the subject of the articles that are available to use, I don't see what the issue is with having an article about them.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Hm, that's an interesting line of argument. I wonder where the corollary will lead us. The people I tend to write about aren't media personalities in the slightest, and I have no reason to believe that more than a tiny percentage of people are interested. But that digression aside, this page that the article cites -- a short page written in the first person by somebody unidentified -- says He presented on local independent station Mercia Sound before joining the BBC in 1984, when he wrote and presented News Stand for BBC Radio 4. But it doesn't say if he was the sole writer or one of half a dozen writers, and it doesn't say if he presented it for hour after hour or just for a few minutes at a time for a handful of times. Would he be the same Jim Hawkins as the one who had some relationship with BBC Northampton and who's mentioned in a couple of books indexed by Google? Google News points to two mentions of somebody who might be him, one in a Toronto paper and the other in the London Evening Standard. Unsurprisingly, I see no mention in Google Scholar. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Fact checking is obviously an issue, but that a completely separate question from notability. Additionally, the issues related to fact checking are not at all limited to biographical articles. I don't have any real figures to back this up, but I would speculate that on the whole biographical articles are fact checked much more thoroughly then other articles based on the BLP issues alone. Personally, I would give more weight to bio articles on Wikipedia then just about any other article (and that's still true currently, even without that flagged revisions system that's being talked about).
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete We are allowed to use judgment and common sense, and there is no requirement that Wikipedia have an article on all people who might pass WP:BIO. The subject (until evidence to the contrary is provided) might be a very marginal "pass", if one accepts the argument that all BBC radio presenters are notable, without any analysis. It appears the main point of notability is that the subject uses Twitter after not liking Facebook, and that does not seem a good basis to keep an article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      My judgement and common sense say that, while there is no "requirement" to have an article on all notable biographies, this does not make a point to delete one that already exists. The main point of notability is him being a media personality, and it seems more than enough. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      On the other hand, if someone is important enough to mention in an article, aren't they notable enough for at least a stub article (assuming that there is a reference for what information is available)?
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete Moved to keep. Marginal notability, subject has requested removal, it is not like he has any notable events to hide, so I respect his desire. Article adds nothing of value to the wiki, so he twitters is not useful to anyones research is it? Off2riorob (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Nothing of value" is POV. While I may personally agree, I am not entitled to decide what is "of value" or not for readers. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a perfect example of the misapplication of "notability", in my view. Cyclopis is exactly right, it's not up to us to determine value, especially not as part of a deletion discussion.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Privacy concerns don't apply to the existence of Wikipedia articles any more then they apply to news pieces, mention in a book, or anywhere else (consider the existence of "unauthorized" biographies, for example). The subject of a particular article certainly has some right to control the content of biographical articles about themselves (which BLP policy covers), but they don't have a right to prevent themselves being mentioned. For example, he's mentioned (and linked from) the BBC Radio Shropshire article, so if removing his article is appropriate is then removing his name from that article also appropriate or even required?
      As for the notability concerns, the article is referenced. I'm sure that it could be written better, and it's even possible that better references could be used, but that's not grounds for deletion. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the current article, so there's simply no reason to delete it.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep Does Hawkins get permission from everyone he talks about on air? Do the BBC remove articles about people who object to them from their news pages? We - and they - have an inalienable right to write about what and whom we choose. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment The OTRS link, above requires a password. What's the use of that? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment Here's how fiercely he guards his privacy: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimhawkinsbbcradioshropshire/2094382022/in/set-72157603414876597/ Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Your unalienable right to talk about what and whom you choose..wow, all powerful wiki editor. There is an understanding that if people of limited notability request deletion of their biohraphy that we comply with their request. This article is of no value to any research, and no one will miss its twittering delights. I suggest this, we can write about who or what we like is a bit ego-maniacal and does little to endear the wiki to anyone. Off2riorob (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Interesting, I would take the exact opposite view. That some people feel they have a right to prevent others from writing about them seems to me to be very ego-maniacal. What right does Jim (or anyone) have to actively prevent anyone else from talking about them? People certainly have a right to protect their reputations (which is what BLP is all about), but I don't see how that can be extended into a right to prevent discussion at all.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      No; not my inalienable right. Ours. Yours, too. Or so you think I should have the right to remove your comment, about me? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not a big believer in alienable rights in a world where millions of people haven't even got the unalienable right to clean drinking water.This guy has politely requested that we not have a bio of him, on the grounds that he is not very notable and I am prepared to allow him that pleasure.The article adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia, it is of almost no importance, so hey, why not grant his request? Off2riorob (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      First, I know that this is somewhat pedantic but the correct term is "inalienable". "Unalienable" would mean that the subject is impossible to transfer the rights to, but using "in-" means that there is something preventing the transfer (implying that the prevention could be removed, by law or some action for example). I also find it curious to assert that some people have their right to clean drinking water removed. I hope that you can back that statement up with an example, because frankly it calls into question your credibility in general. Many people certainly do not currently have access to clean drinking water, but as far as I know there is no one running around actively attempting to prevent people from gaining access to clean water.
      Anyway, I think that we all understand that the subject has asked that his article be removed (after reading the talk page, the old AFD, and some other comments, I would question the "politely" qualifier, but that's rather immaterial). You're comments seem to indicate that you believe that the person has a right to ask that of us in the first place, and I think several of us are questioning that position with good reason. If individuals have a right not to have an article at all here, doesn't that amount to censorship? In most cases people don't have a right to prevent a biographical book about themselves from being written, and I don't see why Wikipedia should be held to a different standard then that.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly. No worthwile newspaper or publishing house would agree to such a request; I don't see why an encyclopedia should. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the english lesson, I think it was clear what I was meaning, just that in this fantastic world were we have all these rights that there are many people without even clean drinking water.
      I also think that people are resisting the requested removal on the grounds of we can so we will. I disagree with that and if and when those people get their way we will have a stub about a little known radio presenter or which there are about a million or more in the world. That is something worth fighting for isn't it? no! Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I am "resisting" the removal because I believe that an article about a notable person does not deserve to be blanked only because its subject requests it. WP:AGF, please. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      If you want to be taken seriously I think that you should thank me for the "English lesson". I could have simply said nothing and thereby allowed the question to go unanswered, but that wouldn't have helped your argument one bit. Regardless, I agree with Cyclopia in that there is no reight to absolutely prevent an article about people from existing at all on Wikipedia. I think that this is an important topic to fight over, since it's effects could be fairly far reaching. People absolutely have a right to object to and have certain defamatory and otherwise damaging content removed, but those rights do not extend to the question of existence of the article at all (with the obvious caveat that if the potential article would otherwise be empty without non-BLP compliant content then it probably should then be deleted).
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to point out, all OTRS tickets are private and confidential and accessible only to OTRS agents. If anyone needs confirmation of the content of the ticket, I or most OTRS agents can provide this. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serious question. The awards he's won - do those count for notability? DS (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Why wouldn't they be?
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you mean the one award? this one? Sony_Radio_Academy_Awards ? Is not notable in itself and the only cite to it is the place were he works and the wiki only has a stub about it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The Sony_Radio_Academy_Awards isn't notable based on...what? you're personal opinion of it? That the article about the award here on Wikipedia is "only a stub" isn't indicative of any "non-notability". As a matter of fact, since it is an article on Wikipedia that would suggest that it does have some notability. Just because the notability of an award is limited to a single group doesn't convince me that it's value is below some arbitrary threshold which we should apply to Wikipedia.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete it's pretty clear that if the subject is notable then it's a marginal case. He's a presenter at a regional radio station and hasn't received press coverage outside that region. The article says he "worked" for Radio 4 (with a reference), but without elaboration this is not an indicator of notability - he could have been making the tea for all we know. The award might put him across the line, but only just. In these circumstances I think it is reasonable to grant the subject's request for deletion. Comparisons to Ronnie Biggs and Barack Obama are flawed - these are highly notable figures which have been (or will be) the subject of intense media interest for decades. Hut 8.5 11:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Jim Hawkins presented a news programme on BBC R4 - see article. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      But for a matter of minutes or hours? And did anyone pay attention and write about it? -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Yea, I think that the notability arguments are fairly clearly in favor of keeping. The only real question remaining is a "right to privacy" question, concerning if the author has a right to request that the article be removed. I think that's a clear "no" as well, but that's the main center of debate.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. As far as I knew, the Sony Awards are the top level awards for British radio presenters, so he meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) easily, per "The person has received a notable award or honor", and he is therefore not just a run of the mill presenter. 'Subject requests deletion' is not an automatic right, if nobody here expands on why he wants it deleted, then the request is secondary to the issue of notability. MickMacNee (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Award winning radio journalist satisfies notability criteria. I confirm MickMacNee's understanding: Sony Radio Awards are the top level awards for radio - they're a very big deal. His alleged privacy concerns have no bearing on the issue, not least since multiple other sources including his flickr page & BBC biog provide the same sort of info. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment on both the previous - evidence that these awards do have such standing? It would be helpful for the record. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The article on Sony Radio Academy Awards does contain information about the awards notability. It needs to be referenced, but it's there.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 15:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      As a complete newcomer to these awards, are they notable enough that anyone winning one would usually be expected to have enough stature to have an article? FT2 (Talk | email) 19:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The lead sentence in the article about the award does assert that the Sony Radio Academy Awards: "are some of the most prestigious awards in the British radio industry". As I mentioned in the above statement, that statement of fact along with a couple of others needs to be referenced, but I see no reason to not take it at face value. Just about everything in the current Sony Radio Academy Awards article could of course be a complete fabrication (I'm American myself, so I've never personally been exposed to this award before), but based on the fact that the article isn't brand new, there's no significant factual issues being discussed on it's talk page (indeed, there's nothing at all being discussed there, which is actually normally a good sign of stability and an at least tacit show of support for the content, from what I've seen), and the assertions of notability of the awards here by those who aparently have been personally exposed to it, I see no basis to be mistrustful.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This article has been completely rewritten and well-referenced since the subject's request. He clearly satisfies the notability criteria, and most of the subjects concerns have been addressed, as far as we can tell. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Apart from not wanting an article at all! <g> Mjroots (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      There are plenty of people who want to stop Wikipedia writing about them, just as there are plenty of people who want newspapers to stop writing about them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The subject passes the notability threshold. It might be an idea for a handful of editors to keep the page on their watchlist (I have done) to help prevent vandalism on the article. Hopefully this will help to assuage any doubts the subject has. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - what a complete waste of people's time. This is the third AfD on this subject. If it carries on like this any more the guy will be more notable for having been nomintated for deletion three times (!). Look, he seems notable enough for people here to get quite worked up about it, let's just keep the guy and not nominate him again, as this is getting a bit monotonous. There's more to life, surely! Tris2000 (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - the subject's desire to not have an article about themselves is irrelevant. The only thing that trumps verifiable and notable information is WP:BLP, and that does not appear to be an issue here. Shereth 15:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep The individual is a willing public figure. Therfore, with all due respect to the subject, we should not delete this article. Courtesy deletions should not occur for willing public figures. The individual meets notability so we are more or less done here. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't have access to read the OTRS ticket - is there any possibility that it could be posted publically? (If not, that's understandable). It's hard to decide whether to delete "on the basis of their request" alone, when we can't see that request. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Does it really matter what the OTRS ticket says? I'm not being flippant here, I'm really asking. It seems to me that if the OTRS ticket contained some piece of information relevant to the discussion that the OTRS recipients/Office would take care of the issue regardless (most likely with over-site tools). I'm wondering why is was important to mention the ticket at all (although I suspect that mentioning it is seen as a means to achieve some sort of legitimacy for creating the AFD in the first place).
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Probably not. But without seeing it, I can't know if it's important or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The correct procedure on receiving an OTRS ticket from the subject requesting deletion is to open an AfD. this is the reason that the ticket is mentioned at all, as the grounds for the AfD Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      So then, it's basically only mentioned to establish the fact that the AFD was due to the OTRS ticket being filed in the first place. That makes sense, thanks.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete - because of the subject's request, and the lack of any strong reason to the contrary why we should keep the article despite (he's not Nicholas van Hoogstraten after all). Notability is a pre-condition of our ability to have an article, not a requirement that we must have one. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: has won a prestigious award, so notable. Keeping content is preferable to deleting in this circumstance. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep From my reading he meets the notability guidelines so we should keep the article. This is the sort of article however where flagged protection should be put on as soon as it is available to hopefully prevent the disgraceful previous condition of the article from recurring. Davewild (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. A local radio speaker, IMO, fits the borderline "relatively unknown" criteria when his request must have decisive weight. NVO (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The provided sources support clearly the notabiliy Rirunmot (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep We're quick to delete articles that are not notable, so therefore should we not be quick to protect articles that are notable? The subject's want to have this article is irrelevent, there is notability, that article is well written and this is an encyclopedia, I'm pretty sure that for any of our 3m+ articles you could find someone, somewhere that wants it deleted, but we're not going to go about and bow to their wishes are we? RaseaC (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep; unquestionably notable. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - time to snowball keep? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, in this case the debate should be allowed to run the full seven days. The effect of allowing the deletion could have serious ramefications across Wikipedia. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and allowing the subject of the article to get it deleted smacks of censorship. Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is still a large amount of disagreement over when courtesy deletions should be allowed. Given that, and given their extremely contentious nature it is a really bad idea to close discussions about them early regardless of the direction. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Clearly passes the notability threshold. Any WP:BLP concerns can be dealt with in the article. Wikipedia is attempting to be a serious encyclopedia and that means focusing on the encyclopedic content irrespective of the subject and their desires. We do not let subjects write their own articles nor should we give them management over whether or not an article on them exist at all. AgneCheese/Wine 19:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going weak keep here. He seems notable, but Mr. Hawkins seems to not want an article about himself on Wikipedia. This looks like a job for the office to decide... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no top down authoritarian editorial board here. This lies in the hands of the community alone. This is why I brought it up, for what I believed was a marginal notability issue in addition to the subject's request. The Office, OTRS, or what have you, will not intervene here. If it is kept, it is kept. If deleted, same. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as the article clearly meets the requirements of WP:BIO and WP:BLP issues can be addressed as they arise. The references are decent (could use more non-BBC references) as well. The subject of this article has gone beyond minor notability and will need to deal with having an article. There are no valid reasons to delete it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any serious argument for deleting this other than "the subject wants it gone?". If not, then Keep, because he's not a borderline notability case, he clearly and unambiguously meets our notability criteria. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      • Addendum: but I will note that long-term semiprotection is an entirely different kettle of fish, and should be seriously considered in this case. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
        • Just wanted to add, the article was a mess before but now there doesn't seem like too much to complain about, and he is a public figure, so, Weak Keep. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          I want to point out that this has been my main issue with deletion here all along. This is a bio article, and so BLP considerations are paramount and should be addressed ASAP. However, BLP issues do not give the article subject a right to request deletion (although deletion of the article may end up being a consequence of BLP problems, that's a different type of deletion). The fact is, whatever the real issue with an article is, it can always be edited. This is Wikipedia, after all! (I wouldn't actually be so quick to protect the article either, especially after this, but that's really a separate discussion.)
          — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep - weak only on notability issue. There is no "right" not to have an article about oneself here, least of all with a self-publicizing character such as Hawkins. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. We have an established principle that in cases of BLP and marginal notability, we assign some weight to the subject's wishes. So I am discounting all arguments above which assert an automatic (or, as is put in some cases, unalienable) right to write about someone - it depends on notability. I have read the arguments above which claim his notability is significant but based on the information given, I disagree; I do feel it is only marginal (lots of people - including me for that matter - receive awards of some sort) and therefore the subject's wishes carry some weight. Given that we as a community, with our ongoing BLP problem that we cannot seem to solve, were rather shoddy at protecting his article from objectionable material, I'm inclined to liberally give *significant* weight rather than *some* weight in this instance. Martinp (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respect your position but we have the unalienable right to write on someone. We can, as a community, choose to waive or not this right. The fact that we weren't good in protecting his article from objectionable material is no ground for deletion: it means only that the article must be protected or semi-protected. We have the tools to deal with it without destroying an article, so why don't we use them instead of deleting. The only case in which considering the subject wishes is meaningful, in my opinion, is only when the mere existence of an article can be harmful. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, as has already been argued. We report only what has been previously published, and those publishers have either not been contacted by the subject, or have ignored him. Why should we delete, just because he wants us to? He's known, and written about, whether he likes it or not. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I see not policy based reason for deletion. This person is a public figure and the article seems to be based off of public information. Neutrality should prevent us from letting the subject of the article make decisions like this. I just read otrs:3648175 and I see nothing there to change my mind, inaccurate or unverified content should be kept out of the article. Chillum 14:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Chillum, is the OTRS stuff private, or could it be republished here so we can all see what is said? Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is private by the nature of it being OTRS. I really cannot repeat e-mails that were never meant to be published. It basically amounts to him having concerns about both accuracy issues and the level of attention being received. I think with some vigilance the accuracy issues can be resolved, and much of it is resolved already. The person is aware of this debate and can comment here if he so chooses. Chillum 17:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks for that. If it needs to remain private it shall do so. I take it that by "level of attention" he meant the various IP editors adding unreferenced info. Semi-protection expires later this evening. If IP editors repeat their previous activities the article should be semi-protected for some time to come. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Chillum 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Parikrama school of music

