Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 2

< 1 September	3 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Saville

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

The result was speedy deleted' per WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A7. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Saville

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

Non-notable rubbish about a 10 year old. Should be a speedy, but I can't be bothered to look up procedure for a speedy --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:09, 2 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 00:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Harnell

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

Almost totally unsourced fansite full of fulsome prose and praise for obscure rocker linked to a Norwegian band Orange Mike | Talk 23:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AS IS, I agree with the nom that this article is severely lacking in citations; however, the subject was the frontman for a notable 80s hair band (i.e.TNT). His work with Westworld and Starbreaker gets him through on #6 of WP:MUSICBIO. I think there is just enough on this guy for him to have his own article. Location (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, this article is messy and is written like a fansite, but that still doesn't mean that the article is useless. The subject of this article is about a lead singer of a notable Norwegian band. Plus, he also fronted a whole bunch of other bands. All this article needs is a clean up and a re-write. I would suggest we re-write this entire article to be in a neutral point-of-view. If you need sources for some of the topics in this article, I'll try to find some for you. Jimbö^V1 (talk) 22:42, 4 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. I'm concerned by "Operation Wikipedia" and a clear history of attempting to use WP as part of a viral marketing campaign. Still there is strong consensus supported by many regular contributors that, at minimum, the good doctor fits within the "influential in genre/notable in subculture" provision within WP:MUSIC. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Steel

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

This is a procedural nomination. I declined to speedy delete this because there is substantial debate on the talk page, and what appears to be a whole lot of references. Therefore it seems a full-on debate is a better idea than speedy deletion. I would encourage users to look at the talk page for some explanation of the history of this before commenting. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response from main contributors

I was one of the main writers of the article. We originlly started writing this article over the course of one long, strenuous day (Jonnybgoode44 was not one of the original authors, but the most constant contributor). With a full class load for freshman first semester here at FIU, I have not been able to keep up with making fixes and changes to the article. I may be a fan of doctor steel but this page was written from a purely objective point of view. We wanted to make the article as nuetral as possible, and as the two main authors (the other two who worked on it did citations and editing) are not experienced wiki writers, as I have stated before. This page was in no way intended to be an orphaned page, as it is not, but it was intended to evolve with input from admins, moderators, and general wiki userbase. This is in no way a page for promotion, this page is meant to be purely informational. I made this article simply so when someone needs information on Dr. Steel, it's all available in one concise, gathered place, the same reason why articles are made for anything. I'd rather see my hardwork changed and edited than out-right deleted. If it is decided it will be deleted, I'd rather remove the page myself and migrate it to a different website that will be more accepting of it than have it just deleted.

So. For those who think tl;dr, Don't delete, help fix. Constructive criticism, teamwork, and open source exchange of ideas is a better idea than deletion based on old bias and opaque complaints. Viraneth (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in with my initial two cents: I was not part of the initial project, but was brought on board partly because I am by trade a professional website developer. I was interested in this subject (i.e., why doesn't Doctor Steel have a wiki entry?) quite a while before I became involved myself, because people outside of his fan base notice this stuff as well. I have been attempting as much as humanly possible to continue to write and edit from that POV and remain as objective as possible. I hope that shows in my edits (which I'm sure to some of the fan base seem rather draconian). For me, it's not about promotion, it's about imparting information, and about fairness. To the musician, and to the genre in general.

If one wishes to discuss the growning steampunk subculture, and more precisely the musical genre that it is spawning, one must include Dr. Steel, he is among steampunkers considered an essential steampunk musician. To discuss the musical aspect of the genre and not include Dr. Steel in that discussion is to do a great disservice to the genre - it's like discussing major Disney characters and omitting any mention of Donald Duck.

I hope the admins here can discuss this objectively and reach a fair decision. I have been encouraged and have been very thankful for the positive and constructive input from several of the moderators on here so far, and have made quite a lot of sweeping changes to the originally-posted article (reducing it in size by over half) in response to their objective suggestions. I hope that that cooperation will continue. Thank you for your time and consideration. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Delete, fails WP:BAND. There's lots of (trivial) print media coverage, lots of (self-released) recordings, even a (brief) TV appearance or two, but this is clearly a guy still in the minors, trying to use wikipedia and other promotion tools to break into the majors. Ronabop (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Most of the sources are trivial or not reliable, but the Wired and Re:Gen articles look like a pretty good start to me. The case for inclusion would be helped greatly by some better references. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a fan, in fact never heard of this artist before the AfD, but I have to think that the only reason this is at AfD is the prior editing and promotional issues, and not notability issues. ~~The Wired article doesn't do it for me because the only mention of Steel is in the reader comments~~, but there are a whole lot of other independent sources that I will presume are reliable until shown otherwise. Any other musician with this many articles and interviews would be kept in a second, so what is it that makes this artist different? Perhaps it's the lack of mainstream sources (although The Tonight Show is arguably as mainstream as it gets), but steampunk is not a genre that's going to get coverage on Entertainment Tonight no matter how many other people are noticing an artist (and the steampunkers I know pride themselves on being outside of the mainstream).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help wondering which Wired article you were reading; the one linked mentions Dr. Steel in the very first paragraph. Just curious. ;) (Note: This controversy was also mentioned on io9 - I noticed a reference link at the bottom of the article as I was rechecking this.)
"...but steampunk is not a genre that's going to get coverage on Entertainment Tonight no matter how many other people are noticing an artist..." Well said. And in the words of one steampunker source (which I didn't include because the admins would have probably deemed it irrelevant anyway, as it was a blog), "Abney Park, Dr. Steel, and Vernian Process are three of the most prominent musical groups pioneering a new genre." (http://blog.wingsofsteam.net/?p=62) Which I would say would be the consensus of most of the steampunk community. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I missed the link in the article, and did a gsearch to find the article. All I found was this, which only mentions Doctor Steel in the comments. The one in the article is definitely a good source, so I've struck that part of my comment.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:BAND at least by being the main subject of the article in Wired, having an interview on Suicide Girls and by appearing on the Tonight Show. -Kieran (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

egads, I forgot to add the Suicide Girls interview. (Actually, didn't think anyone would think it important, but then I'm just an old fart, what do I know. Off to add it.) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the notability of Suicide Girls could be debated, but I think they've become a substantial media entity in their own right.

Oh, and further to my above comment, the article also passes WP:BAND under section 3: "Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre."; "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." - as mentioned by the authors, Dr. Steel is one of the iconic examples of Steampunk music, and is frequently mentioned in media about the subculture. -Kieran (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, I've added a ref to an interview in Steampunk Magazine.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Appreciate the help. :) I don't see the ref though... could you post it here?~~ Nevermind, found it! Added, thx. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just added a link to an MTV News video where Dr. Steel is mentioned first among steampunk bands they spotlight.
(btw if anyone cares to give me some aid cleaning up the format of any of the reference links I might have done wrong, I would appreciate the help; I did the best I could, but I'm not too savvy on your format, even after reading WP:REF it's a tad confusing. Thanks.) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're doing the right thing with the ref tags and the cite web template. One thing you could try is using cite news for magazine articles, interviews, etc. -Kieran (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest filling in the "work" field in the template with the name of the magazine, website, etc. It would have been easier for me to find the right Wired ref if that field had been filed in. Still, you're doing really well on the refs. The main thing is having them. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think any of this coverage is new since the dleetion was last endorsed a few months ago. Wikipedia is not for viral marketing, this article lacks substantial independent sources and has already been deleted multiple times at multiple locations and deletion endorsed multiple times. It reads as an advertisement, which is hardly a surprise since "Operation Wikipedia" is all about promoting the act, not about Wikipedia at all other than as a vehicle for promotion. This title was salted so the creation itself was out of process, especially given the number of previous deletions and endorsements. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous deletion in the logs is dated March of 2008? I'm counting at least nine citations since then. And I'm not really sure what you'd consider 'substantial', if appearing on MTV News and in Wired magazine aren't 'substantial'. As Fabrictramp noted, "Any other musician with this many articles and interviews would be kept in a second."
As I mentioned elsewhere, the ill-advised "Operation Wikipedia" was shut down, forcefully, well over a year ago. As your own logs bear out: no article has been posted/deleted here for almost a year and a half. This article is a completely fresh work, completely different from previous articles. It was meant to be an objective piece on the band, not a "propaganda" piece about the fictional persona. And input from several admins on improving and making it more objective (at our request!) have been graciously accepted and implemented.
Regarding the page being salted: as Tim Song correctly noted in the Dr. Steel (album) AfD thread, this page was originally posted as "Doctor Steel (band)", as it was meant to be about the band. It was moved here by an admin, which overwrote the lock. This was not at our request, and I regret how it looked.

Also, in the past year and a half since the last delete Dr. Steel's fan club has grown from around 10,000 to currently over 24,000 members. (And those are just the fans that joined the club.) Needing Wikipedia's help for promotion isn't the issue - Dr. Steel obviously does just fine with that on his own. This is about having a fair article about an artist who is universally recognized in the steampunk subculture as one of the iconic examples of the genre (called an icon by Dieselpunks.org). Which I believe is one of your criterion (WP:BAND#Others:1,5). --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a bit on Jonnybgoode44's comments, with the exception of the previous AfD (which deleted the article for fair use issues in February 2007), every one of the prior deletions was a speedy. I'm not sure we can draw too much of a conclusion when only one or two editors are involved in the deletion. In fact, I'd say the last deletion in 2008 was a bad one because the article at that time did not fall under A7, the criteria used. (Not intending this as a personal slam JzG, even though you were the admin who deleted it, but with the number of interviews and references in that version, I can't see any way it was an A7 candidate.) There are now a number of sources in the article that were not in the 2008 version, and even more that were not in the only version deleted at AfD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my nomination, this was brought here as a procedural matter, as the speedy deletion nom had resulted in the talk page becoming a de facto AFD debate anyway. This article still has some problems with it's tone, which is not quite what is expected from an encyclopedia article (do we really need an entire section on the websites when they are linked in the "external links" section anyway?) but that is not a reason for deletion. Neither are the previous deleted versions, which are not substantially identical to this one. There are still some issues, but I am convinced that adequate notability has been established by coverage in multiple reliable sources plus an appearance on "The Tonight Show." You don't get to play there if you're nobody. Keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tonight Show appearance plus enough appropriate references indicate notability. Rlendog (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral at this point; my gut feeling is still that this is not notable and there's still a subtle attempt at promotion. Some of the references that people are using as notable, such as the Tonight Show appearance and the Suicide Girls interview, have been discussed and rejected as being usable in the past; apparently consensus has changed on those, despite them not changing at all. A lot of the references are blogs or bloggy. There are a few reasonable refs, but overall I still personally don't see enough notability for this to exist. Pretty well pointless to say 'delete' at this point because we seem to be allowing more marginal material these days, I just wanted to note that the refs don't, to me, seem to be as good as they've been billed. Whatever. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link the past consensus? The only past discussion I can find is the previous AfD, where the decision to delete appears to have gone against the consensus of keep.

In fact, the more I learn about how admins have handled this article over the past two years, the more uneasy I feel. It seems to have been a long string of over-zealous applications of G1, G12 and A7 in the speedy criteria (going largely against the original AfD discussion), followed by over a year of salting.

Anyway, I agree about the tone feeling like promotion, (though I've done a bit of editing to try to rectify that) and am aware of "Operation Wikipedia". However, it seems like the article passes notability (for the numerous reasons I mention above), so should at the very least exist. I think it needs to be watched carefully, and blatant promotional edits removed aggressively, but I do not believe that deletion is the correct way of going about this. -Kieran (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent discussion of the sources that I can find is at this DRV. Admins can look at this version of User talk:JzG for a rather good explanation of the overall problem here, along with some other links to previous DRVs. I personally contend that the Leno piece is hardly notable; it's quite short, and his name, if I recall correctly, isn't even mentioned, It's not an interview. It's someone walking into a room with the band playing, asking wtf is going on, and then walking out. If that's notability, we've got a buttload of people who have been interviewed on the street for Today or something that need articles. The Suicide Girls is a transcript of an article with Doctor Steel in-character, as others appear to be; were these actually written up in publications that have editorial oversight, I'd be more comfortable with it. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're somewhat missing the point. Dr. Steel does not go out hustling for interviews. These are all people who have been interested in interviewing him, that have come to him to hear what he has to say. Including some rather significant Indy sources such as ReGen. And of course Dr. Steel doesn't go out of character for his interviews. He never goes out of character. That would break the illusion; that would ruin the magic. And that's what Dr. Steel is. He's a magician. He's creating an illusion. An illusion his fans enjoy and want to keep; an illusion he has no intention of breaking. It would be like granting Criss Angel an interview on the condition that he reveal how he does his tricks. His fans don't want to see the man behind the curtain, and neither do those who interview him. Besides, I'm sure he'd be the first to tell you that the myth is far more interesting than the man.
Doctor Steel obviously doesn't make many blips in the mainstream press. That point not even being argued. He is decidedly outside mass media traditions: He will likely never sign with a major label; he has said that he despises the label system, and prefers to work in the digital realm. "I am happy to see my music seep into the digital shopping bags of the MP3 generation." However, he IS very much a primary, noteworthy example of the genre of steampunk music. That point really cannot be argued. MTV called him a "great example" of the steampunk musical genre. Another steampunk blogger called him one of the "three... most prominent musical groups pioneering a new genre." Yet another called him an icon of the genre. The point is, here is a subculture - steampunk - which is rapidly growing. And here is a band that is often referred to among steampunkers - of which I am one - as one of the "big three" steampunk bands, alongside Abney Park and Vernian Process. He is significantly influential in the style the steampunk musical genre is taking, and is frequently covered in genre publications (Steampunk Magazine, Coilhouse Magazine, etc.) as well as websites, blogs, et. al., devoted to the sub-culture. If that's not notable, then I have absolutely no idea what "notable" means here. If I'm allowed a vote I say Keep. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't seek these things out but has a large number of fans working on his "propaganda" efforts and is working directly with you and others to get this article created; small dichotomy there. I personally don't feel that he's notable nor that the references are worthwhile, but I'm sadly outnumbered, so I'll do what I should have done at first and shut the hell up. Whatever. Have fun with the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I had no idea who Doctor Steel was until I randomly tripped over the deletion debate through a long series of jumps from the Simon Wessely article, of all things. But having a quick scan through the article, and looking at the reasons cited above, it seems to me that notability requirements have been satisfied and there appears to be some recent work by a couple of editors to bring this article in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. The article could definitely use some more work (which I may help with if I have time), but I don't see deletion as the way to go. I agree with Kieran's above statement that in light of "Operation Wikipedia", this article needs to be watched—very intently—but I don't think it deserves deletion at this time. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I stumbled upon Doctor Steel via YouTube a couple of months ago, and, wanting to know more about him from an objective source, I turned to Wikipedia, where I found nothing. Dismayed, I was forced to go to his own websites, where the information was, bluntly, not objective. I read the TSU "Operation Wikipedia" entries, with links to discussions here, and I find this attempt to be significantly more modest. It is the nature of webophiles to check Wikipedia for background info regarding things they see/hear about. To not have a page related to this topic is a disservice to the community. Make changes as needed, but give the world something they can turn to--if nothing else to let them know that this is a band and that they don't need to worry about someone actually taking over the world. —SithToby 23:52, 6 September 2009 (MST)