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

    fails WP:ORG. almost an ad. no significant coverage since 2003 [51]. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashtar Galactic Command

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

    After trimming out self published sources that fail WP:RS (see talk page), only one book is used as a direct reference to support the article (which is not exclusively about Ashtar Command). If this reference is considered by anyone to have any real value it could be merged into the existing and comprehensive Vrillon article but does not justify a separate article as this covers the same claimed (hoax) contactee event. There is no need to create articles for every organization, name or term ever used in badly reported contactee statements, which is this particular case is not seriously contested as an obvious hoax event. I recommend the page is changed to a redirect to Vrillon.—Ash (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *Merge/Redirect with Vrillon hoax incident, additional information should then be added to that article indicating how the term has been appropriated and perpetuated through use by later "New Age/Conspiracy" individuals and groups. Deconstructhis (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC) After subsequent reading on the subject I've had a change of heart and no longer believe there's enough evidence to support merging this article with the Vrillon hoax incident article. I've discovered that "Ashtar Command" (note, not Ashtar Galactic Command) appears to have been a term first used by proto UFO contactee George Van Tassel in the early 1950's, as the name of an extraterrestrial organization that he purported that he was in contact with. As is the case with many UFO religions, the names of purported extraterrestrial organizations or supposed contacted 'entities' are simply appropriated by other groups and individuals over time with tweaks being made to the specific details. This appears to have been the case with Van Tassel's "Ashtar Command" as well, before the end of the 50's, I've found evidence of at least one other individual who had lifted the term for their own system. Apart from Van Tassel adherents and a limited number of offshoots, its use appears to have experienced a bit of lull until the 1980's, when another contactee/channeller named Thelma B. Terrell (also known as "Tuella") wrote a series of books which re-popularized it. This in turn led to further appropriations of the term, eventually leading to the variants such as "Ashtar Galactic Command" being used on websites by the online groups we see today. The Gods have landed: new religions from other worlds by James R. Lewis [52] is useful in support of what I'm saying (try running "Ashtar" on the 'in book' search function) unfortunately, once again as is often the case, Google Books will not allow a full view of the material online. The Study of UFO Religions by John A. Saliba‌ in the academic religious journal Nova ReligioNovember 2006, Vol. 10, No. 2, Pages 103–123 is informative on this matter as well. What I'd like to see done, is that this article be renamed "Ashtar Command", reduced to a stub and re-written along the lines of what I've outlined above, including full proper references from reliable sources. What I definitely don't want to see done at this point, is that this article remains in its present nebulous state, basically a potential jumping off point for promotional links to the websites of only one or two editor's particular belief systems. The term has been in play for over 50 years in one form or another, I'd suggest that any claims to its exclusive (or "proper") use are simply an expression of a non-neutral point of view. I think I'll copy and paste a version of this missive to the articles talk page as well. Sorry for the length. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (note) The term Ashtar may have been perpetuated but the sources for the 1977 hoax do not make it clear that the words "Ashtar Galactic Command" were used. The Times mentions "Intergalactic Association" but not "Ashtar". Consequently it is likely to be original research to conclude that the 1977 broadcast incident was appropriated by later groups, music bands or individuals creating websites about Ashtar. It is more likely that one of the spiritualists claiming to be "channelling" a message from an E.T. created the original terminology though with a dearth of anything even beginning to look like a reliable source, even this is wild speculation and fails WP:OR.—Ash (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep George Van Tassel's alleged 1952 communication from Ashtar is linked to in the George Van Tassel Wikipedia article and even back then he was in a dispute with someone named Robert Short who was claiming communication from a group called the Ashtar Command: George Van Tassel's alleged communication from Ashtar:. Van Tassel said the correct term was Ashtar, not Ashtar Command. If the controversy about the alleged Ashtar has been around since 1952, then certainly this article should not be deleted, especially seeing as how after the Vrillon hoax incident some assumed that "Vrillon" was a spokesperson for the "flying saucer fleet" now renamed the Ashtar Galactic Command. This is a fascinating story that deserves to be recorded. It is especially interesting that, as I found out last month, since the late 1990s, some followers of newer Ascended Master Teachings groups have come to accept Ashtar of the Ashtar Galactic Command as one of the Ascended Masters alongside the more traditional ones. Keraunos (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (note) Please be careful about sources, your quote from Van Tassel about channelling is from a self published user page (the quote may or may not be valid) and "Vrillon" was never part of the 1977 broadcast hoax incident but made up later by whoever created the vrillon.com website (the registrant details are anonymous) and has no demonstrable connection with people who un-verifiability claim to hear voices from ETs and have managed to get their ramblings published. I do not dispute your statement that some of the fringe "spiritualist" groups you have been effectively promoting on Wikipedia may believe in this sort of demonstrably fake UFO event, as they seem to a great capacity to call almost anything a religious experience, particularly when someone is charging them $150/hour for the consultation. This does not make such chaff encyclopaedic.—Ash (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, let's try to stay on a neutral track here in terms of sticking to the matter at hand, the subject of this particular article. Whether or not a particular group or groups are "legitimate" in some absolute sense, or critical observations of how much they charge for their "religious" services being used as a measure of that purported legitimacy is well outside a npov position in my opinion. It may require a trip to an actual library (and/or a good 'dig' online), but reliable published sources from mainstream social scientists in the fields of both sociology of religion and religious studies exist regarding these specific topics, there really is no need to reach into heavily biased self published books and websites to substantiate claims in these articles, beyond extracting quotes to substantiate what they say about themselves. At this point, I propose that this afd be declared closed as a failure to reach consensus and that the discussion be returned to the article's talk page for further dialogue. I believe it's quite possible to put together a properly referenced article (I propose naming it something like "Ashtar (Channelling)" or "Ashtar command") that adequately and neutrally represents the subject from its beginnings in the 1950's or perhaps slightly before based on reliable sources I've looked at so far. The present group calling itself "Ashtar Galactic Command", or other groups who have appropriated the term "Ashtar" and incorporated it into their systems wish to make additions to the article, fine, but it must be clear that information can only be derived from a reliable source according to our policies (barring the exemption for self description that I mentioned above) and perhaps just as importantly in order to adhere to policy they must demonstrate their own notability as per WP:NOTE before their group can be included in the encyclopedia. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've located a reliably published source containing information regarding the development of the concepts of "Ashtar" and "Ashtar Command" within various UFO religions starting in the early 1950's to present, a fair bit of which is available in online book form. Later this evening (EDT) Later today or tomorrow I'll be posting details on the articles talk page. It's written by a sociologist of religion and looks quite promising in terms of allowing us to put together a half decent stub article which reflects a competent historical overview of the subject. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see the article talk page for details on my new edits to the article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Raymond Leslie Morris

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

    See WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime stories. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where the one event he gained notoriety for aren't the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news articles, and that is all. But we are not a news source. Delete. Dominic·t 03:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). "One of Britain's most notorious child murderers...": [53]. "They were the murders that shocked the nation.": [54]. "The investigation that followed was one of the biggest in British criminal history.": [55]. Location (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those second two quotes are referring to a case in which Morris was never convicted or even charged, and the second source doesn't even seem to mention him (I can't read the whole article without a subscription). I think you should read that guideline again, and note the difference between criminal acts, and biographies of living criminals, especially suspected ones. I recommend you look over Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Perpetrators closely. Dominic·t 06:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would be willing to recommend a move to Murder of Christine Darby if you think that would better fit with guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). The fact is that her murder BY Morris has received significant coverage in multiple sources. "The verdict ended the seven-day trial of Morris which had attracted unprecedented public interest with queues more than 100-long forming each day for seats in the public gallery."[56] If something generates "unprecedented public interest" and we cannot make it work with our guidelines, then something needs to be changed. Although he has not been convicted or charged with the [other two] A34 Murders, those murders and that fact that he is/was a suspect in them has also received a tremendous amount of coverage in the British Press. Location (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC) [edited 06:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)][reply]
          • You are free to try to write that article if you think it is important enough, but no, I do not think that this biography should simply a moved to a new name. If anything, a new article about the actual event should be written from scratch, but that has no bearing on the final disposition of the biography we are talking about here. Dominic·t 21:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per dom...er, nom, and also because it's completely unreferenced. Articles like this are what make Wikipedia suck. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, perhaps speedy: it's an unreferenced negative biography. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Instead of saying "this article isn't referenced, delete it", why not search for, and add references? I found and added two, there are more mentions in books, I didn't look for newspaper coverage but I guess there's more. I remain neutral however, as it is one-event-ish and I'm not sure if one murder qualifies you for an encyclopedia entry. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Skomorokh  03:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep, this discussion is overwhelmingly in support of keep, with most of the dissension in favor of merging. That can always be done later. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009

    edit
    Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:NOTNEWS This single speech is not notable enough for a discrete article. L0b0t (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep This was a speech before a Joint Session of Congress. If this speech does not warrant an article then we need to delete all articles on State of the Union addresses since they would likewise be not worthy of articles since this speech is technically a state of the union speech (See Article II, Section 3). The Constitution does not fix the number of times or frequency of these speeches. I think that any time President's deliver State of the Union speeches to Congress that they are notable enough for a separate article. Edward Lalone | (Talk)
    • Keep if one commentator was correct, that there have been few (16?) of these joint session speeches outside the state of the union address, since 1950, then this is historic and notable. article will have to be filled out.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge While a notable speech, should be rolled up into the Obama article or a notable events in Obama presidency article. Although, the idea that a congressman would shout "You lie!" during a presidential address does seem notable and worth documenting. JakeZ (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and Expand Seems to be notable. While there's no policy, it'll probably be one of his most important speeches, especially considering the fact that is was a joint session of Congress. Guy0307 (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep True, while this article was not a State of the Union speech, it was a speech in front of a joint session of Congress, only the second so far of Obama's term (the first being his first State of the Union, which does have an entry at Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009). Further, it is a major aspect of a main policy initiative of the Obama administration that has both been widely debated and broadcasted in the media; it is a speech that has been given by Obama to attempt to rescue his goal of universal health coverage, a main campaign promise. JEN9841 (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • BBC News has called this speech "one of the most important speeches of his presidency" Source. This, the morning after the speech, every news source I can find has front page coverage of the outbreak that happened during the speech (including Yahoo! News, the Washington Post, USA Today, The Huffington Post, CNN, etc,). It seems that, if this controversy draws on, the outburst during the speech itself could have its own entry. This speech is already more notable than his first State of the Union; all SOTU speeches have entries. JEN9841 (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If BBC called Star Wars the greatest film ever, we could not call Star Wars the greatest film ever in our article. That is what is called an opinion. Googlemeister (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep- This easily transcends not news into encyclopedic territory. Between the nature of the speech, the fact that FOX refused to carry it, and the guy who heckled the president during the speech (to the fact that that guy apologized almost immediately after, and his opponent gained a boatload of donations that night), there's enough here that an encyclopedic entry is necessary. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to the heckler, as of [58] this article, the heckler's opponent has raised nearly $100,000 in the time since the outburst, which helps demonstrate notability outside of just regular news. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep This historically rare Presidential speech is, well, just that. The suggestion otherwise by a self-proclaimed history buff (Confederate references, etc.) are surprising on the one hand, and unsurprising on the other. Personal prejudice and political opinions aside, the notion that this rare event is pedestrian and unworthy of note is simply off the mark. --fudoki 14:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge I think that there is an incredible amount of recentism involved here. While every speech the President of the United States makes is covered by sources, I don't think it is practical policy to have an article for each one. Moreover, the same would have to hold true for every president of every nation. The health care debate is a big deal now, but there will be other political battles and each one will appear just as important at that time. The argument that this is only his second joint-session is a bit weak because he has been in office for less than 1/4 of his first term. The speech could prove to be decisive in the future, at which time it will deserve its own article, but at present it is just another chapter in the ongoing US health care debate and should be put in that article or mentioned briefly in the Obama article. The idea that it will "probably be" one of his most important speeches only highlights the lack of perspective we have at this point and the fact that its importance has yet to be put into context. Mrathel (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Particularly notable to the President's initiatives in healthcare, which itself is a major issue of his presidency.--Louiedog (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    commentThat's more of an opinion than a rationale:) Mrathel (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article meets WP criteria for notabilty, verifiability and is not OR. where is your 'rationale' for deletion. which WP policy does it violate ?? it needs to be expanded for sure not deleted.Wikireader41 (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge - if the speech is significant because of a rare address to a joint session then merge it with other articles on those rare speeches. Otherwise delete since it appears to just be a news article --Dolomite501 (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge - This article can either be kept and expanded or merged into say "Health Care Reform in the United States" or the congressional bill's article. It's notable to keep because it's not too often that the President makes an address to the joint session unless it's a State of the Union address (last one was after 9/11). conman33 (. . .talk) 15:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge - There are some in the news industry calling this the most significant speech of Obama's Presidency. If that's not grounds for notability or keeping the article in some way, I don't know what is. keep it, or merge it, but don't dare delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.186.135 (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, or at least merge, per user:Soxwon, user:Ohconfucius, and user:Mrathel. The claim by user:Fudoki that the speech is "rare" cannot be taken seriously: this President gives speeches and press conferences ad nauseum, to the point one wishes he'd shut up and do some work instead, and the high-profile venue doesn't make this one any more notable. user:JEN9841, User:Joshdboz, and a few others dispute that last point; Josh says that "it's not like a president speaks to a joint session every day." I don't see why that matters, but let's suppose it does: Obama could talk to this Congress any time he wants. We should be skeptical of reasoning that allows people to sua sponte transform non-notable actions into notable actions. This speech would not be independently-notable (at least, ex ante) if it had been given at a townhall, so we know that it isn't the content that is notable. And the venue shouldn't change that. If the speech becomes notable in hindsight, when the dust has settled, we can revisit the issue of whether to have an independent article (see WP:RECREATE), but to have an independent article right now? No way. This is recentism and fancruft at its worst.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Presidents make speeches. We can not have an article for all of them. In fact, we only have 11 state of the Union addresses, and those without articles would likely be more notable. It is not like this was the Gettysburg address. Googlemeister (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Commment This speech is notable because it is a State of the Union address (See Article II, Section 3). We can't arbitrarily add additional criteria to what constitute a State of the Union address and then exclude any speech before a Joint Session of Congress that do not fit our arbitrary criteria. That places Wikipedia editors as the final determination of what is noteworthy and what isn't and would violate neutrality, verifiability and no original research. Phrased differently: Why is one address before a Joint Session of Congress noteworthy while another isn't? See 2009 State of the Union Address for a claim that Obama's 2009 State of the Union is not a State of the Union. There may be disagreement as to what constitutes a State of the Union but we should not give added weight to one side of that argument. Edward Lalone | (Talk)
    This was most certainly not a State of the Union Speech, as those occur in either January or February. Your statement is akin to calling a football game between The Tampa Bay Bucs and the New York Jets on Dec 13, 2009 the Superbowl because it was at the same venue. Googlemeister (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Capitalizing not does not make you correct. The Constitution defines the President's obligation to give Congress information about the state of the union and recommend measures the President feels necessary. The Constitution doesn't require that a State of the Union speech occur in January or February even though traditionally the President has choose to give state of the unions around that time but they can occur more frequently or at any time throughout their Presidency. This would be more like calling the Superbowl just another football game even though the rules of the game define it as a Superbowl. Edward Lalone | (Talk)
    • Merge when there is an article (or concrete section of Health care reform in the United States) on the bill that is ultimately voted on. Keep until then. » Swpbτ • ¢ 16:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep, or at the very least merge I think this is just on the line of notable, given the ___location of the address, but if we can't expand it that much, it may be better to merge it into an article about the healthcare bill instead. Sceptre (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into article(s) on health care reform efforts. The disruption should also be mentioned in the article of the congressman who did it, since it received substantial attention in reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 16:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lean Keep: Gosh, didn't he just speak last night? Do you people ever sleep? I was watching GLEE myself. Now then, there do seem to be multiple articles for different obama speeches. This speech's news coverage already crosses the line into notability, the only question to me is where it goes organization-wise. Its own article? Or some other article that compiles other speeches. Without knowing the best categorization at this point in time, i lean to allowing it its own article for now. --Milowent (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: You deletionlists are just too much. If people want to go to the effort to create such a thing, then what is the cost of keeping it??? These are the same people who said that Glenn Beck's rants against Van Jones were not notable until Van Jones resigned, and you still can't say Glenn Beck had anything to do with it unless you could cite a reliable source, and you can't use the Huffington Post or Arianna as a reliable source? Good gosh. This is exactly the sort of internet censorshiop Mark Llloyd and Hugo Chavez would love to use on the alternative press. Heck you can't even state that Barack Obama WAS a muslim as far as his two indonesian schools registered him, it currently states that his stepfather who prayed at the Mosque and took Barack with him was a NON-PRACTICING muslim, and that any FACT that might support a fringe theory must be supressed whether or not it's true on its own? The word "muslim" has been completely scrubbed from his biography, with a big talk warning that no mention of controversy over his muslim origins or HERITAGE will be allowed. Nothing on there says his grandfather, father or stepfather were muslims, or that he had ever walked to a mosque, because it's "trivia" Sheesh. Katmairock (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into the article on Health care reform in the United States. The president himself has been on TV so much as to render any one speech (even one to a joint session of Congress) not particularly notable. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The deletionists appear to be getting ahead of themselves. The speech has immediate newsworthyness. In the coming days, weeks, and months it can be judged on its historical context. If it is found lacking then it can be merged into another article. The general health care debate article is likely to be far too large to give this particular subject due coverage making it meaningfull to have a child article for the health care debate. Also, Rep Wilson's outburst is better getting its core coverage here than in his article. The pixels being spread on that topic could almost justify an article in itself. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Luckily, such an article has existed since March 2008, please see Health care reform in the United States. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but that article's quite long as it is, and it seems probable that a 2009-specific article or an article on whatever bill eventually passes will be split off at some point. If/when that happens, the speech article could be merged there. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 16:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. An incredibly notable event right now. Let's see where it goes, and then we could have a legitimate discussion. Grsz11 19:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. A very strong speech, and one that could significantly affect the culture of the United States if successful. If President Obama is not successful in his goals, then this speech will be less notable. coyote (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete. To the extent the speech is noteworthy because it took place in front of a joint session of Congress, it's worthy of a mention in a summary article about all such speeches, and it could be mentioned in the existing article on health care reform in the U.S. (which covers the campaign discussions as well) -- but that's it. Claiming that this speech is noteworthy because some doofus from South Carolina heckled the president is ridiculous; imagine if we had made a new article every time George W. Bush got heckled (I don't believe there's a separate article about the Iraqi throwing his shoes at Bush). As far as the health care bill, the Gang of 6 negotiations are far more important. Basically, this was a photo op for the national TV networks. If we were launching a Wikipedia newspaper, this is a good article, but it is in no way encyclopedic. -- AyaK (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Then no State of the Union address is noteworthy enough to have its own article. We don't have a right to arbitrarily decide what is a State of the Union address when Article II, Section 3 defines "state of the union" broadly. See 2009 State of the Union Address for claims that Obama's 2009 speech before a Joint Session of Congress is not a State of the Union. Should we delete that article too? Edward Lalone | (Talk)