A good point. To which I might add, "or worry that their friend or loved one has joined a cult." A lot of times people in the Toy Soldiers say their friends or family members look at Dr. Steel, see the crazy bald guy with the scary logo, the uniforms and the propaganda posters, and assume it's some sort of cult, not a musician's street team. Or wonder what websites their kids are getting onto. An article from Wikipedia would be a good place for them to turn for objective information. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Like others, I came here looking for more information on a musician I'd heard about elsewhere, though luckily I found just a deletion tag on an article that needs a little cleanup rather than no article at all. The Tonight Show, Wired, MTV, and Suicide Girls interviews/appearances are exactly what I was looking for and are, incidentally, the types of sources that meet WP:BAND. Vyreque13 (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say that it sort of passes #1 of WP:BAND, due to the coverage in those sources. The mentions are more than trivial, saying that they have been influential, and they dedicate several sentences to talking about them. That the fans have been making a campaign to have an article is irrelevant. Deleting due to influence from that campaign is almost as bad as keeping due to it (there have been several times when someone has made a campaign to delete an article). We shouldn't take those things into account, and we should look only at what the reliable sources say.

Hum, the article text needs more work, but at least it seems to comply with WP:INUNIVERSE, and it leaves clear that the toy soldier army is not a real entity. I notice two album articles that most probably don't pass WP:ALBUM and should be merged into the main article: Dr. Steel II: Eclectic Boogaloo, People of Earth (album), The Dr. Steel Collection and Dr. Steel Read-A-Long. They are just track lists with no independent sources talking about them, and, apparently, no hits in lists. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a deletion review thread for one of those, the one currently in my sandbox, and I was waiting to see what happened to that before taking any action with the others; but then this AfD review started up and that review was closed until this was settled... I'm fine with merging them with this article if that's the decision the admins come to. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still self-promoting after all these years....yes there is "mention" in a few notable sources, but I don't think there is enough non-trivial coverage for WP:BAND notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being the main subject of an article in Wired is more than "mention". -Kieran (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just added a new link. Dr. Steel was recently interviewed in Fiend Magazine (an Australian alternative culture magazine) in their Steampunk Issue. And I found Dr. Steel on a compendium of steampunk music by DJ FACT.50 (DJ for Vernian Process) on their Gilded Age label. Which while it isn't relevant for inclusion in the article (thanks, RobinHood), it is relevant to note his inclusion in a compendium of the genre. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is one of those perennial non-notable entities who have a large internet presence. There does not appear to be anything in the references that are not non-trivial mentions, produced by his internet following, or are other user-produced websites. Most of the references are the list of mentions. The music albums are released on an independent label. Nothing about this seems any more notable than it was years ago.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steampunk and Wired Magazines exist as print. He's been the main subject of articles in both. How are these "trivial", "produced by his internet following", or "user-produced websites"? -Kieran (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that there is enough coverage in a few of the sources as mentioned by contributor further up here to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: arguably meets WP:BAND criteria 1, 7, and 10 (in part due to the Dr Horrible tussle). I do think the "Media Attention" section of the article needs some serious clean-up, as right now it seems to exist purely as a defensive act against those who insist on the artist's non-notability, but that's a side issue. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 12:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at fixing that. -Kieran (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I've heard of Dr.Steel, was a growing fad around here for a while, Passes WP:Band and with his tonight show appearence is notable.--SKATER ^Speak. 17:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND

There seem to be two opinions here on criterion 1.1 of WP:BAND, repeated several times in the discussion. I've consolidated these here, to try to keep the core discussion in one place:

Delete. Not enough of the sources are non-trivial enough, or the band is not the main subject where they are notable. (No qualification has been given).
Keep: The sources are non-trivial, and the band is the main subject where they are notable. (Qualification: The band has been the main subject of an article in Wired Magazine about the controversy between Steel and Horrible, an interview on Suicide Girls, and an interview in Steampunk Magazine.)

Furthermore, it has been put forward several times that the band falls under criteria 3.1 "Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre." (Qualification: MTV news citing as a "great example" of steampunk music, mentioned in Steampunk Magazine) as well as 3.5 "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." (Qualification: covered in Steampunk Magazine, the steampunk special issue of Fiend Magazine, near-steampunk publications like Re:Gen as being steampunk.) No argument has been made to the contrary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kierano (talk • contribs)

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 & WP:MUSIC#C7. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC C1 easily. -- 68.33.14.248 (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC) (Bah, didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Reveal my ip or risk my !vote being discounted? Sigh.)[reply]

So log in and sign it? --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which would reveal my ip and link it to my account. Lots of good arguments here, one less 'keep per' isn't going to sink the afd, I hope... -- 68.33.14.248 (talk) 05:47, 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 keep. Despite claims of sockpuppetry, after 13 days there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and 2 "keep" arguments from neutral editors. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuvaputki

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

article is about a music dvd that, despite extensive 'pseudo-citation' (references to false or trivial sources) by the article's sole editor, fails all notability tests as a movie or music Uucp (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before this articles for deletion page existed the talk page the previous editor cited claims which do make this notable by it being best selling.

disagree that it was "shown at minor festivals." Sonar is a high profile and noteworthy festival. As is Buenos Aires International Film Festival, the Milan Film Festival, The National Museum of Finland, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Barcelona, the Kunsthalle Wein in Austria. This should meet the criterion, since it was shown at significant museums and festivals in multiple countries.

Perhaps bestselling should not be cited, but as of today, the film is number 11 in electronic music in France. [Amazon FR] Included is a dated grab [Amazon FR
Also in England it's is ranked as of today, #83. amazon.uk dated screen grab

93.182.138.10 (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, per discussion of the Edward Quist AFD, this appears to be one of a number of sock puppets trying to hijack the vote to delete this and Quist's personal page, which is also under AFD. Uucp (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs here as it refutes that the work is notable.
Also there aren't any "false" citations. While the below publications aren't the Rolling Stone, the publications aren't frivolous, negligible, minor in the appropriate genre. The charge the triviality is entirely subjective.
[idiomag] isn't a false or trivial source.
The reference in Earplug magazine link was bad but there is different link in which it is noted This is not self-published, and is magazine
The article in Dagheisha is written by the Italian journalist Lorenzo Becciani
D-side is a prominent magazine in the appropriate genre. F Lee001 (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of Kuvaputki has a history of creating sock puppet accounts to try to salvage his personal page and this one when hit by an AFD. I am extremely skeptical of defense from somebody with a newly created account who has never done anything except try to prevent deletion of Edward Quist-linked pages. (Watch, Quist will now create new sock puppets and have them make a few trivial edits to third party pages before stopping by here to beg us not to delete his vanity pages) Uucp (talk)

Allegations of Sock Puppeting
I made the edits from 93.182.133.56, but not 93.182.138.10. Furthermore, those that use the same internet service provider, are not the same person. While I can see how you see this as a red flag, it is in no way proof that I am a sock puppet. From your line of thinking when one who uses an IP address from the same ISP, they are the same person, people do edit from dynamic ip addresses, most people do have dynamic ips. I now see the importance of creating an account. As for the claim a sock puppet editing this page, for further transparency, I created this account so my edits are associated with my new found user name. I know I should not take the sock puppet allegations personally, but I am NOT Quist, have no connections with him. I am just a "regular" person, who is passionate about work in this genre. I am not hiding my identity, sock puppeting, in any way. I'll even give my real name, Frank Lee, with nothing to hide.
Doesn't the burden of proof rest on the prosecution?
Instead of decrying I am a sock puppet, why not not refute my discussion?
Regardless, of who I am, throwing out the case on the assumption of my being a sock puppet does not negate my input. You did not refute the claims of my previous post, just called me a sock puppet.

Although I have no vested interest, this film is worthy of notability.
And to talk about patently false claims Uucp cited in the Quist AfDthat this article was written by him, let it be noted the signer of the article is Valerio Mannucci writing for the popular Nero magazine. Is it noted that it is a bad review? What on earth would make an artist write something bad about his work.
Also, the above language is inferring that that I will beg "you," which really means the the Wikipedia collective, to not delete the page.
An attack on notability should be one of civil discourse, not authoritarianism.
No one is begging. I am simply refuting your allegations of "false citation." While you may or may not have some have more administrative powers, the beauty of Wikipedia is that there is no "centralized you" who wields total judgment.
I am simply making the case that the claims of non notability are erroneous.
Surely there are others, which are more experienced wiki editors than I and have more insight to this notable genre and Experimental Music and film, who should be brought into this discussion.
The previous editor's remarks which maintain the citations are trivial are highly subjective.
The flippant above quote from above saying, "Watch, Quist will now create new sock puppets and have them make a few trivial edits to third party pages before stopping by here to beg us not to delete his vanity pages" seems so cynical and biased, that instead of discussion, verdict has already been made with the assumption, that I am a sock puppet. You're basing the consideration of deletion in part from your "prediction" of what what will happen.
I'm not saying "Let him keep his vanity pages." I'm just making the claim that the work is notable for being part of high profile museum exhibits and has a noteworthy subject Pan Sonic, and the director as being noteworthy for being shown at major modern art museums and film festivals.

Being new to editing doesn't make one a sock puppet. A new editor has every right to contribute, it's the nature of the "encyclopedia" anyone can edit.
Nowhere am I or the other editor providing nonfactual information.
Simply because I'm focusing on an article for deletion that I feel deserves defense, and am a new editor in no was proves my alleged sock puppet status.

Notability
There is the claim that the music fails the criteria for notability.The BBC doesn't seem to think so. There aren't any "false" or so called "pseudo-citations". While the other below publications aren't the Rolling Stone, the publications aren't frivolous, negligible, or minor in the appropriate genre. The charge the triviality is entirely subjective.
idiomag isn't a false or trivial source.
The Earplug link can be found here and was written by Phillip Sherburne who is a prominent journalist in the genre.
The article in Dagheisha is written by the Italian journalist Lorenzo Becciani.
D-side is a prominent magazine in the appropriate genre.
The subjects of the DVD Pan Sonic seem to meet the criteria as does their release Kesto.
Kuvaputki is a Pan Sonic release as the cover only states their name with the title. Pan Sonic works with such prominent acts such as Alan Vega of Suicide, F. M. Einheit of Einstürzende Neubauten and Bjork who interviewed for television Mika Vainio of Pan Sonic. This release is especially notable as it is their first audio/visual endeavor.

It was reviewed in Boomkat. Which is prominent in the genre and used as sources in many wiki articles.
As well as Koncurrent
Noted in el sueño del esquimal

Festivals, Museums, and Galleries As mentioned from the other editor, it was shown at

Sonar. Not only once in 2000 as noted in in Touch Music and in 2008 (Click on Kuvaputki link of that link page.)
Buenos Aires Festival
The Kiasma Museum of Contemporary Art here is the listing of the showing if you click screenings.
Kunsthalle Wein this listing is here and here listed as Edward Quist Pan Sonic but also mentioned in Nero
Barcelona Museum of Contemporary Art with its listing here.
A review by Rough Trade
The Milan Film Festival
The Flatpack Festival

Even if having such prominent associated acts with Pan Sonic and the museum showings are slighted as inherited notability, yesterday Amazon FR list the DVD at number 18, that the time of the grab from yesterday. Submitted is a pdf of a print out that is dated. Here is today's similiar pdf And Amazon FR's main page on the product Today it is listing that in France, it is charting which does makes it notable as a best seller.
The article should be cleaned up, but not deleted.
Further this film was"screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release, which is the case with Sonar showing it in 2000 and 2008. F Lee001 (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the listing of trivial sources convinces me further that there is nothing notable here. For example, appearing in a catalog at the BBC does not make you notable, and listing this as supposed proof of notability demonstrates that there is no "there" there. Uucp (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, regardless of that BBC article which should have been omitted, the point is that Pan Sonic and their work is notable to the BBC's John Peel.
Just picking out one source, doesn't refute the other sources. You aren't taking into account that it was screened in significant international museums.