    • Merge or Delete (or Expand) The article I just read is unduly weighted towards the Republican response, both during and after the speech. There is nothing in the article that is notable about the speech itself. The most notable item mentioned in the article seems to be the interruption, but that is something that should be merged into an article about the current healthcare reform debate. It's certainly not enough for an entire article. Unless the article is expanded to show the notability of the speech it should either be merged or deleted. Argel1200 (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If consensus is reached to keep this article then that consensus would have to be applied to all potential, past and future joint session of congress speech articles given by presidents.  Burningview  ✉ 20:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and Expand NOTPAPER, and presidential addresses to joint sessions of congress are certainly verifiable, historic national events in the US. This wasn't some stump speech or town hall meeting. Per Burningview's comment, I certainly would like to have reference material available on all past joint session events. Ronabop (talk)
    Could you explain why speaking before a friendly, controlled crowd on Capitol Hill is not only more notable but ipso facto more notable than a "stump speech" given anywhere else?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Because such speeches are State of the Union speeches (See Article II, Section 3). If one State of the Union is notable for an encyclopedic article then all should be notable for the same purpose. We should not be arbitrarily deciding that one speech before a Joint Session of Congress is notable while another is not. From a history point of view that would be like giving us some articles on some Presidents while deciding that the same articles on other Presidents are not notable enough to receive the same coverage. Edward Lalone | (Talk)
    Actually, not all speeches to Congress by the President are state of the union addresses, and this one certainly wasn't, as you'd know if you actually read Art. II § 3 instead of condescendingly citing it as though we weren't thoroughly familiar with it. But that's by-the-by. The more important point is, as I explain below, that you're right that we shouldn't arbitrarily decide that one speech is notable while another isn't. That is precisely why this article should be deleted: We don't have articles on all Presidential speeches to Congress, or even all SOTU addresses, oral or written. And nor should we, because not all of them are notable. To include this article IS to arbitrarily decide that THIS one is more important, notwithstanding that ANYTHING written about its importance is necessarily speculative, unreliable, and unencyclopeædic. Whether this speech is a headline, a footnote, or entirely forgotten in six weeks--it's 9/11 today, and who among us remembers what George W. Bush was speechifying about on 9/9/01?--is something that we cannot possibly judge until we have the kind of perspective on this speech that we have on those SOTUs for which we DO have articles. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SOTU ceremonies typically also include the supremes, happen at the same time of year, etc. That being said, SOTU isn't especially well defined. Addressing my original argument, however, I would say that a US president addressing a joint session of congress is a notable event in and of itself. It's the equivalent (in UK terms) of the Queen and Prime Minister, gathering the house of Lords, and house of Commons, to give a joint address on an issue. Ronabop (talk)
    Comment Tradition and ceremony don't define a State of the Union address before a Joint Session of Congress while the Constitution defines it in broad terms. It states that the President "shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Our traditions should not govern what Wikipedia considers to be noteworthy. Edward Lalone | (Talk)
    Comment How dare you question or attack my character? My comment was not condescending. It was my opinion and you have no right to attack me and I won't let it go unchallenged. If anyone's comment is condescending it is yours since you claim that I would cite something I haven't read because I disagree with you. Article II, Section 3 provides that the President "shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." That is the State of the Union clause. Then it goes on to talk about the President's power to convene and adjourn legislative sessions which is similar to State Constitutions grants of power to Governors to call Special Legislative sessions. The State of the Union Clause is in two parts. The first part requires the President to give Congress information about the state of the union and the second is to recommend to their consideration such measures that the President feels is necessary. Obama gave Congress information about the state of the union in respect to health insurance and recommended health care measures in this speech. So it certainly qualifies as a state of the union address. Edward Lalone | (Talk)
    Commment Can you list the criteria for a State of the Union address? (See Article II, Section 3) How is this not a State of the Union and how are the same type of speeches before Joint Sessions of Congress not State of Union's. Edward Lalone | (Talk)
    • I agree with above, merge or pare down. The significance of the speech cannot be determined immediately after the speech. Expand later if Obama reaches his goals. Right now, that isn't certain at all. Kidshare (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the same kind of recentism that, back in January, had an editor demanding that our article on John G. Roberts be turned over almost entirely to a discussion of his administration of the oath of office. I think he may even have used those very words ("[p]eople are going to want to review this for years to come"), but either way, the spirit was the same. And it's nonsense in both cases. No one cares today to review what was said by the last President to promote a failed healthcare initiative through a speech to a joint session, and even if they did, it certainly wouldn't require its own article. This should be deleted or merged until we have sufficient perspective to say anything that isn't wildly speculative as to its long-term notability.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes agreed, see WP Recentism  Burningview  ✉ 22:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment See deletionism for a discussion about "restrictive, arbitrary and subjective standards of notability" being applied to exclude some article while keeping others of the same type and how this is a form of "activism of a group of Wikipedians who take a certain position in the overall debate on what Wikipedia is or should be." (See also recentism). I haven't read any valid reason for deleting this article as opposed to any other speech by a President before a Joint Session of Congress and no explanation as to why some are noteworthy while others are not. What makes a State of the Union address by a former President before a Joint Session of Congress more noteworthy then a similar speech by a current President before a Joint Session of Congress? Edward Lalone | (Talk)
    Comment Would you make the same claim about every State of the Union? Will people care to "review what was said by the last President to promote failed proposals through a State of the Union speech to a joint session" and "if they did" would you also say that it "certainly wouldn't require its own article." Why do the 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, or 2009 State of the Union's require their own articles while the September 9, 2009 State of the Union address doesn't? (See Article II, Section 3). As for its "long term notability" please see recentism and deletism for an explanation about using overly narrow criteria for notability. The arguments you use for deleting this would have to be fairly applied to every State of the Union speech which means that everyone of them should be deleted because no one "cares to review what was said by the last President to promote failed proposals through a State of the Union speech to a joint session." Edward Lalone | (Talk)
    Of course, as most all of us recognize, the president's address to a joint session of Congress on September 9, 2009 was not a State of the Union address. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment So who determines what is a State of the Union? You? Those who agree with you? You are putting yourself up as the final determination of what is noteworthy and what is a State of the Union. Were Jefferson's written State of the Unions actually a State of the Union by your narrow definition of what constitutes a State of the Union? Certainly not, but that does not mean they weren't State of the Unions. Edward Lalone | (Talk)
    Early returns are, obviously, early, and I don't think we have remotely sufficient distance from the event to adequately judge, but it's worth noting that those early returns aren't favorable to the "game changer" theory. Rasmussen is reporting that since the speech, support for Obamacare has increased from 44% to 46%. That's dang close to moving it out of the margin of error! - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How can we judge that ex ante?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The same could be said about every State of the Union and it seems to me that we can determine ex ante that something is noteworthy because Wikipedia editors do it all the time. We have a host of articles on State of the Unions (approximately thirteen) and an effort to create more. Some of these articles are stubs and only give the day and who the President was. How are these article noteworthy while this one is not? I'm fundamentally in disagreement with the idea that a President speaking before a Joint Session of Congress is not a noteworthy event for an article. Whether this speech is a turning point is an opinion but its a valid opinion and some people will use these articles to formulate their own opinions. It's not the role of a group of Wikipedia editors to unilaterally and arbitrarily decide that one speech by the President before a Joint Session of Congress is worthy of a stub while another speech by a President before a Joint Session of Congress is not worthy of lengthier artile. Edward Lalone | (Talk)
    completely agree Edward. this speech was widely reported and debated in the world media ( not just US media). for anybody to think that this speech is not noteworthy is just mind boggling. article needs to be expanded for sure. whether the healthcare reform goes forward or not in no way diminishes the notability of this speech. Wikireader41 (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment See deletism to read an overview of how some editors with a specific opinion about what Wikipedia is seek to impose that view on all articles and delete any that don't fit their narrow definition of noteworthy. Edward Lalone | (Talk)
    You're right: the same could be said about every State of the Union. But you have mistaken the valence of the point. We do not have an article on every state of the union address. A speech can be sufficiently notable to warrant a standalone article, but it isn't inherently so, and we shouldn't have an article on it until we can judge it from an appropriately ex post perspective. That is inherent in the concept of encyclopædic content, one of the five pillars of this encyclopædia. This isn't wikinews or Barackopedia.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you arguing for the integrity of Wikipedia, or against a leader you dislike? The fact that this speech is NOT a "State of the Union", but IS only the 15th or 16th Presidential Address to a Joint Session of Congress in the history of our Nation is the very thing that makes this rare event worthy of a discreet entry. The unique position of this speech as a rare, non-State of the Union joint-session speech is what qualifies it as special and historic - regardless of any other criteria. The absence of articles on previous speeches of this type, or State of the Union Addresses has no logical bearing on the discussion beyond a reminder that perhaps those aware of the lack of such articles might get busy and fill those gaps. Wikipedia is, and always be, a work in progress. To argue that this process is served by censorship and the elimination of content is strange, and appears to be motivated by a personal dislike of the President above any other consideration, else, specifically make your case on the merits and drop the invective (Barackopedia...) that does nothing to advance the conversation. User:fudoki 14:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I agree with you. See deletism for a discussion of this. I don't agree with you about this not being a State of the Union but that goes to show that using an overly narrow definition of noteworthiness isn't appropriate. Edward Lalone | (Talk)