My major argument at the moment, per notability requirements the film was screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. Noting it's first screening in 2000 and latest screening in 2008. There's "there." F Lee001 (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' and send article about this strange genre film to cleanup to address format and style. Multiple in-depth coverages meet WP:GNG and screening at festival more than five years after initial release underscores the notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:25, 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, Black Kite 22:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notabile and significant. Worth including. Article needs clean up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:53, 3 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) 03:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tea and Biscuits with Maggie Pritchard

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

Contested prod, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Not clear how this might meet notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt you figure out how it meets guidelines before AfD? I'm just saying I thought thats what it said. Anyhow Google turns up nothing and neither does a Factiva search. I'm inclined that with literally no hits, teres not much out there to prove it meets the Notability criteria, but I'm new and not sure if there are more narrow criteria. Martin Raybourne (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, as you said, I'm not finding anything from Google news. Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines as a result --RadioFan (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Articles have to meet notability. Short monologues aren't notable themselves without outside reference, which this doesn't seem to have from a number of searches. Shadowjams (talk) 08:42, 8 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. copyvio and author blanked Ged UK 19:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Def Jam Street Legend

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

Unreferenced speculation; fails WP:CRYSTAL. Author contested prod. I42 (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well (wrote he, mostly to the article's author). The (main) problem with the article is that readers can't be, and aren't, expected to take us by our word. The word of an open wiki isn't worth much, we need something more reliable. (This isn't an idle concern, either, check the scam attempts that happened here after the tsunami - better yet, don't.)
The article desperately needs some media outlets' or developers' statements about the game being confirmed, the official title, the roster, et cetera. Got any? --Kiz o r 22:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.hiphoplead.com/lifestyle/games/def-jam-4-street-legend/ -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 4 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 Teletón (Mexico)~~. JForget 21:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've actualy moved Teletón (Mexico) to Teletón as there is no disambiguation. --JForget 21:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teletón

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

Disambiguation page with only 2 links, one is red. The term seems to be notable in describing a specific Mexican telethon marathon event, so it can be moved here, but I don't see much use of this page. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article with a blue link. No need to delete this since redirection make the most sense. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teletón-Mexico per Theseeeker4. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teletón-Mexico. This could have been done instead of taking this to AfD. The other "bluelink" is simply a dicdef that would be relevant if this were a true disambiguation page. B.Wind (talk) 23:59, 7 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. per WP:SNOW JForget 22:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly King

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

Self-bio for a wanna-be actress-producer-celebrity that has worked as an extra and in "feature films" that are actually independent garage productions. She met her husband on Starbuks and the got married in Cambria. Damiens.rf 19:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources indicating she meets the general notability guidelines. No indication of any significant role in a notable production, none of the criteria of WP:BIO met, puff-piece about a non-notable actress. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as not yet meeting inclusion criteria of WP:BIO... though the term 'wannabee' is a bit harsh. Allow back when guideline can be met. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Clubmarx (talk) 02:55, 7 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 article is entirely unsourced, hence unverifiable, and per WP:V all challenged unverifiable content is to be removed. The "keep" opinions do not address the failure of the article to meet that core policy. Sandstein 06:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language fragment

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

Page appears to be original research. It suggests that 'Language fragment' is a term of art in linguistics or some other field of language study, yet there is no evidence that this is so. Although a number of scholarly papers containing the phrase were located at Google Scholar, these appear to use the phrase in a general sense with a variety of ordinary-language meanings, not as a specialized term. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics#Language fragment. Cnilep (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence of this term having this specific meaning, which may be getting confused with sentence fragments. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a stub, it will be fleshed out, it's not doing anything malicious. The original wording was "A fragment of a language is a subset...", so the stub was making no 'term of art' claim. The example is a bit strange, but the page needs more work, not deletion. M 21:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if 'term of art' is (perhaps ironically?) an unfamiliar term of art. It just means a term used with a specific meaning in some field, as opposed to a word or phrase with ordinary, non-specialized meaning. If language fragment had a specialized meaning in linguistics, it would be worthy of inclusion here. Cnilep (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The phrase is in fact attested in scholarly literature, but as noted in a variety of contexts that may just mark the variety of plain-English notions that "language fragment" calls forth. It apparently appears most frequently in works related to "cognitive science" and similar forms of cyber-scholasticism and metaphysical engineering, which again makes me wonder whether there is enough substance in any of these uses to make a well formed article in English. If this is kept, I've added a sentence to link to one of the alternative senses noted in the discussion. For the time being, it might best be turned into a disambiguation page aiming at sentence element and attested language, maybe others. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't honestly say delete just because it's a poorly written article that makes no effort to inform anybody about the subject, or that it has no citation to sources that might be able to explain the concept without a lot of buzzwords and jargon, since those are problems that can be fixed. But I have no desire to say "keep" on this piece of crap of an article. Mandsford (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just a stub that needs expansion. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But expand to what, exactly? I am a linguist, but I'm not aware of any specialized usage of the term "language fragment". That doesn't mean none exists, certainly, but if it does, I'm not aware of what that usage is. More importantly, I can't find one in the references I've consulted. Cnilep (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal's Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics, an excellent source for linguistics terminology, does not include "language fragment" or even "fragment"; ditto SIL International's Glossary of Linguistic Terms. And this glossary, which I found using Google, includes "sentence fragment" but no other use of "fragment". If, as I suspect, "language fragment" has only the ordinary language sense of "a fragment of language", then an encyclopedia article on the term would be no more useful than one for any other two-word phrase from Chevy Truck to Blue paint. Cnilep (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it's clear what blue paint is, it is unclear what a fragment of language might be, and this provides an explanation that can do no harm. While it may not be a general linguistics term, it may be used within some perfectly notable subgroup that the few editors here are not aware of. I've found such stub pages very useful when looking up strange terms with ambiguous meanings, and I've often been annoyed to see that the topic I was looking up has been deleted. It's a stub, not all of our stubs have citations. And we have plenty of articles that are not named according to general glossaries. M 21:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you appear to be asking for a definition of the term, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so definitions are left to your sister project Wiktionary which is a dictionary.
Secondly, it appears there is no standard definition of what a "language fragment" is, and that it can be used to mean anything that the combination of "language" and "fragment" can mean. In Wiktionary jargon this is described as "sum of parts" i.e. it means nothing different to what the sum of its parts means, and thus wouldn't be accepted as an entry there any more than "blue paint" would be. If there were a specialised (or even specific) meaning, then Wikipedia could (but not necessarily should) have an article on that subject, however as such a meaning does not exist then there is nothing to write an article about.
Thirdly, your final couple of sentences appear to be that other stuff exists, which as the linked page explains is not a valid reason to keep (or delete) anything. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems like a synonym of Sublanguage.--RDBury (talk) 03:19, 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 keep. per WP:SNOW JForget 22:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Kennedy

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

I don't believe this article meets WP:GNG in that it does not demonstrate that the individual has received substantial coverage independent of that which is given to his family name. The description in the opening line would indicate he is known for being born in Washington and being "the fourth of eleven children of Robert F. Kennedy and Ethel Skakel Kennedy". The article goes on to describe his childhood, the scars of seeing his father killed, how he began to abuse drugs, attended university, wanted to be a journalist, went to discos with "attractive women", minor crimes such as speeding. Even if all this were true (it is difficult for me to determine if all the details are as it is largely unsourced), I do not think this marks this individual out as notable in their own right. We then find out he has died and thus this may provide some hope of notability. Alas, he died of an overdose after several days of partying. He is then buried. And that is that. Clearly this was a fun-loving individual but nothing he did in his life or even death is particularly unusual. The death evidently received some news coverage as the one online source provided would indicate but WP:NOTNEWS should apply there as any death such as this may or may not receive media coverage of some sort. Some offline references are provided but the titles of these suggest a focus on the family name rather than this individual, indeed the third title describes a different individual altogether. By the end of the article, one is left with the impression of this being both an interesting character but also some sort of WP:MEMORIAL. I did do a quick Google search but it seemed to throw up other individuals with the same surname, but again focusing on the family rather than the individual and nothing that indicated any possible individual notability. can dle •wicke 19:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Someone doesn't actually have to "do" anything to be a notable person - the very fact that his life was something known pretty widely by the public is reason enough. If not only for his relation, he is notable enough for people to want to know more about him, which, after all, is the point of Wikipedia. Experimental Hobo Infiltration Droid (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but I disagree with some of that. For example, the children of Michael Jackson have not "done" anything, their lives are public and there are people who want to know more about them and have even attempted to create articles on their individual lives. I don't think it can be said that the point of Wikipedia is to provide information on everything in separate articles when there are other options, a list may do in some circumstances or no article at all may be more appropriate in other circumstances. --can dle •wicke 20:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the nom in that he is only notable for being a member of the Kennedy family. Although notability is not inherited, the interest in this family (America's equivalent of a royal family) is to such a degree that I think an exception could be made in this case. I don't think anyone will [successfully] use this Afd as a precedent to start an article on Martin Fiennes Location (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might they not? These are held as the equivalent of an American royal family it would seem, judging by the above comment and some of the reactions I have witnessed elsewhere in previous days. Yet where is the limit to this family, i.e. if one gives birth to a baby, will there be an article on it like, for example, Prince Henrik of Denmark. And if we make an exception for an unofficial American royal family, is it possible that a similar situation in another country (which possesses a comparatively popular family) will be permitted or does one exist? I am curious about this and about where it begins and ends. I have also seen a baby article in this family who died after two days of life so I am wondering about that too. --can dle •wicke 20:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited my comment to include the word "successfully". I do indeed think there is a different level of interest (or general notability) in a Kennedy or a Danish prince versus an umpteenth generation Fiennes. If there is an article created about a member of some other family in some other country where that person's notability is in question, I imagine it will make its way here for us to discuss. Regarding the limit you speak of, I think that is ultimately decided by the public's interest in a subject but you can almost see where it is in List of descendants of Joseph P. and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy by looking at who has articles and who doesn't. Location (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although it is not clear cut, I would call this a keep. Kennedy is in my opinion notable enough. As an above editor noted, you don't necessarily have to accomplish or "do" anything to become notable. Not only connected to the Kennedy family, but also a prime example and extension of the Kennedy Curse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.130.249 (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The suggestion that this page warrants deletion says more about the shortcomings of the criteria used to draw that conclusion than it does about the subject of he article. The fact that this person did not live to accomplish more is itself notable, when his situation is viewed on the context of a family that had already suffered extraordinary tragedies. Watch the number of hits this page has received in recent days, and compare it to other pages not considered for deletion. While that standard may not be a test for notability, in itself, it is a reflection that his tragic and short life, as a member of the Kennedy family, is for that reason alone notable. Wikijsmak (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject spent much of his life in the public eye. Unfortunately, unlike some of his siblings, he didn't have much in his life that could be considered accomplishments. Yet, nevertheless, he was repeatedly mentioned in the news. Even when he was hospitalized with pneumonia, that went out on the Associated Press wire. Basically, if someone is repeatedly the focus of news stories during their lifetime in regard to separate incidents, that suggests that they are notable even if the main reason the media are reporting on the person is who their relatives are. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, David Kennedy's death would not attracted nationwide attention if it hadn't been for his name; but regardless of whether he deserved to receive significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, he did receive such coverage when he died in 1984. Mandsford (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - de facto royalty, well-attested, lots of reliable sources could be added. This rescuable. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
snowball keep - has recieved more than trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources for more than one event. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic Keep. It's a no brainer. No need to overthink it. The subject has been the subject of many, many news articles, many. This equates to "non-trivial" coverage. The sources are reliable. It's a no-brainer. Artemis84 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep per above reasoning. --Milowent (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- no valid justification for deletion offered. Geo Swan (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No matter why he is well known, he is well known. Famous = Notable. Dream Focus 14:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep as per above. The Squicks (talk) 02:41, 7 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 21:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Cannon

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

Believe it fails WP:BIO. Search for his company "GUNPAL' on Google [1] shows only the linked PR release. AlanI ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GUNPAL is in private beta. Wiki entry coming upon release. https://www.gunpal.net/ http://tarr.uspto.gov/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77784325&action=Request+Status See also new content added to the, still under construction. Artherd (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artherd, are you Benjamin Cannon? AlanI ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No but I work for him.Artherd (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
shrug* go for it, I'll just resubmit it for Ben after the product launches. His CGF and OLL contributions alone fit WP:BIO in my opinion Artherd (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It lacks reliable sources at this time. A deletion and re-submission when notability can be established sounds agreeable to all. --Stormbay (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability presented. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:13, 8 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. JForget 21:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glendale Academy (Hyderabad, India)

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

Non notable academy. Page does nothing but state it exists and who runs it. Prod removed so moved to AFD. noq (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Normally I'd say per WP:AFDP, but in this case there are significant articles about the school in The Hindu. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Flawed nomination; the lack of content is because no-one has added it not because it can't be added but that is the way with stubs. Much can be said about the unusual Learning Resource Centre for starters. In addition to a range of sources in English more may be found by searching in Hindi. TerriersFan (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not many high schools/academies are so written about in a national paper, even in regional editions. Priyanath ^talk 04:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per references added by User:SpacemanSpiff. Abecedare (talk) 01:28, 5 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virilla Marketing

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g7, see below. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virilla Marketing

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

Nonnotable neologism, prod removed by author without improving article. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you suggest I improve a sourced definition? --Vcardillo (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a neologism invented by one person. Are there sources showing that anyone other than the coiner of the term uses it? NawlinWiki (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no. I see your point. I guess it should be deleted then. --Vcardillo (talk) 17:50, 2 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) 02:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest BBC Children's Video Ever

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

Completing nomination for anon (whose A7 tag I declined as not applicable), reason given was: As an unregistered user, I am unable to create a Wikipedia page to nominate this article for deletion, but I really think that it should be deleted on account of the fact that its subject is a BBC children's compilation video which is long out of print. The image on the article has also been doctored by the person who originally created it, User:ThomasPercyFan, to include pictures from the Super Mario World cartoon (which was never shown on the BBC in the United Kingdom). As someone who used to have a copy of this video previously, I know for a fact that there was a picture from "William's Wish Wellingtons" in the top left (along with the old BBC logo) and a cartoon picture of "Hairy Jeremy" in the bottom left.

As this is a procedural nom, I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article AND the image file: File:Videoc.Jpeg. The video does not appear to meet WP:NF and the image is doctored. Good catch by the anon. Here is the image at Amazon: [2]. Location (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 22:22, 2 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Middle School Comprehensive Needs Assessment

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW, but almost certainly a G12 anyway. Black Kite 23:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Middle School Comprehensive Needs Assessment

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

Detailed report of a "comprehensive needs assessment" at a middle school in Michigan. This is not an encyclopedia article; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and is not a web host for original documents of this kind. PROD removed by an IP. JohnCD (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kraxler (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is some school report just pasted into wikipedia, not an article. If creator intends it to be some article discussing the document with citation to local papers, etc, things might be different, i guess they have a few days to try. --Milowent (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I originally added the prod. noq (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. In addition to all the reasons cited by nom: if the author of the report pasted it then its original research; if someone else pasted it then it's a copyright violation; the report is partly written in the first person so there is an aparrent conflict of interest. ~~Note that there is already an article about the school.~~ I42 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same school - that one's in West Virginia, this one (you find if you read down through the article) is in Belleville, Michigan. JohnCD (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I42 (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obviously not suitable. TerriersFan (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly does not belong in the encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all of above. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 22:08, 2 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 Johnny Rebel (singer). No primary sources found; redirecting to singer tedder (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Johnny Rebel Collection

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

Not WP:Notable. The article just consists of information from the album cover itself. The only secondary source is a music database with the same infomation. Three other sources are cited about side topics, but don't mention this album. I am also nominating two other albums by this person for the same reason. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for deletion:

I agree on a deletion of "The Complete Johnny Rebel Collection". It's just one bootleg compilation out of many others and not important as a own article on wikipedia. The source for information on the For Segregationists Only compilation: Broven, John (1983). South to Louisiana - The Music of the Cajun Bayous (3rd ed.). Pelican Publishing Company. ISBN 0-88289-608-3.
Rediretihw (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with this deletion, as long as the main article for Johnny Rebel (singer) remains intact. --Skb8721 (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- —Cybercobra (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- —Cybercobra (talk) 18:58, 12 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) 00:09, 19 August 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) 21:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet criteria for inclusion. L0b0t (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Johnny Rebel (singer) - WP:MUSIC. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:04, 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, — Jake Wartenberg 14:31, 2 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. Sourced coverage of the band has been proven, and there is no agreement as to whether or not said coverage is reliable or significant. Skomorokh 22:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The alice rose

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

Barely passes WP:CSD#A7. Non-notable MySpace/garage/local band from Austin, TX. Fails WP:MUSIC Was prod/prod2'd, but removed by author. Google only turns up local stuff and their MySpace profile. →javért ^breakaway 02:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only one reliable source. Notability is established by multiple reliable sources. Myspace bands are not notable. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. McMarcoP (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per this, this, and this. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: : Per this, this (some national-level press), and this. The Alice Rose is far more than a local Austin phenomenon, with national coverage from NPR and a song on a movie soundtrack - Toby Wilkins' indie film "Splinter" (NY Times film credits), Toby Wilkins' blog reference here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.225.242 (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC) — 216.210.225.242 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. A mention on the sountrack of a small indie film (spawning a listing in the NYT) doesn't cut it. Never charted. Not much in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: : I looked up the film Splinter and it was a Hollywood movie with a legitimate producer and companies behind it. I also searched for "The Alice Rose" on Google, and articles from USA Today, National Public Radio, and The Onion all have mention of the music group "The Alice Rose." Also on the Google search, there are 338 legitimate links to the same band as of Sept. 1, 3:22p.m. EST. I vote to keep this entry. Jeanniekiyoko (talk • contribs) 19:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC) (talk)— Jeanniekiyoko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: :Per NPR, Live Music Capitol Magazine, Amplifier Magazine, South By Southwest web site, St. Louis Riverfront Times, Relix Magazine, Splinter movie web site, USA Today, Absolute Powerpop site (talk) Luphf— Luphf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Not really seeing any significant coverage in national sources. The NPR blip is hardly significant coverage, and everything else that isn't local seems to be trivial. If any real evidence of notability were available, or the band passed WP:BAND would definately vote keep, but as it is, seems to fall on the delete side of things. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
added comment: the additions by two accounts with no other contributions voting to keep spurs me to put less weight on those keep votes. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are a fair number of reviews for one of the band's albums, but I'm wondering on which points they might possibly pass WP:BAND. I agree with Seeker 4 that the presence of the three single purpose accounts are making it more difficult for me to lean towards their recommendation. Location (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hope my comments and the views of other single purpose accounts are not somehow considered less important. I believe the band passes on the notability criterion via Criterion #1 -- "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." The band has garnered press on USA Today, National Public Radio, The Austin Chronicle, The Austin American Statesman, The San Antonio Express News, The Austin American Statesman, Austin Monthly, The Riverfront Times (out of St. Louis),Pop Culture Press and The Onion A.V. Club (Austin). These are all verifiable sources and do not fit the description of "trivial". Also, keep in mind that Austin is considered by many to be the "Live Music Capitol of the World" and is not an easy place to make a name as a band. This band has managed to develop what appears to be a strong local notoriety.Singleuser (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that the coverage of this band is significant. Looking at the two big name sources: The bit in NPR is a five sentence review of one song ([3]) and the mention in USA Today links back to a two sentence "Who's playing" blurb in austin360.com ([4]). Location (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say the coverage of this band is significant. I'm basing that on the metric of circulation for each publication in which the band has been mentioned. The San Antonio Express News has a circulation of 236,918 daily and 333,902 Sunday. The Austin American Statesman has a circulation of 173,527 daily and 215,984 Sunday. Relix Magazine has a circulation of 102,000. The Riverfront Times has a circulation of 85,308 weekly. The Austin Chronicle has a circulation of 89,834 weekly. Is there a metric for the number of sentences that make a review significant? Has a criterion been created for that? Maybe that should be considered. Singleuser (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)— Singleuser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. JForget 21:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brentyn Milverton

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

fails WP:ATHLETE , does not play for the top professional level in Australia which is AFL not Tasmanian Football League. If he wants to be notable under WP:BIO, he gets hardly any third party coverage [5]. LibStar (talk) 07:44, 19 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 00:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect/merge 4 google news hits Ikip (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to what? LibStar (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some coverage. Might be a one event kind of thing though? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per WP:ATHLETE, his coverage in the news falls under WP:BLP1E. McMarcoP (talk) 10:43, 26 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 14:11, 2 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. JForget 21:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Jan Khan

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

This is a procedural re-listing of this AfD discussion based on the outcome of a recent deletion review. It was determined that the original discussion was tainted by single purpose accounts and thus should be re-listed. The original justification for deletion was that it failed Wikipedia's notability criteria. As this is a procedural re-listing, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a short search found these two references [6] [7] which I have added to the article and which I think are enough for notability. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Was a bad faith nomination in the first place. The earlier user who nominated it got blocked for sockpuppetry. Is quite notable. -- MARWAT 01:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Head of a a major branch in the UN, and a police position in Pakistan that was notable also. There are good sources to show it. I accepgt the evidence that it was a bad faith nomination originally, along with a related one. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete None of the links provided by JohnCD indicates that he has remained President of INCB. even, if he remained, still it is not something notable. Tere are many desks at UN. The links, refered by JohnCD shows many Members of INCB, does all of them are having their articles at Wikipedia? It is just a bureaucratic job and nothing more than that. There is no reference whish shows he has ever remained on the post of an elected representative or somehting notable. AliUmer —Preceding undated comment added 11:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I am sorry to report but the above user AliUmer has just been blocked as a suspected reincarnation of LineofWisdom who himself was blocked for sockpuppetry while severely tainting the earlier AFD. -- MARWAT 16:10, 7 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. Skomorokh 13:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Woods

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

I have been following this article on and off for six months and have concluded that on the basis of the sources available, that this individual fails WP:BIO. The best sources are about him coming 5th in a local election and giving a speech at his university. Cameron Scott (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In defense of keeping it, he has been covered by national press, such as the Washington Post. Moreover, he has been on national TV. He has been on CNN and also Real Time (HBO). That would seem to give him some amount of national coverage that would justify keeping the article, even if it does need to be improved. Casprings (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I actually knew who this guy was, and google reinforces why. Tons of hits. Article does need improvement. I just rewrote the intro, & will try to fix some more before AfD is over. His story is not about him finishing 5th in some ol' election, its about him being a highly touted black West Point graduate who got tossed out of the U.S. Army for being gay, and THEN ran for congress, in an "historic" [8] campaign. Maybe not as "historic" as the advocate suggests, but enough to have an article here. --Milowent (talk) 17:26, 2 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 21:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Marsh (designer)

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

Completely unsourced, offers no explanation as to the notability of the subject. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced biography, only claim of notability is a vague reference to a handful of trade awards no one outside the field is likely to have heard of. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Kraxler (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Kraxler says Not notable. There appears to be no sources that point towards importance. --Stormbay (talk) 22:56, 6 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 21:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ades Project

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

Contested prod. Project that lacks third-party references. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability, no references. not seeing how this is notable RadioFan (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:40, 3 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. SPAs/suspected socks were of couse discounted for the most part. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Gleich

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

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

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

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

completely non-notable; references fail WP:NOT#NEWS, person falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Ironholds (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page up. Jonathan is a noteworthy person of interest and it would be a shame to delete this information on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.37.105 (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tracked Jonathan's weight loss progress, and I think he is a amazing individual 216.139.159.106 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.139.159.106 (talk) [reply]
— 216.139.159.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Jonathan is a notable figure in Segway rights campaigns, making him worthy of this page. the information should not be destroyed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navevan (talk • contribs)
— Navevan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I agree, Jonathan is a noteworthy person and it is important to keep this as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.139.130.194 (talk)
The preceding comment was moved from the talk page by Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 216.139.130.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Commment a copy of this article appears to exist in userspace at User:Lscappel/Jonathan Gleich. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and WP:BLP1E. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gleich has made multiple accomplishments in his life. Apparently, the editors don't know what a BBS is, or how significant it was as the precursor to Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking systems. Most people find it is a struggle to lose 20 pounds. Mr. Gleich has lost over 200 pounds. Each of his entries into the Mermaid Parade has won an award. Mr. Gleich is continuing to add to the dynamic culture of New York City. It would be short-sighted to remove his entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.144.80 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good for him on the significant weight loss. But I do not see that he satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a few comments ago, what about the facts of his contributions on BBS systems, as well as his avocation of the Segway in NYC, and the amazing entry in the mermaid parade? To quote Lloyd Benson, "he's no Jack Kennedy" but he has done some major things! 216.139.159.106 (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely non-notable, no reliable sources about the individual. Skinny87 (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not understand 'skinny87's comments of non notable, and no reliable sources.

I see newspaper articles, and pictures, and references to Hospitals and Doctors,WP:MANYLINKS What other way is a person known then by that? I Googled (is that a proper term) Mr. Gleich, and found some 15 pages of information on him, I do admit there was some similarity in it, he lost a dramatic amount of weight, he became a segway advocate he has created a amazing costume (http://www.segnyc.com) there is no reference to that BTW. What is Wikipedia, if not a living breathing database of all things interesting? And Mr. Gleich is, if nothing else Interesting. 24.185.128.244 (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to this in what I hope is sufficient detail, although I'm by no means the be-all end-all expert in AfD discussions. Though Mister Gleich's weightloss is indeed admirable, he does not meet en.wikipedia's Notability standards, which are quite rigorous, particularly in terms of what we call Biographies of Living Persons, and is therefore not significant enough. Looking at the sources that mention Mister Gleich, they are either passing mentions or do not meet en.wikipedia's Reliable Sources standards. I hope this helps you understand why this article was nominatred for AfD, and may well be deleted. Skinny87 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts - This is my last comment on this, I went through the Notability standards, and as I read it; A person needs to have done something notable, Jonathan, has lost a dramatic around of weight, A person needs to have done something notable, Jonathan is one of the pioneers of Bulletin Board systems (precursor of the internet)in NYC, A person needs to have done something notable, Jonathan has created something that is getting attention (his Zoltar costume).
#2 Information must be from "reliable sources" I would ASSUME the NY Daily News would be reliable, WP:HASREFS

Also I see the span of articles are over the course of years, not days.WP:MULT That shows me consistency, that this is not a one time event (no 15 minutes here). He continues to do New (and in MY OPINION) interesting things. I say he qualifies for Wikipedia, according to there own guidelines. And as I stated before, There are much greater people out there, but I see much lesser people with there own Wikipedia entries... 216.139.159.106 (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, and feel free to nominate for deletion any article that you feel does not belong on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding comment was moved from the talk page by 24.185.128.244 (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I totally agree. I think Jonathan is a local celebrity in NYC. I don't like that Wiki rates people on how "famous" or "important" WIKI thinks people are. I think it would be important, for anyone wanting to get lapband surgery, to see his progress. Pookerella (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 2, 2009: RLG: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.251.179.96 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Jonathan has inspired me to lose over 80 pounds. It has completely changed my life for the better. RLG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.251.179.96 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan has inspired many people through his weight loss and as a segway activist, not to mention all the other interesting activities he seems to be involved in. This page should be kept up. ~ R.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainskynw1 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Rainskynw1 (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. per WP:SNOW JForget 22:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Drăghici

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

Non notable referee for the Football Association of Ireland, given the detail its a possible vanity/autobiographical effort. Fails WP:Athlete. Snappy (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although WP:ATHLETE doesn't really cover refs per se, I'd still say that a ref needs to have worked at the fully pro level to have any chance of being notable. This guy only refs at a very small-time local level, like gazillions of other people all over the world, and doesn't seem to have any claim to notability, so delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a small-time referee, not notable enough for an article. Giant Snowman 14:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable referee Spiderone 15:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor referee who officiates in a smaller lower league in Ireland. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 18:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, man. No notability, no coverage, probable resumé... Dahn (talk) 16:50, 6 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) 02:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Travel

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

Magazine with unclear notability. Author is the publisher of the magazine. It would be good to determine if it has notability before the author wastes time navigating COI issues. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 12:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline speedyable. No real assertions of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ohnoitsjamie. I don't see how it can be improved or verified. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 3 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. JForget 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kesha (singer)

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

Does not meet notability requirements, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Only sources are a press-release and blog / primary sourced; no reliable sources to assert notability, and I could not find any. Album details appear to fail WP:CRYSTAL Chzz ► 11:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Kesha has been in The Hills, featured on a worldwide smash single, Right Round, signed to RCA she is releasing an album, TiK ToK the single is being promoted. Other album appearances, she wrote a Veronicas hit single.Raintheone (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not sure how she doesn't pass notability... among what the above editor wrote, she is also included in the Lollapalozza lineup... Also, 5 references, none of which are a blog, only one is a press release, 3 of which are Billboard.com (a fairly reliable source IMHO), and a quick google search found me an interview with Esquire magazine. As far as album details go, the track listing has been removed (belongs on album article, not artist article), and that is the only part that seemed to fail WP:CRYSTAL... Adolphus79 (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concur that there's a ton of reliable sources that establish notability here. Gigs (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where? Chzz ► 02:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the below comments. To wit: [9] [10] [11] [12]... probably more.