    And are you ignoring Wikipedia policy to support a leader you like? See, not nice, is it? See WP:AGF. And crying "censorship" is truly the lamest, most predictable argument that we see at AfD; I'm truly surprised that any experienced editor would make such an argument, and I know that none would take it seriously as such. While I truly doubt that it's "only the 15th or 16th Presidential Address to a Joint Session of Congress in the history of our Nation," even if it is, that does not make such speeches notable by itself. The speech is notable if it is notable. Does the speech happen in a unique situation? Does it say anything important? Does it have an important effect? No, no, and too soon to tell. There may be other factors, too. Mere novelty or rarity, however, does not create notability. As to your observation that "[t]he absence of articles on previous speeches of this type, or State of the Union Addresses has no logical bearing on the discussion," that remark is better directed to those like Edward, who are advancing an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument that this article should stay because we have (and should not have, in my own view), articles on recent SOTU addresses.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have a specific article covering George Bush's March 6, 1991 speech before a joint session of congress about the end of the first Gulf War? No. We included that in the Gulf War and George Bush articles. This article is not more notable then the end of a war, and should not be treated differently. Googlemeister (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That the Web Browser was not available until 1992 likely has something to do with the absence of an article about a 1991 non-SOTU Joint-Session Presidential address, but the absence of an article in Wikipedia does not change the rarity or historic significance of the address, or the validity of posting an entry for a current historic address. I have only commented on this topic because, as a Republican since 1964, I feel it makes the GOP look petty and mean-spirited to attempt to attack the current President in every way and every venue possible and at all times. The suggestion that an historically rare event being documented in WP in a discreet article is bad because the President, or what the President said is trivial, unimportant, etc. - to attempt to generally diminish and minimize the President in an historic setting can only be seen for what it is, partisan attack. My feeling is that such attacks are inappropriate, even against a President that I did not support or vote for - so much for the "leader you like" speculation... The address was an undeniably historic event, and therefore is fair game under Wiki rules for a unique listing and article. Anyone that doubts my comments about the political motivations of those in opposition need only look at the attempted "edits" to the article for verification... User:fudoki 17:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fudoki, please assume good faith on the part of your co-editors. This is yet another example of a never-ending debate of deletionism vs. inclusionism philosophies on Wikipedia, and can be explained without assuming those who disagree with you are making "partisan attacks." --kizzle (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment He was not assuming bad faith but others have including those who have attacked my character because I disagree with the argument that we should delete a noteworthy article. What gives you the right to attack his character and say that he is not assuming good faith on the part of others while you conveniently ignoring comments from others who have done the same thing, including Simon? Edward Lalone | (Talk)
    The suggestion to merge this speech article into the relevant article that covers the health care bill his speech addresses is not a partisan attack, it is in keeping with how other such speeches are handled. Googlemeister (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, we have no articles about anything that happened before the web browser became available. Prior to the internet, all human affairs were handled through oral history, which are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. Honestly! It speaks volumes, by the way, that the expressly-stated premise of your position is that application of standard Wikipedia policy criteria to this article is "attack[ing] the current President," as user:Googlemeister notes above, and the unstated assumption is that those who are !voting to delete voted against Obama last year (and are Republicans). You also mean "discrete" not "discreet."- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Simon, your first two sentences are straw men arguments, and dickish at that. Once again, we're going to dance the dance of deletionism vs. inclusionism on this page. According to virtually all sources, the speech was historic. The speech included an unprecedented also-dickish move by a Republican congressman that received international headlines. For those citing WP:RECENTISM, keep in mind it's an essay, not a guideline. Wikipedia's strength relies in that it's WP:NOT#PAPER. What are we... economizing on kilobytes? Is Wikimedia going to run out of space? Googlemeister, it's pure fallacy to point out that Bush's joint-session speech doesn't have a page because you're assuming it shouldn't have a page. The absence of such a page does not necessarily mean that was intended but rather a consequence of workflow that tends to favor current events. In short, notability for this event has been demonstrated by an avalanche of mainstream WP:RS's, a "historic" speech coupled with an "unprecedented" (Hoyer's words) outburst by a sitting congressman to a president, so what's the harm in including it? Finally, Simon, generally pointing out the spelling mistakes of others tends to cast the corrector in a negative light. You know what Fudoki meant... this isn't a grammar class. --kizzle (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Simon, you are one of the last people to talk about assuming good faith when I can give several examples where you have done the exact opposite. Edward Lalone | (Talk)
    • Keep This may well turn out to be an historic moment/event (US is poised for possible major health care reform plus first-ever heckling during this type an event plus first black president being heckled by a white congressman from the south). It would be excellent to have as objective a record as possible of the contemporary understanding of what transpired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.180.134 (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep without Prejudice This content may very well turn out to be better included elsewhere and we do not want to bind the hands of future editors who may want to better organize it. As it is now, it is a handy placeholder for the vast excited energies which surround this topic.Yeago (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. A single speech by a public figure is non-notable. Moreover, it is not like Joe Wilson pulled a Michael Richards. rock8591 10:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)
    • Strong Keep and Expand - Nowhere does it say in the US Constitution that an address to congress has to be a State Of The Union nor does it say that the SOTU has to occurr in January or February, but rather "from time to time." That Barack Obama makes many speeches does not distract from the gravity of this speech and the international media coverage it has received. This is presently the 9th speech in his template in a span of 5 years. That is hardly a lot. I am not even a citisen or resident of the United States and this speech was carried live on locally available tv channels. The matter of heckling is noteable in itself though not substantial enough to make it the featured subject of the article. I would like to see more coverage of the official Republian response that was shown immediately following the speech. From what i recall of watching it there were a lot of directly conflicting claims made and citing of the same or very similar sources for such claims between Barack and Dr Boustany. That the arguements to retain the article, in varying manners, are greater than the size of the article itself shows that a lot of users disagree with the proposed deletion and are spending their time fighting for the article's survival rather than working on the article. That is a shame. I myself nearly started the article while watching the speech because the notability was going to be well established within 30 minutes of it's end as the global media began to report on it's unique aspects and proposals. However, an ill pet drew my focus away.jh0367 (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    STRONG KEEP - THIS IS IMPORTANT as it is addressing the joint session by the president. It is more important because it is the first "non-white" President of the USA. IT is important because it is the first time in 60 years that there was such an outburst, especially from a Senator. It is important because the President did not over-react to the outburst and the next day accepted an apology from the soon-to-be Ex Senator. Wiki is one of the truest forms of DEMOCRACY. I will continue to monitor the site to make sure it is more fact than politics but so far I think it is just about right. I think it is important to remember that young people in school go to WIKI for information and we need to try and make articles as factual and balanced as possible. There is room for even more, especially with the response from the Republican opposition. It would be nice if we had the video of the speech entered in some way, preferably in the White House Media where it can't be tampered with as in You Tube. Deborah J. Boyd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.136.171 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • (1) He wasn't a Senator. (2) Wikipedia not only is not "one of the truest forms of DEMOCRACY" (or even just plain-old democracy), it isn't a democracy at all. (3) Why is it that this President's allies seem incapable of defending him without supposing race has any relevance? This was the umpteenth speech (and second speech to Cognress) this year by this President. That one uncouth Representative doesn't make it notable. That the President is black doesn't make the speech notable. We will be able to see in eight, twelve months or so whether the speech is notable. For now, delete or merge is the right approach.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: This is a Major Presidential address on a single subject of immense, decades-long political import and controversy in the United States. The speech, and this Wikipedia article, will be cited in many articles and reports in the years to come.
    • Keep – maybe not as much if Wilson didn't make that outburst. Personally I think the level of recentism is a bit high around here, but merging to a list of his speeches to the Joint session of Congress may be a viable option in the future. MuZemike 03:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    New policy I support this and all presidential speeches to be automatically notable if reported in multiple sources. However, this particular speech is just moderate in notability compared to all speeches so if automatic notability is rejected then this speech will either barely meet the new notability standard or just barely miss it. However, it will be the cutoff. President of Chicago (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just another Obama speech. One among dozens if not hundreds. Giving speeches and press conferences is practically all the man has done for three years. Why is this one special? Merely because he gave it before Congress? No one has yet offered any reason why that makes it notable, just conclusory suggestions that it must be. The fact that David Brooks - who, as regular News Hour viewers know, has been fawning over Obama for years - dribbled over the speech doesn't make it historic. Brown's observation that it was (in his opinion, and keep in mind which party he belongs to) the best speech to a joint session in fifteen years sets the bar pretty low, too. What we're left with is a whole bunch of speculation, assumption, recentism, and fancruft. We will know in due time whether this merits an article of its own; until then, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:The world will not end tomorrow ("achieving notability is still usually a process, rarely an event"), merge, delete, redirect. And then let's get rid of the non-notable Bush SOTUs, too, to make clear that this has nothing to do with partisanship.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, as we clearly represent opposite ends of the spectrum on inclusionism vs. deletionism. Wikipedia is not paper. Why do we feel the need to remove pages on speeches? For Christ's sake, we have articles detailing every single Pokemon character, why can't we have pages on notable speeches made by the leader of the free world? There is no consequence besides a few kilobytes extra here and there, and if people don't want to click on the link to the page, they very well don't have to. This wasn't the most notable speech in the world, but IMHO it still meets notability to the point where it deserves an article regardless of George Stephanopoulos's assertion that the speech hasn't changed poll results. Should we delete Ich bin ein Berliner because Kennedy failed to bring the wall down himself? --kizzle (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just FTR, I would take the Pokemon point the other way around: we shouldn't have articles on every speech made by the leader of the free world, so a fortiori we shouldn't have articles on every Pokemon character. I would support our having a single article on Pokemon and performing a delete & redirect on every other in-universe article about Pokemon. Unfortunately, that ship has probably sailed.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. I can't believe there's an actual essay. Though I still disagree with you, I abandon my argument in favor of yours due to the sheer awesomeness of that link in the context of the debate. Bravo, sir. Bravo. :) --kizzle (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge - It is notable that a it is a "combative" and "forceful" speech at a defining time for No Drama Obama. The August recess has been viewed by "most" news outlets as damaging to Obama's healthcare refom - his masterpiece. Presidents have tried and failed. Previous healthcare reforms have crashed and burned. The speech should appear somewhere. Future users of Wikipedia would want to know about this speech when retracing the footsteps of Obama's healthcare reform. I know I would. The heckler should go down in history as a footnote. riversandlakes (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Major speech on major subject and associated with a public scandal. Abyssal (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Time to close as snow keep. With this running 2:1 and well over +20 net for an unconditional keep, the only reason not to close this early is to give people a chance to chime in with more reasons to keep or not keep. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur Hutchinson

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

    See WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 03:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Days and Months in Song

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

    As much as I hate to use the term listcruft, this appears to be an indiscriminate collection and/or arbitrary means of presenting information. A list of songs with days and months in their titles may be of cursory interest, but seems like bad precedent for an encyclopedia as, in theory, such a "list of songs with X in the title" could be made for any such topic. --Kinu t/c 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, it currently isn't even restricted only to the title, but applies to all mentions of a day or month in the lyrics, which is certainly too broad.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, I hadn't fully noticed that until you mentioned that. As such, this strengthens my belief that this is an arbitrary list. Indeed, for precedent's sake, the similarly-natured deletion here is the example used for such at Wikipedia:Overlistification... and at least those were about tequila, whereas these just mention a date or somesuch. It seems that this would be highly unmaintainable and unwieldy. --Kinu t/c 01:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It's even broader than that. If the date can be inferred from the song, it makes it on the list. The example I see is Johnny Horton's song The Battle of New Orleans. Although the song does begin, "In 1814, we took a little trip...", it doesn't refer to January or January 8 in its lyrics. A well-intentioned idea, submitted for our reaction before a lot of time is invested (hence, I'll go ahead and say delete), but this one would be too wide in scope to be useful. I can see some merit in a list of Billboard Hot 100 songs that mention a date in the title, such as the hit country song 8th of November, but that would be a major undertaking itself. Mandsford (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Trivia / listcruft. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    KEWS