Comment - When you have looked for your sources you have spelt it 'Kesha (singer)' it's actually 'Ke$ha' you need to be typing into the search engine.Raintheone (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or even "Kesha Sebert", her real name... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although I am barely involved with the article itself, I plan to work on it in the near future as this artist is new and upcoming. Ke$ha has had some relevant third party coverage and with the release of her debut single shortly, I highly predict a greater range of reliable sources will come along that can be put in use to the article. • вяαdcяo chat 12:07, 4 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. No consensus to outright delete, but most agree that the article and especially the title need work (an ideology cannot "collapse", there's overlap with other articles and so forth). If no solution is found through renaming or merging, a renomination may be warranted. Sandstein 06:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse of Socialism

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

content fork of Revolutions of 1989 WuhWuzDat 11:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a much wider range of events. Revolutions of 1989 refers to the Eastern Bloc and depending on the definition may not include Albania, Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union. This article covers many more countries and events that were not revolutions.--Damczyk (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The term is extremely widely used] in reference to quite important events. - Altenmann >t 15:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Revolutions of 1989. Well actually come to think of it. This article has some info about nations outside of Europe...--Coldplay Expert (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have problems with the title (ideologies don't collapse, only their adherents) and would greatly prefer a new one. It is not unreasonable for us to have two articles in this situation. The first, Revolutions of 1989, would cover the specific set of Eastern European revolutions that took place through 1989. The second, Collapse of Socialism (or whatever new title we may or may not choose for that article after this deletion debate), would detail the worldwide contraction of socialist governments and political parties that accompanied the fall of the Soviet Union and the conclusion of the Cold War. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep with name change to Collapse of socialism on the basis that the topic has the potential to be a good article. The Origins of socialism is currently a topic discussed within History of socialism, so I tend to think that Collapse of socialism should be discussed there prior to forking or creating the article elsewhere. This article currently outlines a list of countries in which socialism has failed but it doesn't really tell me why it failed across the globe within a relatively short period of time. Location (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I will change me vote to Keep. I can see how this article has potential.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Revolution on 1989 is immensely the better article. If there were to be an article on collapse of soviet communism (which is what collapsed) the current one would not be much of a start. To list Tiananmen Square as an example of the collapse rather than the reinforcement of such regimes is as much as a POV as confusing socialism with nazism by selective quotation. It might conceivably be of some value as a list of topics that might need covering, hence the weak delete rather than delete. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment the article has to be renamed, as its too vague. hadnt other socialist govts collapsed at other times? arent there democratic socialist govts still extant? what is definition of socialism? probably better named "list of collapsed socialist govts connected with the Soviet Union". no opinion at this time on content. i imagine the info is found elsewhere.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments by Damczyk, Hemlock Martinis and others. That was really a collapse of the world socialism system ("revolutions" sounds more POVish to me). No, that was not only Soviet socialism what had collapsed. Not sure where Tiananmen Square belongs, but this is not a reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as personal essay and WP:SYNTH. Beyond the vague title and ambition of becoming an umbrella term for events that may or not be related at all, this article's useful content is already covered by Revolutions of 1989 (and should remain so). What remains is either a misnomer (some kind of socialism survives unabashed in plenty of countries, in most cases without ever having been dragged into the Eastern bloc thing, and even communism has a nominal presence in some countries) or a synthesis of material already covered to death by Post-communism, Lustration, Decommunization and about a billion other articles. And, incidentally, it matters naught that "the name is widely used", if the name is intended as a synonym for something we already cover - the idea behind wikipedia is not to have every conceivable word or phrase lead to a separate article, but to structure information into a coherent and intelligent whole. Dahn (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but restructure as Collapse of Socialism outside Europe (or "Communism" or "Marxist governments" or "Marxist-Leninist governements"). The European material is merely a link farm to Revolutions of 1989 and the countries referred to and should be deleted and replaced by a single "See also" link. Alternatively, it could be kept as it is with the addition of some brief text on the events of 1989, with the (existing) main template to link it to the 1989 article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or major rename/rewrite) with Revolutions of 1989. And socialism is doing pretty well in many parts of the world; it was the Soviet communism variant that collapsed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be kept to allow discussion of merging. This article has good content not present in Revolutions of 1989. I agree that "socialism" sounds a little bit misleading. This article should be renamed to something like Collapse of Communism, although it did not collapse completely and remains in Cuba, North Korea and China.Biophys (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, Delete, or Rename. "Collapse of Socialism" is a misleading title. Would support merging with Revolutions of 1989 or renaming to "Collapse of Communism". Kaldari (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Delete or Rename: in the event of a merger, some rescoping and potentially renaming of Revolutions of 1989 may be sensible but most of this article would be removed - undeniably there was a large change to the world order, although "Collapse of Socialism" is clearly an atrocious title. Further, the article content is clearly inferior to the Revolutions of 1989 article (so in the event of a merge, it is the material of the latter that should predominate). Having said that, the title "Revolutions of 1989" seems rather limiting. There clearly could and probably should be an article on the wider changes that happened, not just restricted to the events of 1989 (though admittedly that article does contain information about the run-up and consequences of the 1989 revolutions too). Another issue with the 1989 revolutions article is that its geographic scope is more restricted, while the change in "world order" around that time has been analyzed more holistically (it's certainly not original synthesis to look at a bigger picture involving Eastern Europe, Ethiopia and changes in the character of Communist Party rule in East Asia). One solution might be to find a better title for this wider topic, and retitle and slightly rescope Revolutions of 1989. TheGrappler (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously socialism didn't collapse, just look at Obamacare!!!! Seriously though, the page adds nothing to Revolutions of 1989 or the other umpteen articles on this topic. Fences&Windows 20:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I already moved most of the content to Revolutions of 1989.--Damczyk (talk) 21:08, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ke$ha. JForget 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing Ke$ha

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

User:Chzz posted a PROD, and that PROD was contested. He asked on IRC if we could bring it here. Chzz's reason for the PROD was "Song lacks independent notability, per WP:NSONG." GrooveDog (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - This is undoubtedly a bad article, however with some sourcing and wikifying I believe it could be cleaned up. GrooveDog (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single source for the entire article. Not one statement has been verified with a reliable source, or indeed any source at all. A future album with no refs and no assertion of notability. --M^ask? 11:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an editor who endorsed Chzz's PROD. MacMed^talk _stalk 14:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Album by notable artist (artist notability is contested, however, I believe it's established). Strip it down to verifiable information though. Gigs (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sources confirming the track listing. No notability as far as I can see. If we stripped it down to verifiable information, there would be nothing left. No prejudice against recreating when it gains notability and verifiability. talking birds 22:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - fails WP:CRYSTAL at the moment, with no references provided... redirect to artist's article until a later date when album has been released and is notable... - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Classic case for WP:CRYSTAL. If in the future the album gets significant RS coverage per WP:NSONG, then it can be recreated. LK (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per me Chzz ► 03:57, 4 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 as there is consensus here that the topic passes the notability threshold, and the argument that we ought to tear pages out of the encyclopaedia on the whim of the subject is in this case unconvincing. Skomorokh 13:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Hall-Smith

AfDs for this article:

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

On the day the previous nomination was closed as "withdrawn by nominator", title subject requested deletion at info-en-q@wikipedia.org (copy in my mailbox). The case, in my opinion, fits the "relatively unknown, non-public figure, where the subject has requested deletion AND there is no rough consensus" clause of deletion policy (last AFD was closed at 1 del, 2 keep, 1 undecided leaning to delete) - the article should be deleted, AFDs blanked. NVO (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nominator). NVO (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The subject's wish is not to be ignored lightly but someone with such broad coverage in multiple reliable sources and even an articles in The Times is not someone who can be described as a "non-public" figure. Non-public figures don't go around in public or give interviews, do they? Regards So Why 10:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per SoWhy. I must say this new policy of subject's wish to be accounted in AfD debates makes me cry. Regardless, sources indicate she's a public figure and unless the mere existence of the article is firmly proved to be harmful to the subject, there's no ground to delete it. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicted keep as my sympathies tend to lie with a semi-notable person who is understandably reluctant to risk having a lightly-watched article vandalized, and Googled across the net. Still, SoWhy is correct, she comfortably meets our inclusion guidelines, and the sources actually provide enough information for a viable article. I hope the other people who opine "keep" will join me in adding this article to their watchlists, and try to patrol it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, added to watchlist. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep surely the MBE meets The person has received a notable award or honor. Lame Name (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in a change from my !vote at the earlier AfD. I feel that the subject's wishes are important and should prevail in this case. I feel that article subjects should generally have their requests for deletion honoured unless they are so notable that they would have an article in a paper encyclopaedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there are policies saying that the admin closing the AfD can take into account the subject's will. However I point that no public subject could reasonably stop a magazine, say, doing a biographic article based on public, verifiable, non-harmful and non-libelous sources. I don't see why instead they can do that on Wikipedia (where, by the way, the subjects can have far more control on what's written and what not about them). The subject's will should be of interest if and only if there are reasonable concerns that the mere existence of the article is somehow harmful. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable as she is an MBE. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. The subject has been the subject of stories in reliable sources, to be sure; but the Times story is what we'd call a "lifestyle feature" story here, not about a specific achievement, and it dates to 2004. I don't mean to belittle the MBE either, but our article observes that the Order is the most junior of the British orders of chivalry, and the largest, with over 100,000 living members worldwide. Being conferred its most junior rank may not confer automatic notability, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MBE alone is not notability; the Times alone neither, neither is her leading a world-renowned institute. All of these together however make a strong case for notability. --Cyclopia (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual references probably would support a case for notability, but they are weak. You have:

an article about the Institute, in Italian;
the lifestyle story;
a self-published article about her college band;
a listing in a notice of Law Society members who've changed positions;
another article about the Institute, in English;
a reference as an authority about advertising law;
an article she published about advertising law; and
her entry in MBE awards list.

Technically, she's the primary subject of only one of these articles. I think that while she is notable, that notability is weak, and the living person policy, though an exception to general rules that should be strictly construed, applies in this case. If she doesn't want a Wikipedia article, she's no more of a well known public figure than any other academic, not really notable enough to oust its application. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind that WP:BLP makes no direct mention of this, and that what you suggest has been rejected. Current guideline states that The degree of weight given to such a request is left to the admin's discretion., so we are in the admins' hands. Since you agree that there is notability, I would say that, for an honest AfD discussion, it should be disclosed at least why the subject requested deletion, so that the community (and the intervening admin) can ponder how meaningful is the request. The deletion proposer went as far as asking for courtesy blanking of AfDs, which makes me wonder what's going on. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't wonder what's going on. Please assume the nominator is politely requesting that the subject's wishes be respected and her material removed from Wikipedia.

My position is that the reason for the subject's request is not germane and need not be considered. All we need to decide is whether courtesy obliges us to comply, and my position is that it does. I think we need much stronger reasons to retain an article that's making its subject unhappy than have been presented here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming good faith on the nominator, but I wonder why the subject wants the article removed, to the point of blanking discussion. To know that would help us discuss the matter. That's why I ask for at least some disclosure. That said, even if I'm sure the nomination is in good faith, I find it difficult to trust nominations and decisions based on concealed information. That said, why should we not retain an article even if the subject is unhappy? One thing is not doing harm, another is bending over to any arbitrary request to delete information on oneself the site. The article is not (apparently) doing any harm, it is referenced, it has not the slightest trace of libel potential whatsoever. It just reports factual information available elsewhere. To accept it to be deleted only by the subject request makes no sense. No free book, journal or website would accept such a request: why should we? But of course I am willing to change my mind if the request contains grounds for which the existence of the article is harmful, that's why I ask a disclosure. --Cyclopia (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable, so we have no basis for removing the article. The (in my opinion disastrously anti-NPOV) policy of paying respect to the subjects wishes only applies in borderline cases, and Director of the British Institute of Florence and a public career reported in reliable sources is not borderline. We're an encyclopedia, not a place where the subjects choose whether or not they want to be written about based on mere preference. In some previous similar cases the reason seems to have been a sense of anger at the previous AfD, "someone there dares to suggest I may not be notable--rather than be subject to your discussion, remove all mention of me" . A firm policy that we never do this would be the best way of replying, and would advance our reputation for objectivity. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of notability. It's a matter of being relatively unknown. Everyone has their own threshold, whether it's relative to Angela Merkel or Joan Airoldi. NVO (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is this: Is WP:NPF a reason for deletion? The policy clearly states that such articles about notable subjects can exist and rather only specifies that more caution is to be used when dealing with those articles. There is nothing in WP:NPF that says that this is a reason for deletion, is there? Regards So Why 08:22, 3 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. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election

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

3 people that received at most 120 votes in the Canadian federal elections. We already have Canadian federal election, 2006. No reason to have separate lists. Magioladitis (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Canadian federal election, 2006 Francium12 13:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Canadian federal election, 2006 - this doesn't have enough content to be in its own article. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My suggestion to merge is based purely on the size of the article. If anyone expands it to the point where merging would bloat the parent article (see below), then consider my !vote a "keep". --Explodicle (T/C) 15:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There were 21 Communist candidates running in that election, so there is considerable potential for expansion. Moreover, this information clearly has no place in the main article; if lists of candidates from the various parties were included, it would become extremely bloated. Steve Smith (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is a series of articles where candidates who are not notable enough for an article of their own are merged. There are similar articles for all the major political parties and for the other recent elections. Communist Party of Canada#See also. It is true that the article is rather lacking in content, quality, and sourcing but the paltry facts given are easily verifiable and I don't think deletion is necessary. I would agree that the content does not belong in the main federal election article. At the very worst I think merging to a new main Communist Party of Canada candidates article would be better than deletion but I see nothing wrong with leaving this article as is and hopeful to improve. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to the sort of merger suggested by DoubleBlue. Steve Smith (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objections here either. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the exactly the reason to keep? To have a short bio for every possible candidate? Is anyone of them notable enough? Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastasis Michael. This person receive in Cyprus (a much smaller country) more votes than the people in the article here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my keep reason is that I believe a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR list with reliable sources is quite possible. Length and importance are not content criteria. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per an established precedent. There have been several afds on these list pages, and the consensus view for some time has been to keep them (although I wouldn't object in principle to Double Blue's suggestion). By the way, I should clarify that the list isn't complete yet. CJCurrie (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's the plan? For every country, for every party, To have a list of its candidates for every election? Can someone explain it to me? Maybe, it's obvious and it's only me not getting it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's normal for there to be significant coverage about candidates in a federal election but only because they are candidates in a federal election. It is not reasonable to have an article about a person who is only notable for running for election but it is reasonable to have a list of candidates who ran for election. It can be of interest to readers to read such a list and research and compare candidates. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeto Canadian federal election, 2006 not important enough to have its own article.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Minor parties as well as major ones are important enough to include here. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the same opinion for the Indian parties? In India they are hundreds of parties and thousands of candidates. We could reorganise the info but this way to present it doesn't make sense to me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question with one of my own: if someone wanted to create informative and properly-sourced list pages for Indian candidates, why would this be a problem? CJCurrie (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, there are precedents in support of keeping these list pages. This discussion from 2006 strikes me as relevant. CJCurrie (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think DoubleBlue is on the right track, there is no proper ___location for the content in Canadian federal election, 2006 since all the major parties have articles such as this. Maybe merging into a new article called Minor party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election (I'm open to a better name) would be better, that way it could encompass all non-major parties.--kelapstick (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My thought was that the Communist Party of Canada candidates article could link to the different sub election articles, store those that did not have sub articles yet, list perennial candidates, and perhaps even (given sources) discuss how people become Communist candidates. Going in your direction would work as well but, again, I might make it more general and call it 2006 Canadian federal election candidates and link to all the sub-articles. Still, I don't see much problem with keeping this article where it is and letting it grow. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like your 2006 Canadian federal election candidates idea as a name better. My first thought about the merge/non-merge of all non-major party candidates was that it might get to be too large to be a single manageable list. However the sum of all of the non-major party candidates is under 240, which is less than all the candidates for a single major party (308). This was not including independents, with independents it is 327, either way I think it would be a manageable list. By keeping all non-major parties togeather it allows for the inclusion of parties that only ran a few (or one as did the Animal Alliance) candidate, which might not be suitable for a stand alone list (a list of one). Just a thought. --kelapstick (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DoubleBlue, CJCurrie and others. Bucketsofg 00:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DoubleBlue but no objection to a merge to an article on Communist Party of Canada candidates if content is not lost. Davewild (talk) 09:47, 8 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) 02:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burn Survivors Throughout the World

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

fails WP:ORG, hardly any third party coverage [13], google search mainly lists directory listings. LibStar (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is advertising of a non-notable organization. Kraxler (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article is a regurgitation of their press release information. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 4 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) 03:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Daniels

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

Being murdered does not make you notable and as this murder took place only a week ago this is currenly simply a news story. There should be no article until and if it is established that it is not just of temporary interest, and then a more appropriate way of handling this would be in coverage of this particular crime or crimes of this type - the subject herself is unlikely to attain independent notability. I42 (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom. at the moment, it falls under WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. If this case's echo carries on for some time, only then an article should be created. McMarcoP (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. In fact the article was first created as "The Murder of Carol Daniels", which avoids WP:BIO1E, and then moved (wrongly, in my view) to "Carol Daniels"; but it fails WP:NOT#NEWS either way. JohnCD (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just advertising the reward, I suppose.... Kraxler (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stay It looks like every single major news outlet in the country is carrying her story her son has even beem on CNN. http://news.google.com/news/search?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Carol+Daniels%22&cf=all&scoring=n --Okmur (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC) — Okmur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment- see Wikipedia:News articles: Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact.... A violent crime, sensationalized event or accidental death may be notable enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage in the news, but not be of encyclopedic importance... Articles should not be about events that have strictly passing significance and interest... For those who wish to write about current events, including those which may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia, our sister project, Wikinews is specifically intended to cover current events. JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikinews. Joe407 (talk) 07:10, 3 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire Loewenfeld

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

Claire Loewenfeld

The result was keep as withdrawn by nominator.

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

This article is well written and researched—it is neither a vanity article nor a promotional one. While it is original research / synthesis, I am not nominating it for deletion on that basis. Rather, despite the verifiability of the assertions in the article, there is simply no basis asserting the notability of the subject.

The references provided are:

Paul Tillich, His Life & Thought: Mention of personal friend in diary of a friend. Not independent, not significant coverage, not reliable source of purposes of establishing notability.
Vitamin C from Rose-hips in BMJ: letter to editor
Fruit Dishes And Raw Vegetables: Personal acknowledgement in Preface to book.
The House in the Sun: No information on depth of coverage or nature of source.
Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society. No suggestion of significant coverage.
In brief in BMJ: One paragraph blurb on posthumously published book
Paul Tillich Travel Diary: Mention of personal friend in diary. Not independent, not significant coverage, not reliable source of purposes of establishing notability.
Telephone directory entry: Not significant coverage for purposes of establishing notability.
The British Library general catalogue of printed books. Coverage would not establish notability.
New scientist. No suggestion of significant coverage.
Rural life in eighteenth-century English poetry. Less than passing mention.
New Diet for Coeliac Disease: Two passing references (one literally a footnote).
Vitamins in Rose Hips": No suggestion of significant coverage.
The spectator. No suggestion of significant coverage.
Notes on Books in BMJ: One paragraph blurb on leaflet by Loewenfeld.

None of her numerous books appears to have been widely cited, widely reviewed, or reviewed in depth.

The main test for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There is no evidence for that (either in the article or through my own searches). Domain-specific guidelines provide other criteria for notability not based on significant coverage, but instead of verifiable facts. For example, receiving a prestigious academic award gives rise to a conclusion of notability per WP:PROF. Per WP:OUTCOMES, most AfD discussions for authors whose works have been widely reviewed determine that the author is notable despite the lack of coverage of the author per se.

However, there is no evidence that the subject of this article meets any of the explicit criteria of WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE (if there are other ___domain-specific guidelines that someone thinks apply, please do say so). Neither does the subject seem to fit the consensus identified in WP:OUTCOMES either under "Literature" or "People".

Some have argued in the past that availability of any online sources for topics predating widespread electronic recordkeeping should be subject to a lower standard of evidence for notability than enunciated in the guidelines. This position is not logical—there are scads of electronically available passing mentions of individuals in all walks of life in the form of census data, church records of births and deaths, tax rolls, property records etc. dating back since the beginning of recorded history—while the record is spotty, it doesn't mean that the sampling is of notable people any more than a sampling of currently-created data would include notable people. Google books and similar services (as this article demonstrates) are adding historical hits for millions of non-notable from decades past. In this case, the subject was active in a period of history for which ample record was kept, and has not been lost to posterity in any way.

This nomination is not intended to denigrate the subject of this article in any way. There are many people who make valuable contributions to all human endeavors who simply do not merit encyclopedia entries. This is one of them. ^Bongo_matic 04:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can see no reason to delete this. Being one of the first or founding members of the Soil Association makes her interesting enough. In addition, she was the driving force, or one of them, behind Britain's adoption of rose hip syrup for children during and after the war; she developed a diet to treat certain diseases in children; and she's the author of several books on the subject. I have queries in with the Soil Association and a couple of British government departments to try to find more sources about her, because this is not the kind of thing that's necessarily available on the Web. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These arguments are valid reasons to write a book, or a magazine or journal article on the subject, but do not reflect "notability" in the Wikipedia sense.

The materials cited do not qualify what "behind" means (there are lots of people "behind" every successful endeavor, some notable, some not). Being an early—or even founding—member of the Soil Association is equally not a reason for inclusion. While it is a notable organization, it is not so overwhelmingly significant that every person who had an important part in its history or foundation is automatically "notable" in the sense of the guidelines.

Likewise her other accomplishments. Developing a diet for treatment of a disease is laudable and important, as is increasing the availability of vitamin C. However, the key for notability for Wikipedia is that other reliable sources have found various milestones worthy of significant coverage, not verifiable milestones are is intrinsically worthy of coverage. The guidelines (other than the exceptions noted in the nomination) are about third-party coverage of individuals and their accomplishments —there is no guideline for inclusion of individuals who "did some important thing". ^Bongo_matic 06:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it meets the standard of notability and verifiability. I dont see OR. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nominator has made a careful and one of most detailed analysis I've seen. whilst she is an author, she fails WP:AUTHOR in my opinion, in particular criterion 1. whilst on face value, it seems to have a lot of references, it basically tells a life story with nothing that pushes her above WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Seriously, if it's this good after one month just imagine what a second may do. Are we concerned were misrepresenting something or otherwise causing damage to the world's collective knowledge? I'r rather encourage the editors to find more material on this subject to appease the notability concern. She appears t be a prolific author which may help. -- Banjeboi 10:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three editors have opined to keep but only one has given any rationale that in any way refers to Wikipedia's notability criteria. My intention with the nomination was to address the characteristics of the article and the subject by reference to those criteria. It would be helpful for those opining to do the same.

Specifically with respect to Bejiboi's comment, the quality of an article is not a factor in determining the notability of its subject, so I'm not sure how it's relevant (the quality of the reporting was noted in the first sentence of the nomination). ^Bongo_matic 15:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Per Slim Virgin, Benjiboi. A lifetime of apparently influential health and nutrition advocacy, several books, some coverage in the Tillich diaries. Positive evaluation of her career in a posthumous note in British Medical Journal ("Claire Loewenfeld, who died in August 1974, was one of the first members of the Soil Association, reintroduced the use of flavouring herbs in Britain, and worked out a vegetable and fruit juice diet for children with coeliac disease at Great Ormond Street Hospital. A protagonist of natural vitamins, and a sturdy campaigner against processed foods and the health hazards of added chemicals...") tips the scale in her favor to satisfy WP:BIO. Several other refs in snippet view may have significant coverage, such as New Scientist V78 1978. A book foreward called her a "distinguished food therapist." Satisfies verifiability, and hovers just on the positive side with respect to notability. Edison (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - seems to get enough cites based on google book search for authors mentioning CL. Gets non-trivial mention in the New Scientist & the Spectator. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not even borderline. Eight books by reputable publishers. Probably they all got additional reviews in the periodicals of the time --UK reviews of the period are difficult to search comprehensively, especially online. Edison's refs settle it. The nomination may have analyzed the refs in the article, but made no effort at all to satisfy WP:BEFORE by looking for others. Edison did, and he found them. Furthermore, and what makes it a strong keep, is that I think we have normally accepted coverage in Contemporary Authors as firm evidence of notability as a selective encyclopedia. The nomination omitted to mention that one in his analysis, though it's right there in the article. And I'm not sure that when he says "no evidence of significant coverage for some of the refs, that he's actually looked at them--I interpret "no evidence" as meaning that there was no quote on the article and he could not get to it on line. Material published before the 1990s can not in general be evaluated without printed sources. "Wikipedia , the encyclopedia that covers everything notable found in Google. but nothing else." -- and the nom actually defends this! The sort of thing he mentions as findable online historically are, as he says, "census data, church records of births and deaths, tax rolls, property records etc." -- and these are of course the every things that we correctly consider do not offer significant coverage, and are almost always primary sources There's going to be a major gap in Google during the rest of our lives--the period after 1920 and before the 1990s. It's not that we accept weak online sources for this material. Its that we have to face up to using , first, the paid sources on the net , which are available free from libraries, and print. I see this a a losing battle here, for I tend to get rather lazy about it myself, and prefer to try ingenious ways of finding the free information. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty strong keep - An accomplished author published by reputable publishers, many reputable references... she's pretty darn reputable. I also think she's a victim of her time period - the time gap makes a large amount of references less likely. If she had the same level of "fame" and was known among nutritionists and the like now just as much as she was 50 years ago, there would be plenty of sources around the internet, and it would be no contest that she would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Plus, the article supplies a lot of great information, for people who want to know information, which is the point of Wikipedia. Experimental Hobo Infiltration Droid (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If she were working now, she'd have her own television program, and a range of tasty tofu dishes produced in her name: Claire's Cuisine, or Loewenfeld's Lunches. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:27, 2 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 03:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Ababadjani

AfDs for this article:

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Ababadjani (2nd nomination) I deleted this article as an unsourced bio. Since then, I have been offered one very good reference [14] and advised that further danish offline references exist. Given this, I feel that the original close is no longer valid and that further discussion of the sourcing is necessary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new source found [15] seems reliable and substantial enough. Epbr123 (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails per WP:BLP1E and general notability crieria. I did a search of Danish newspapers and magazines and found she is her only mentioned on the one day in February 2003 (for example, Jyllands-Posten, B.T.) for being accosted while working as a stripper at a Erotic trade fair. The event received no further mention. The EKKO magazine article in 2004 seems to be a result from that same event. There is no other coverage of her before or after. On her own merits, she fails the criteria for WP:PORNBIO (No awards, no nominations, no notable films) and fails WP:ENTERTAINER (only two minor roles: as "Hooker #1" in Pusher II and a small role in an unacclaimed film). Unlike Katja K, Gry Bay or other Danish porn actresses, Ababadjani seems unknown here in Denmark. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of CactusWriter she does not satisfy neither WP:BIO nor WP:PORNBIO. She's probably only an extra. Algébrico (talk) 18:13, 8 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 by nominator (me). Non-admin closure. See bottom comment for reasoning. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of mathematics articles (J-L)