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

    Unlicensed Part 15 radio station with no references to reliable third-party sources to show notability or verifiability, unrelated to the real KEWS that formerly served the D/FW area. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Does not enjoy the notability protection that full power licensed radio stations (AM, FM, LP) do. NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC) 02:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, what Neutralhomer and Dravecky imply is simply that we usually take for major licensed stations notability for granted. Nevertheless, unlicensed radio stations and pirate ones can be notable as well and they certainly do not automatically fail our general notability guideline which does not talk about radio stations and licenses at all. This one does not seem to notable, though. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: That's absolutely right; there are quite a number of articles about unlicensed radio stations in the United States and around the world. They meet the general notability guideline by dint of references to reliable third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Well I had to look but im guessing this is a reliable 3rd party evidence http://part15.us/stationlistings?page=5 and if that doesn't work there's this http://www.hobbybroadcaster.net/directory01.html not sure what doesn't make this article notable. In my humble opinion someone who is interested in stations like this would enjoy this information. LibertyNT (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, these are directory listings, partly user created, but Wikipedia isn't a directory. What is missing are in-depth refs for an article. Delete. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Dug some more and finally found press coverage for this station http://www.outlawradio.us/Low-Cost-Broadcasting.html Its near the bottom. LibertyNT (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - That is a small blurb. Press coverage is newspaper articles, television station or radio station reports, not something from a website advertising a service. Sorry Dude, it just isn't notable. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - completely lacking in coverage in reliable sources (per Wikipedia definition) independent of the station and its owner (please read WP:CORP). I must point out that Wikipedia is not on a crusade to delete this article because it's a pirate radio station but because of complete lack of coverage (other U.S. pirate radio stations have had their articles here because of coverage in local print and television coverage; some European pirate stations have had worldwide press coverage). Should this article survive the AfD, it's in serious need of cleanup. B.Wind (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Its not A Pirate Radio station. ;) LibertyNT (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. If it is in the U.S. and doesn't have a license from the Federal Communications Commission, it is a pirate station. See pirate radio for further clarification. B.Wind (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply True But. Under Part 15 of the FCC Codes And Regulations. Unlicensed Transmission is Legal. As Long as it complies with those rules. Pirate Radio Is Illegal. Part 15 Radio Is Not. ;) LibertyNT (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Simulated reality

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

    This is original reasearch and speculation through and through. The concept itself is notable, but there is very little if anything at all that can be salvage from the current version. I say let's delete and redirect towards Brain in a vat which is the non-OR version of this page. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This one is actually more complicated than it looks. Anyway, the title "Simulated Reality" is much more professional than "Brain in a vat". So my say would be to merge Brain in a vat into this, because not all that is written here is OR. --> RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism 03:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This subject is clearly notable, and cleanup is not a reason for deletion. The content from Simulism should be integrated into this article, which would significantly improve the quality and referencing. The brain in a vat article is about a specific philocophical problem, while this article is about the more general concept. Perhaps at some point they might converge into one article, but I doubt it since the content is different enough that they should be kept seperate. --NickPenguin(contribs) 07:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep per NickPenguin; I'd endorse also proposal of merging Brain in a vat into it. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep, but seriously edit down. Actually this issue shoudl not have been raised while the merger issue is being debated. simulism should be merged with simualted reality. Brain in a Vat should not be merged. Although it is on a similar theme, it exists in a somewhat different context.(BTW, while Brain in a Vat sounds informal, it is in fact a phrse used by professional philosophers). 1Z (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Passes WP:N. What is funny is that the nominator agrees that it is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the concept is notable, the content of this article however, is not. There is WP:N, but there is also WP:NOR and WP:SOAPBOX. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you want the article deleted because it needs to be cleaned up? That's even more funny. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleanup would involves deletion and rewriting of pretty much everything in the article, save perhaps the categories and interwiki links. That's a bit more than mere cleanup. Achievable cleanup is weasel word removal, POV neutralification, and so on, not an unsynthetizing of an article containing nothing more than original synthesis involving the removal of everything currently written in it. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're just assuming that it can't be improved without being deleted. I'd rather keep notable topics. Still funny. Joe Chill (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is that difficult. There are two well-reffed sections (Ceg omputability of Physics and Bostom's Argument) which can be kept. Completely unreffed sectins could be deleted wholesale. The best material for simulism could then be merged in.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Iosif Smulsky

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

    Non-notable fringe scientist Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Beverly Hills, 90210. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    West Beverly Hills High

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

    Completely unnotable fictional high school from Beverly Hills, 90210. Completely fails WP:N and Prod removed by User:DGG with note of "expand, main setting for notable film." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, it does, with picture :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a bit of shame about this one. When I saw all the hits, I thought that there might be content to write an article with but, alas, the sources were lacking.
    • Sources I examined:
    • "Beverly Hills, 90210: television, gender, and identity" by E. Graham McKinley: Only has a one line mention referring to the school as "posh".
    • "Encyclopedia of television" by Horace Newcomb: Mentions the school by name with no further information.
    • "The New York Times television reviews" by Staff Of The New York Times: Sole mention states that the school is "patterned after Beverly Hills High School and some private schools in Los Angeles".
    • "Girl culture: an encyclopedia, Volume 1" by Claudia Mitchell and Jacqueline Reid-Walsh: Names the school in passing.
    • The sources seem to mention the school purely as a by-product of discussing the show itself. From my research, I found that the school has not been the focus of any sources and has not been subject to any in depth analysis or discussion. In my opinion, these sources are not enough to act as a proof of notability or provide enough content with which to support an article. Redirecting to the larger topic may be beneficial. Seraphim♥ 23:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edward Gant

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

    Practice squad players in the NFL do not pass WP:ATHLETE as they have not competed fully at the professional level, which is needed to pass this criteria. ArcAngel (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Google news search by a previous commentator demonstrates that the subject fails, not meets, WP:BIO / WP:GNG, as it generates only passing mentions only. The misquote cited describes him as one Southwest's "primary" receivers, which in the context of a college team, is not a suggestion of notability. Bongomatic 02:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch, I just changed my vote to delete upon further review.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, THAT'S why you changed the vote. Riiight.►Chris NelsonHolla! 13:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, you think Giants27 was bribed or something? Come on Nelson, and try to be a good sport. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, doc—have you checked his WikiMoney balance lately? Bongomatic 16:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ►Giggle► Drmies (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he changed it because I told him he didn't know what he was talking about. Sometimes it's such a curse being the only smart person around.►Chris NelsonHolla! 17:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know exactly how you feel. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed my vote half an hour before you said that, thus I'm not getting paid.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. WP:SNOW. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Trophies/achievements: Guitar Hero 5

    edit
    Trophies/achievements: Guitar Hero 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Page creator removed PROD so sending to AFD per process.

    Page is information that is WP:GAMEGUIDE and not appropriate to include in WP per standards by the Video Games Project. (Let's not go into the issue with the article name, that technically could be resolved) MASEM (t) 01:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Five-Handed Euchre (Bid)

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

    This Euchre variation isn't notable enough to stand on it's own, therefore I propose a merge into the Euchre article as a sub-section, or merge into the Five-Handed Euchre article. ArcAngel (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • GTBacchus, your remarks are the wisest thing I've heard since my coming to Wikipedia ! So, if you know how, because I don't, simply merge it into the article Euchre variations. There's an entry there for "Five players" which needs to be considered. The article Euchre isn't quite suitable for variations once a specific page has been created for this purpose (!). Krenakarore (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to bad faith nomination. ArcAngel (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC) The result was keep per WP:SK. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. NAC. Tim Song (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chick magnet

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

    This meets WP:DICTDEF quite well. ArcAngel (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Except that this article has a construction tag on it. Why the heck would it be there? Because it needs constructing to make it past the definition article stage (otherwsie it would only be good for Wiktionary, obviously) the article IS attempted to be more than a mere dictionary definition, which was clearly informed on the talk page only minutes after the article's opening. Sure, if this was only a definition article WITH NO CONSTRUCTION TAG OR NOTE ON THE TALK PAGE OF INTENTIONS TO EXPAND SPECIFICALLY TO ADRESS THE DICTIONARY-DEFINITION-ONLY ARTICLE ISSUE then there would be a valid argument for deleting this article. As such, these claims were negated before they were even made per the construction tag (notification that the article isn't actually finished) and per the note (The article may currently be a mere dictionary definition but, per this note, there has been intension to overcome this and make the article more than what it is). Invalid.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 02:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A google news search even just over the last month indicates this is a very notable and well established subject in popular culture. I haven't even looked yet at the archives or google books. Plenty to write a good article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural keep. It's inappropriate to nominate an article with {{underconstruction}} for deletion unless there's no reasonable possibility that the article will meet the inclusion criteria, with certain exceptions not relevant here. This is not one of those few cases. Tim Song (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Project enterprise