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

Adding the sister pages to this AfD (essentially identical rationales): --Cybercobra (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless orphaned page that merely transcludes the individual pages List of mathematics articles (J), List of mathematics articles (K), List of mathematics articles (L). Cybercobra (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it appears this list was split into the other lists... so GFDL require a keep. 76.66.200.21 (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe there's some admin thingy (histmerge?) to push the revisions into the history of another article. We can just arbitrarily push them into the "J" subarticle. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Or just turn the page(s) into redirects. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's also not actually an orphan. It's used (via Special:RecentChangesLinked) in {{MathTopicTOC}}, to list recent changes in math articles in that alphabetical range. That template is used in many places and deleting this article would break it. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Talking about "meta" stuff like recent changes in an article-space template isn't proper anyway; consider the irrelevance in a print edition; links deleted. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added a note to WT:WPM regarding your removal, since it affects many math articles and in case any interested parties want to take this farther along the WP:BRD cycle. To me there's something a little off about declaring someone an orphan, finding out he isn't, and then killing the parents to make one's declaration retroactively true, but maybe that's just me. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - They were orphans for all but one template (which did not show up at all on WhatLinksHere, so I was unaware at the time of the nom). When you pointed out their use, I looked and concluded, for the reasons in my previous comment, that these links did not seem appropriate. There's no element of retroactivity. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - At the least, I would ask why these pages are in article-space as opposed to project-space given their only apparent use is for "meta" purposes (i.e. those of editors rather than readers). --Cybercobra (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Or alternatively, the transcluded articles could just be used directly, albeit more cumbersomely. I would be totally fine with just moving them into WikiProject Math subpages instead. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is there some reason why {{MathTopicTOC}} can't be split in a template used to index articles in article space and one used by the WikiProject in Wikipedia space to keep track of recent changes? As far as I can tell the row is about the "Recent changes" row in that template. Pcap ping 13:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of them, par above. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know whether this list plays a particular role in the maintenance of the generally excellent quality of the mathematical articles (and the nominator has displayed no knowledge of that point either), but I see that the list has existed for six years and appears to be maintained. Collecting the individual "List of X" articles into eight "List of (X-Y)" appears likely to be very helpful for those who take mathematics seriously, since it makes browsing the titles a lot easier than a category. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The pages are not used for navigation (check the WhatLinksHere), they are used almost exclusively for recent changes patrolling of math articles. There is no reason they should be in article-space, where they duplicate the individual pages. Either they should be moved to project space, or the existing letter pages used individually, or the individual letters merged (rather than transcluded) into them. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC) edit: added "almost" --Cybercobra (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, apparently they're used on a Portal (I had only checked Article & Template spaces initially), but there's no reason that single letters couldn't be used instead. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Technical question (hoping for a compromise): would these lists fail to work as intended if moved to the Wikpedia namespace? If so, would that be hard to fix? Pcap ping 13:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment (or further question) as far as I can tell Portal:Mathematics#Index_of_mathematics_articles uses different lists for each letter like List_of_mathematics_articles_(Q). Am I missing something? Pcap ping 13:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - List_of_mathematics_articles_(P-R) for instance simply transcludes the appropriate letter-split lists, e.g. it transcludes List_of_mathematics_articles_(Q). So this seems much ado about noting as the letter-range lists are not hard to recreate elsewhere. But they don't seem to hurt in any way by their presence in article space either. Pcap ping 13:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The individual letter-split lists are maintained by User:Mathbot. Pcap ping 13:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The letter-range lists do not appear necessary to keep track of recent changes via {{MathTopicTOC}}, which can (and now does) include the letter-split indexes directly. Pcap ping 13:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is every reason to think that the people in that project know what they are doing, and I see nothing here that would lead me to think otherwise. They sort their articles, it gets done, it doesn't interfere with anything. (I would like an simple explanation why they do both multiple letter groups and single letter groups, but that's so I could learn from them). DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The multiple letter grouping is used only to keep track of recent changes to math articles in reasonably sized chunks, using the Special:Recentchangeslinked functionality. That little "template" was split from {{MathTopicTOC}} by me since Cybercobra made a reasonable argument that "recent changes" is an internal function not useful to readers in, say, print. It is also transcluded to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity. This compromise appears to be okay with everyone involved. Pcap ping 10:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination I filed this AfD under the premise that the articles had no use; however, they turned out to be used internally by the Math WikiProject, and therefore movement, not deletion, would be the appropriate action, making AfD the wrong venue for this. I shall instead take up the matter on the WikiProject's talkpage. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. We can discuss whether it's necessary to move these to Wikipedia space on the wikiproject. Pcap ping 10:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - addendum to previous comment: or a related forum. I'm thinking of contacting the bot author. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:10, 3 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.

|}

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Barradell

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

The result was Speedy deleted per author request. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Barradell

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

{{db-author}},{{db-person}} Rhett Willowdean (talk) 03:20, 2 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. There is a strong consensus against deleting this article. Among those opposing deletion, there is no consensus as to whether a merged or separate article is to be preferred. However, this is normal editing decision, and one that can be made outside of the deletion process. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information

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

just another annual conference. hardly any third party coverage [16]. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just another notable series of conferences--but sources needed, to show, among other things, that it's widely cited. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please provide sources then. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. You yourself, LibStar, have provided 800 sources with the Find sources scholar link above. Even just the first paper listed there, "Rhetorical structure theory", is cited by more than 2,000 other sources (that even poor old Google scholar knows of). Harold Philby (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PSTS. Abductive (reasoning) 15:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Association for Logic, Language and Information. I think it is ridiculous that the conference article is longer than the parent association's article, and both are very short. On the other hand, 833 Google Scholar hits and 233 Google Books hits suggests that this is not "just another conference." I have done this sort of search on many such conferences here on Wikipedia, and this one has an order of magnitude more hits than the average. Also, the name of the conference is not an extension of the name of the association ("Association for Logic, Language and Information Summer School") and so is a valid redirecting search term. Abductive (reasoning) 05:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I tried to find reliable sources but failed. I think one of the main problems is that – as the name suggests – ESSLLI is primarily a summer school (≈ somewhat similar to a bunch of university-level courses) and not a traditional academic conference (≈ researchers telling about their latest work). Therefore ESSLLI is not listed in conference rankings, conference impact factor lists, collections of bibliographies, etc. Sure, there are workshops in addition to the courses, but I think none of the workshops alone is particularly notable, and hence it isn't easy to find any reliable sources for them, either. I found several blog posts that seem to give the impression that ESSLLI could be notable, but naturally we should have something non-WP:SPS to satisfy WP:V. — Miym (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The burden of proof is on those seeking to retain the content to provide sources. Blithely saying "sources needed" is not sufficient. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Association for Logic, Language and Information per Abductive.--Chris Johnson (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I may expand on my reason for wanting a merge; Stifle is correct in asking for secondary sources. But the conference has so many mentions in primary sources, and its name is sufficiently different from its parent, that a merge is warranted. Abductive (reasoning) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Association for Logic, Language and Information (as a version of keep). This series of conferences may be notable enough for its own page. However, I don't see the need for a separate article at the moment since there is plenty of room in the main page. TerriersFan (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination overlooks 800 or so independent third party reliable sources at Google scholar alone. I can understand the name of the conference being misleading to a casual reader, however those academic sources are not citing remedial courses in a Logic 101 Summer School or such like: check out a couple of links. Burden of proof does lie on sourcing content at Wiki, but something is not unproven simply because the cited evidence has not been scrutinised.

No merge: expanding information on the conference is probably easier than expanding information on the society, dang it! I wholeheartedly agree the association responsible for the conference is more significant in an abstract encyclopedic kind of way. However, constrained as we are to reliable sources, and precluded from original research, the conference is the most documented and noted element of the association's work, history and impact. It shouldn't be like that, but it is.

So I propose no merger, to avoid having an article on the association which would end up looking like a tail wagging a dog: info re the conference is more easily obtained and expanded and will appear to have undue attention.

PS I'm not around often, so I only discovered this discussion by chance. Might it be a thought to contact whoever created an article when proposing it for deletion? She might know something that might otherwise be overlooked. Not in this case though. People seem to have most points covered.

As far as the subject area of Formal semantics is concerned, here's a reliable source, Kai von Fintel, on how to establish notability of a paper, author, conference, etc. in this particular field: "At least for our small field, I think the overall lesson is that to find out about the status of a paper or and author, one shouldn’t ask the indexing services, but just ask the experts."[17] Harold Philby (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They're a conference; they publish Proceedings; the Proceedings sometimes show up in bibliographies - hence the 800 citations. How this constitutes notability is beyond me, especially if this barren list of venues is the only verifiable content. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't this be a good reason to merge/redirect? 800 low-grade mentions? Abductive (reasoning) 17:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be a good reason to have the redirect; but there is no useful information to merge, except that the summer conferences exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly. Abductive (reasoning) 18:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! So you mean Expand don't you? In which case we are in agreement.

Who established this conference and why? Which institutions support the conference? How many people attend? Which notable academics have given addresses? What topics and venues have been proposed for the future? Have there been any controversies? But then again, we're not writing a human interest story for the popular media.

Even the list of past venues is genuine information. "Barren" (I presume meant to be read as "boring") is not a disqualification under notability surely, that would be kind of subjective, what? Verifiable dates and times in summary form, so boring it's like reading an encyclopedia entry. ;) Harold Philby (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may expand it within the parent association's article. As I pointed out, both are very very short right now. If the expanded content becomes vey large, splitting it out again may be an option. User:Harold Philby is mistaking lots of mentions in primary sources for notability, which requires secondary sources about the summer school. Abductive (reasoning) 14:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Association for Logic, Language and Information as the best alternative to deletion. Sources, such as this, would aid in a merge. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 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. JForget 00:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jovi

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

Non-notable subject. A Google search for pages containing "Jovi" but not containing "Bon" lead to only one Pokémon-related hit in the top 50 results, and that was on Bulbapedia. In other words, "No reliable sources found to verify notability". -sesuPRIME 01:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am surprised this got remade 2 months ago and got found now. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails even the Karen test. More seriously, it's just a one-line article that has no hopes of ever being expanded any further. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am surprised Jovi even had her own article. She's really just a support character. Mokoniki | talk 03:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If anything in this article is worth salvaging though, roll it into Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness. AP1787 (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 2 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 00:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy Guided Transformation Learning

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:N/WP:UNDUE/WP:OR. This is an idea proposed by very few people (which can all be found in the 3-4 references given) Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Their work has been published in peer-reviewed journals. That the idea hasn't caught on yet is not relevant: awareness of it in relevant communities is shown. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the idea has not caught on is extremely relevant, this shows that the idea does not meet the notability criterion, there's millions of ideas published in peer-reviewed journals, notable ones get dedicated reviews, this one hasn't. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete per the above reply. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google scholar shows [18], that the papers on it have never been cited by anyone but the authors themselves. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, much of the article is (possibly) copyvio from [19] and the concept is not notable. As Headbomb and DGG point out, academic ideas have to be more than simply published to become notable. Abductive (reasoning) 02:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to non-notablilty of concept. There are thousands of newly proposed ideas appearing in peer-reviewed journals every year. This doesn't make them notable. --Robin (talk) 04:20, 2 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 consensus JForget 22:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to Draw Dinosaurs

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

An IP contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was tempted to tag this one {{db-empty}}, but it does say it's a book, and states its purpose. Other than that, it could very well be used as a duplicate for Category:Dinosaurs, which is not exactly what we want in such an article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above, next to no coverage on this book, according to Amazon the author has written other "How to Draw" books, none of which have ever taken off. AP1787 (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not useful as a list, not notable as a book - sources need to be presented to prove its notability. McMarcoP (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability, and the list of dinosaurs has no context. Looks awfully similar to the similarly delete-worthy You Can Name 100 Dinosaurs! and Other Prehistoric Animals. Rlendog (talk) 02:44, 6 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 21:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donaldo DiMartino

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

I prodded this article but it was denied. It has no sources and I can find none making it fail WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOR and likely WP:NPOV and possibly WP:BLP. It concerns a former player in the Canadian Junior Football League, a league of amateur players some of whom may be drafted into the Canadian Football League. The article says that this player did not go any farther than this league. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATH, as he has never played in a fully professional league.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 01:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 01:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Did well, but never played in the CFL. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:46, 2 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. A lively debate, but the deletes have the better of it in terms of numbers and sources freely available. I do see this as being a reasonably close call, and those pay site sources could make a difference. I'd be happy to userfy or restore if that is the case. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Worthley

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

Fails notability per shallow depth of coverage - see WP:BIO. JaGa^talk 22:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete per nom. orphaned and poorly cited since mid 2008. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Article just needs some formatting tweaks to clean it up and is ripe for expansion. There also appear to be stories here: Trans Nation: Folk Musician Cathy Worthley

Gay Wired - Jul 3, 2008 By Jacob Anderson-Minshall | Article Date: 7/03/2008 12:00 AM. "For the first 20 years of her professional music career, Cathy Worthley was known as Scottish..." and "Transgender Folk Singer Cathy Worthley To Perform at Transgender…" New England Blade - Jun 4, 2008 "Cathy Worthley doesn’t talk much about her self-exile, that period in her life when she disappeared in order to complete her transition..." although I'm having trouble accessing them online. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:30, 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) 00:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Non-trivial coverage from a government organization is enough to establish notability, albeit barely so. Delete. was a press release. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for creation of a new article; most of this short article is copied from the page cited by Blanchardb, which as the product of a US state agency is presumably copyrighted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio of three or four sentences should be fixed, after looking i see only half a sentence that doesn't really rise to copyvio, IMHO. -- Banjeboi 04:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems a stub worthy of growing with reliable sources available. Nobility has also been asserted. Let the sources lead this one. -- Banjeboi 04:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Two of those links do grant notability, though I'd like to see more incorporated into the article Corpx (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which two? I ended up with one reliable source. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Only one of them (edgeboston) is legit. Corpx (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources were article, broken link, press release, press release, press release. Simply has not been the subject of multiple reliable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if including working as George for twenty years there is nothing of substance from reliable sources. Lame Name (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these delete votes addresses the articles noted above that haven't yet been included in the article. Articles in reliable sources about the subject are substantial coverage are they not? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is one reliable source - that is not "substantial". --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources with substantial coverage that haven't yet been included in the article... why haven't they? Arguing here is a less effective way to save an article than simply ignoring this discussion and improving the article. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GTBacchus has a point, but AfD discussions always take away time that could also be used to improve the article. The fact more sources exist so article need improvement not deletion (though it helps explain nomination in first place). --Milowent (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact more sources exist - they do? where? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent, AFD discussions only take as much time as you want them to. Nobody is making you defend the article here, and adding sources will save it faster than paying any attention at all to this page. If it gets deleted out from under you, ask me, and I will absolutely get you a copy of what was deleted. The idea that you have to participate here before working on the article, or in order to work on the article, makes no sense. If you use article improvement time to post here, that's your own bad decision. Again, if it's deleted, I'll get you the deleted content. Just stop arguing and start sourcing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GTBacchus invited me to comment on a larger discussion he started based on my comment, and others, about "defending" articles from deletion, which I have commented on here. As I note there, it probably is easier to plop down cites in an AfD than actually improve the article, though the latter is the far preferred behavior we want to encourage.--Milowent (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some citation to the article. One is a duplicate from a different source (if anyone knows how to format that, since links do go dead adn redundancy is good). There also appear to be several about George Worthley and Carol Clark. The George looks to be Cathy, but unfortunately the articles aren't available for free. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 of the 5 are trivial mentions in event listing. The article still fails WP:MUSIC by a country mile. All I see here is a lot of "sources must be out there sometime" and the usual people from the article canvass squad playing their favourite tune of "I didn't hear that" when you ask them where those sources are. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see:

1) Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable - two articles - one of which is about them being a transexual.

2) Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart - no.

3) Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country - no.

4) Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. - no.

5) Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). - no.

6) Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. - No.

7) Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. - no.

8) Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. - no

9) Has won or placed in a major music competition. - no.

10) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.) - no.

11) Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. - no.

12) Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. - no

So how are any of those keep votes based on the article or the sources? She's a pub singer - nothing wrong with that, I've been a pub singer but it's a trivial thing and not the basis of an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please dial it down, AfD, and Wikipedia isn't a battlefield, we get your point and it remains your opinion. I too see ten pay articles that do suggest more information on "George Worthley" do exist. This may not meet music bio but likely edges over a GNG measure. -- Banjeboi 17:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cameron Scott. Clubmarx (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consider this; if "George Worthley" had been well-known when xe went in for the change, more press would have been generated. If "Cathy Worthley" was a noteworthy musician, being a transsexual would surely boost coverage. Instead we have nothing to suggest notability. Abductive (reasoning) 06:21, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character Nine

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Character Nine

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

I PRODed the article stating, "Only media coverage is announcements of concerts in the Berkshire Eagle and North Adams Transcript. According to the page, band does not appear to meet guidelines at WP:Notability (music). Band has not released multiple major-label or large independent label records, has not charted hits, has not received non-trivial media coverage, etc." PROD was removed by an editor who then proposed speedy A7. Speedy was declined. I stand by my PROD rationale. Cnilep (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a major independent band, no tours, only minor connection with a notable band. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 15:38, 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) 00:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was unable to find significant sources on Google and via a database search for print info. Searching turns up nothing concrete save a lot of false positives. Does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:BAND. Only one member of the band appears to be marginally notable, hasn't won awards or competitions that I've seen, and is not registered with a major label. Martin Raybourne (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above, the band doesn't appear at all significant, Google has little, and their official site is a myspace page. Simply not notable. AP1787 (talk) 04:52, 2 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qaz

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

The result was speedily deleted per G3. Somno (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qaz

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

no sources, nothing on google, and as of now, utter nonsense Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources. Pigman☿/talk 01:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No mention of the superhero comic book in which this story appears. WP:DNFTT. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would appear to be a hoax based on ghits Francium12 13:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: "Fight for human rights" roughly translates in Polish as Walka o prawa człowieka, not as Queskly Askov Zielinsky as stated in the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Kamil Zielinsky. More here about him than QAZ.--Auric (talk) 14:06, 3 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. per WP:SNOW JForget 00:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon TCG: Diamond & Pearl and Platinum and POP sets

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pokemon Diamond And Pearl Cards

Articles for deletion/Pokémon TCG: Diamond & Pearl and Platinum and POP sets

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

Blatant fancruft; it's of no use to the average reader. -sesuPRIME 00:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't see any citations, and it's basically a huge list that would be of no interest or relevance to anyone who doesn't play the TCG. There's absolutely no context in any of this. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be honest, I thought it looked quite boring, no citations, and irrelevant. Mokoniki | talk 01:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I dont know why this stayed. Someone said something months ago about it, but it got ignored. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:IINFO. I think we can all agree it falls under here. AP1787 (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This wouldn't even pass notability on Bulbapedia, let alone here. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 17:41, 2 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. JForget 21:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast Awards

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

I looked through the google news hits for this Award and see very little coverage by main stream media. Most of the hits seem to be press releases from the organization itself. I'll gladly withdraw this nomination if significant coverage is found Corpx (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There are a lot of Google news hits but the nominator is correct that these hits appear to nearly all be verbatim reprints of press release from the organization promoting these awards or from organizations which were nominated or won an award. There is a single brief CNN/Money article about the awards but taken as a whole, this is not the kind of "significant 3rd party coverage" that general notability guidelines require. RadioFan (talk) 11:50, 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) 00:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I respectfully disagree, I believe this article, while lacking a terrible amount of coverage in the more traditional new sources, still satisfies the "significant coverage" aspect of WP:N. There are several sources that do cover the event when it appears, and while I personally can't imagine it being a terribly enthralling or prestigious honor, 350,000 votes is hard to ignore, and I think that combined with the limited yet acceptably significant coverage make it notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. AP1787 (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources specifically are you referring to? Corpx (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the Google Books returns. Those can't be press releases. Abductive (reasoning) 07:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves there was a CNN Money article on it somewhere, as well as a few other smaller news articles, as noted above. In addition, it is mentioned, as stated above, in some books. While certainly not the most prestigious award ever, I think it satisfies Wikipedia's requirements. If you'd like links to more specific examples of coverage, I'd be more than happy to provide them. AP1787 (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm swayed by two observations:

As noted, there is coverage in a number of books. Not a lot, but a few.
The list of winners includes quite a number of podcasts with their own article. I don't mean to suggest that Notability is inherited, but the main awards ceremony for notable subjects, where there is coverage meets the bar for me.--SPhilbrick T 16:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I would agree on the point about the book references.
[20] Full text article from Sarasota Herald-Tribune on a local podcast winner and the Awards.
[21] and [22] were within the first couple of pages of results on Google News regarding "podcast awards" and while the full article is locked down, both appear to be articles from the Philly Inquirer and the Stockton Record, respectively, that are local coverage of podcast and award winners.
[23] Interestingly, appears to be a scientific paper describing the qualities of a "credible and quality" podcast and uses the Podcast Awards and the 2007 nominees as a framework for discussing their proposed framework for analyzing podcasts.
Dwinches (talk) 01:32, 8 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Anderson (disambiguation)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Anderson (disambiguation)

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

Delete. Subject has no notability. The article has multiple problems with its title, style, layout, etc. and has very poor overall quality. Adds no value and should really be speedy deleted. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see an assertion of notability to meet guidelines. 40th in an iditarod? How many competitors were there? No disrespect as I think competing and finishing is a major accomplishment, but worth of an encyclopedia article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:01, 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) 00:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real notability established....Jr champ != notability Corpx (talk) 06:14, 2 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Authorities

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Authorities

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

Declined speedy, listing for broader consensus. Article subject seems to fail WP:BAND. Only real claim to fame is that the drummer for Pavement recorded them once, and also played drums in a different band formed by a member of THIS band. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although some of the band members might (or might not) be vaguely notable, the band itself never achieved notability, not during their short career (they played one single live gig) nor posthumously. McMarcoP (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. The band played more than one single gig. I don't know where McMarco gets this information, but it is absolutely wrong, I saw them many, many times. They probably played about 100 gigs throughout the west coast, from Southern California up to Canada. They appeared on multiple compilation lp's and cd's and are often cited as an influnce by modern punk rock bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.243.180 (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apologies, the source I had found focused on the "first part" of the band's career, in the '70s, without mentioning their reunion. Can you help by providing more sources? McMarcoP (talk) 08:11, 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) 00:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as CSD G12 copyright violation of the band's MySpace page description. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:09, 2 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Graham, 3rd Earl of Menteith

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Graham, 3rd Earl of Menteith

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

Notability of subject not established. Wavehunter (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be a current consensus that all hereditary Earls are notable. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/question: I was not aware of this consensus. Wikipedia:Notability (people) says nothing on aristocrats, but does say that being a family member of somebody notable does not make one notable. Do you have a source? --Wavehunter (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, Graham would have been a member of the Parliament of Scotland's second estate as an Earl. Since he would have, therefore, been a member of a national legislature, he (and most other similar nobles before various reforms) would meet WP:POLITICIAN. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. The page has expanded since I tagged it. Hopefully this extra information will be added and thereby establish the subject's notability. I would add it myself, but do not have access to a reference. The information is on Wikipedia here and here, but neither mention includes a citation. I found a reference in Peter Hume Brown's History of Scotland to the present time stating Earls sat in the Scottish Parliament, but this was from the reign of Charles I onward - that is, a century too late. Thanks again. --Wavehunter (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. It looks like you've found some places where a "citation needed" tag is in order. I'll dig through some old history books soon and see if I can find a good source. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 1 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) 00:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge somewhere? Per the article, the guy hasnt done anything except being born into royalty Corpx (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and verifiable even after 500 years. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Arthur Norton. You might have thought that almost anyone we know something about today who lived five hundred years ago was "notable" for that alone and there is clearly a long standing convention of maintaining peerage articles. Ben Mac Dui 07:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Earl of Menteith, unless someone comes forward with meaningful information on the subject (what did he do?) other from stud book connections. WP:POLITICIAN should not be invoked unless there's solid evidence that the person did, indeed, engage in politics of his period (he was a peer for only five or six years). Even if merely sitting on the parliament bench is a perennial notability clue (oh really?) chances are that he, actually, did not. A well-developed family article is far better than a bunch of unter-stubs. NVO (talk) 14:51, 2 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 That's So Raven. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Mott

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

Unsourced BLP. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. No significant roles. SummerPhD (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to show. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT. I don't think appearing in 4 out of 101 episodes even merits a redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 1 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) 00:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to That's So Raven. Not much to be found for this guy. Confusions in seraches becase Seth Green actually received a number of reviews of his character named 'Dan Mott'. Did find one weak mention. [24] Not enough. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete in lacking notability, although I'd be fine with a redirect also Corpx (talk) 06:12, 2 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 Takara Tomy. Closing without prejudice against using the content of the article elsewhere if appropriate. Skomorokh 13:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Z-Knights (Europe)

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

This list of toys does not assert any kind of notability. TTN (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to TOMY. Does not have any individual notability, no coverage in reliable third party sources. Aditya (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Granted it's not a prticularly well-known toy line but it's part of the massive Zoids franchise. Perhaps merge with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by I Am The Namer (talk • contribs) 18:21, 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) 00:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just like the other toy article, I fail to see any notability Corpx (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:JNN and User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reasoning in the similar article that's just two entries below Corpx (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Takara Tomy and make brief mention of it in the products section there. Eusebeus (talk) 21:19, 2 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hottie Help with Candace Kita

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hottie Help with Candace Kita

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

Unremarkable internet radio show (see WP:NOTABILITY). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This show should not be deleted. First of all "internet radio show" would seem a slur, much like User-generated encylopedia might be. Internet radio shows reach much further than sad little broadcast towers. Second -- it is not "unremarkable" -- the show is actually nifty in its use of models/actresses for furthering the cause of women's safety. Kita, the host, has had a long career in TV/Movies, working with folks like Mel Gibson, all the way down to Mini-Me (Vern Troyer). It's consistantly the highest rated show on LA TALK Radio, which comes up number one googling for talk radio in Los Angeles. It has had stars such as Kitten Navidad of Russ Meyer fame, and the recent winner of TV Land's "She's Got the Look" (Cindy Cohen). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddy Mud (talk • contribs) 02:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 1 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) 00:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this internet radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are found to give coverage of this show. Corpx (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is not inherited so merely having a notable host or some notable guests is simply not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for radio programs. If the show has received significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, then it could be kept but multiple searched on both Google and Google News turned up only passing references or personal blog entries. If such sources exist, they should be added to the article quickly. - Dravecky (talk) 07:44, 2 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoids - the OER

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoids - the OER

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

This is a trivial list of toys without assertions of importance or notability. Most of the information is original research as well. TTN (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. All information is verifiable and Google turns up thousands of hits. This was a very popular series of UK toys in the 1980s and is still produced and widely collected today. The Tomy Zoids line is one of the company's largest franchises and has had incarnations across the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I Am The Namer (talk • contribs) 18:13, 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) 23:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I fail to see any significant coverage from reliable sources Corpx (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched just by Zoids OER with no quotes and found absolutely nothing in News, Books or Scholar to suggest the faintest hint of notability. I have no doubt that Zoids are notable, but not Zoids - the OER. Abductive (reasoning) 07:02, 2 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wihtgils

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wihtgils

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

I can't find significant coverage for this real of mythological person. It looks like the only coverage is "A.D. 449 [...] Their leaders were two brothers, Hengest and Horsa; who were the sons of Wihtgils; Wihtgils was the son of Witta, Witta of Wecta, Wecta of Woden. From this Woden arose all our royal kindred, and that of the Southumbrians also." Joe Chill (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge, no point in a standalone article, but the title can easily redirect to a discussion of Jutish or Anglo-Saxon genealogy. --dab (𒁳) 07:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 1 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, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Quasi)historical figure, coverage will generally be found mostly in specialized print works. It's not like we've got online access to the archives of the Southumbrian Daily News. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If in the ASC, ev en the semi-mythological part, that's sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Somewhere. Dont see a need for an article with just one line Corpx (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, having 318 Google Books hits is pretty good evidence for notability. Also search Witgils. Abductive (reasoning) 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article may never be much larger than it is now, but as a legendary figure from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the name has survived and been studied for centuries. That is sufficient notability for our purposes, which is what I understand to be the basis for the nomination. Merge is fine if an appropriate target is identified, but the redirect should be kept as a search term. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:55, 2 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.