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

    non notable - seems spamish and the creator appears to have a conflict of interest. noq (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep The article has been expanded and sources provided now. I am now happy for it to stay. noq (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, seems rather non-notable. Given that the creator is called ProjectEnteprise, it is most likely an attempt at self-promotion, therefore violates WP:COI. Sorry. Lord Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 12:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So if I just used the address and name Project Enteprise, but am not affiliated personally, does that still mean that it should be deleted? I created this page because it is a program that is notable and its affiliates such as Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Foundation are listed in wikipedia. Project Enterprise is one of the oldest microfinance organization in the US. Microfinance is an increasingly popular concept and Project Enteprise is based on the Grameen Model. One cannot talk about the Grameen model of microfinance in the US without having Project Enterprise be a part of the discussion. The organization and their clients have been covered in the media in numerous outlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProjectEnteprise (talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a reason for deletion. I've rewritten the article and added in reliable sources; why delete an article that meets inclusion criteria? That's just spiteful. Fences&Windows 05:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as it has not been shown that this topic satisfies any of the notability guidelines.  Skomorokh  00:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Pamatatau

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

    Notability (under WP:Bio) - this person does not have reliable coverage for biographical facts in secondary sources; this is likely a self-written bio (especially evident in the "education" section). No evidence to show why this person is more notable than any other New Zealand journalist. Verifiability - I cannot find any links to verify this information. No Reliable Sources (and the page had already been tagged to reflect this since 2007, with no improvement). Sylviasays (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just because there's another non-notable New Zealand journalist/media personality who has his own article, I don't think it follows that we must keep other non-notable articles on that basis (by all means feel free to nominate Phil Gifford's article for deletion too, if you feel it's warranted :-)). Also, I actually do think there's a bit of a distinction between Richard Pamatatau and Phil Gifford (though I have heard of neither!) - Gifford has his own show, whereas Pamatatau appears to be merely one reporter of many at the station. Further, Gifford seems to have written a reasonably popular book, which would possibly make him more notable. Pamatatau's list of work seems like the sort of thing any average journalist would be expected to do in any average news-room. Thanks :-) Sylvia Says (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kaleb Eulls

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

    Per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Contested PROD.  Chzz  ►  21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discarding unproductive "is (not) notable in my opinion" and "(does not) meet guideline" comments, what we have here is a biography of an individual for whom the existence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources has not been proven.  Skomorokh  00:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mishavonna Henson

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

    Semi-finalist on American Idol that fails WP:MUSIC. Aspects (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Although she didn't make it to the Top 12, she is an actress that has been featured in many known shows, such as Fraiser and she has also released an EP prior to idol which makes her notable enough. Facha93 (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Her filmography consists of redlinks and two series with one episode each, one of which her character does not have a name. This shows she fails WP:ENTERTAINER. She was a semi-finalist on American Idol and her EP is released on an independent record label that does not even have a wikiarticle. This shows she fails WP:MUSIC. She also lacks the reliable sources to pass WP:BIO. Aspects (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now her character has a name and in the redlinks movies she had a protagonic role, in Plastic Horses <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451161/>, Double Negatives<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0441619/> and Andrew's Alteration<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0429583/>. Facha93 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And how do her roles show that she passes any of the criteria listed in WP:ENTERTAINER? Aspects (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    She is notable as said in WP:ENTERTAINER because she has participated in many stage performances sucha as Rhoda in “Bad Seed”, Maria in “West Side Story” and Margot Frank in “The Diary of Ann Frank” at the La Mirada Theatre. She has also received the “Certificate of Merit Award” for female vocal solo at the Assemblies of God “National Fine Arts Festival” in North Carolina in August 2008 after having won in regional competitions, this is also a prove of her notability. Facha93 (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I will have to ask more specifically, which of the three criteria listed in WP:ENTERTAINER does she pass? She has not had significant roles in multiple notable productions. The only roles she had in notable productions have been Frasier and Unfabulous, and neither of those roles were significant. Aspects (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep the simple fact that, according to wikipedia (both here and on Train's "Drops of Jupiter" page) "in the weeks following her elimination, "Drops of Jupiter" returned to the Billboard Hot Digital Songs chart, with its return being attributed to Henson's performance." If nothing else, she is a significant footnote to this song. In addition, she will be opening for country music legend Crystal Gayle on Sept. 27th, '09. Her acting and American Idol career are definitely not the end of the story for this young singer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarrett1031 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep already said all my points above. Facha93 (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Opening for someone one time at a county fair is not a notable event. Her version of the song did not chart and I cannot find any reliable sources to backup the chart position. It was added to that article by an anon user and those were their only edits. Aspects (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All references also point to notability for mishavonna.--Judo112 (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which references? The IMDB page, the blog, or her Myspace page, or her promoter's website? RayTalk 03:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    On the Run (2010 film)

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

    Unnotable future film. Fails WP:NFF and WP:N - article primarily plot summary stolen from other websites[64] and cast list. No salvagable content. Prod removed by article creator. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if this is a copyright vio, it should be speedied (but none of my string searches reveal any tell tale links; otherwise, I think this film is potentially notable as it stars Steven Seagal. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Somift Data Organizer

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

    The creator contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruth EP

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

    NN album, none of the usual hits on Google. →ROUX ₪ 17:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Minstrels and Ballads

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

    NN album, no reliable references found through Google →ROUX ₪ 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I found the following short review at Billboard.com [65]. Which at least lists the tracks and gives a few more details. Billboard is usually considered reliable. But this is a compilation, as the article states, so I remain unsure on the issue of notability.--Sabrebd (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blood Red Eagle

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

    Essentially fails WP:MUSIC. This is a slightly tricky one, as it could easily come across as an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination, particularly given my slightly protracted discussion with another user on the talk page as to whether a band playing concerts to celebrate Hitler's birthday are neo-Nazi or not. Whatever. The claim to notability is that said concert was featured somewhat prevalently in the New Zealand press; I've removed two references which have long since disappeared (and I cannot access via the Internet Archive) but in the interests of fairness, recall at one stage did indeed exist. However, this solitary claim to notability essentially fails WP:BLP1E. There is nothing else to confer notability per WP:MUSIC... no releases at all on notable labels, no significant third-party coverage etc. etc., although with niche genres sooooo underground as Rock Against Communism, this is unsurprising. It is worth pointing out however that there are many Nazi-friendly / White Supremacist bands out there for whom notability is easy to establish, so that in and of itself does not argue for keeping it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mamacita

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

    Fails WP:BIO. Sources given are a directory listing for her own website, blogs, youtube, and IMDB, none of which are reliable. The "name" of this person is a common expression in Spanish. Prod removed by sole author without explanation. RayTalk 17:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Scott David Kaplan

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

    Personality notable only for founding United Cancer Foundation, an organization that is not, in itself, notable (and has been tagged for speedy deletion). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Norwalk Furniture

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

    This page is a stub, and has no real importance or significance. The only information in the article is a statement from the company, and the only external links do not give any interesting information. LAAFansign review 00:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Binärpilot

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

    Non-notable musician, seems to fail WP:BAND. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • On a procedural note, I find it odd and disconcerting that you are apparently nominating this immediately as "retaliation" for an edit I made to Pranknet due to WP:BLP violations after making hostile comments on the talk page. That said—I did not not intervene when this was prod-ed previously and would not intervene now were it not for your unusual/unnecessary hostility—so I will say that I created this article years ago when Wikipedia's notability rules were less well-formed as an important example of the chiptunes genre at the time, which as a genre is outside the mainstream and primarily Internet-based. Nevertheless, I agree that this falls well short of WP:BAND criteria. Delete. NTK (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 20:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith. There is no "retaliation", just circumstance. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice against later recreation. Tone 21:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Big Brother 5 (Bulgaria)

    edit
    Big Brother 5 (Bulgaria) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Completing nomination for IP. Reason for deletion stated on user's talk page is:

    There are no plans for Big Brother 5 in the near future and in my opinion it should be deleted until someone confirms that BB5 will be released

    I abstain. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. JForget 13:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yohannes Mengesha

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

    Career UN manager. No assertion of notability, no ambassador-level postings or equivalent. Bongomatic 03:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Canon Logic

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

    While a Google search for this band does return an interview or two, I am unconvinced that this band meets the criteria of WP:BAND and I think a discussion is appropriate. Nick—Contact/Contribs 16:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh  00:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    F2f (novel)

    edit
    F2f (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources. A google search for "f2f phillip finch review" [66] doesn't seem to turn up any mention in notable media outlets. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak keep I added some external links to help with sourcing, though I am not sure how many of them are reliable - but there they are. ArcAngel (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. JForget 13:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Todd Neufeld

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

    Although wonderful creations, non-notable individual lacking substantial GHits and GNEWS to support article. A couple of minor TV appearances showing his incredible skills. Appears to fail WP:BIO ttonyb1 (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Naseba

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

    I can find lots of press releases and directory type notices but that's about it - non-notable conference/network organising company. Cameron Scott (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

    List of Rookie of the Year awards by team

    edit
    List of Rookie of the Year awards by team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Completely unnecessary. Data is already at Major League Baseball Rookie of the Year award, just not set off in a table like this (could easily be, but not really useful). Does not warrant own article. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    William Ramage

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

    Notability is asserted, but I have been unable to verify the claims in the article. I have done this Google News Archive search and this one and have been unable to find any substantial sources. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nouveau geek

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

    Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is just a dictionary entry Fire 55 (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, instances of the term I found on the Internet, which is a series of tubes, do not entirely match the unsourced claims in the article. At best, this article could be documenting a neologism, but this is more likely a protologism. Abductive (reasoning) 04:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Way Disciple Program

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

    Non-notable missionary/charity program. Deprodded by a sock. Abductive (reasoning) 23:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_10&oldid=1142643102"