Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 5

< 4 September	6 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete all. This was relisted recently, but it seems to me that consensus has been pretty clearly established. Sourcing is insufficient for an article here at this time. GlassCobra 01:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aggtown

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

Not notable group. WP:MUSIC I cannot find any reliable sources. There are lots of links on the page, but they are all to sites where anyone can post music. Some songs are 'charted' but it is from SoundClick a site for self-promotion, not a national/significant chart. Clubmarx (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as these are Aggtown albums/song articles all created by the same person, today:

I agree with your nomination for these...perhaps they should be merged instead?

Clubmarx, how can Aggtown's OFFICIAL website be unreliable? To verify biographical information, I checked out all profiles claimed to be Aggtown's as well as emailing the webmaster of the official website. I've checked all the links as well and see nothing unreliable about this the Aggtown Wiki claims. Every song and album, as well as chart listings, is 100% accurate. User above claims that SoundClick is not a national/significant chart, yet several significant artists who have been signed by distribution labels are listed on SoundClick. Also, TuneCore, Inc., the label of Aggtown, also distributes music for Jay-Z, Nine Inch Nails and Ziggy Marley. Techno_Expert (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.211.15 (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Reliable for what I mean by reliable. Soundclick is not a major chart that establishes notability; here are some accepted charts for notability WP:CHARTS. TuneCore may have major names on it, but being on TuneCore does not make a band notable. TuneCore is not a record label anyway. Clubmarx (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:MUSIC, #5 declares that the label (in this case, TuneCore & UMGD) are notable. Major names = notable.

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. All their "chart success" is on non-notable charts. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Clubmarx (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fulfills #5 of WP:MUSIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.114.188 (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC) — 76.255.114.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP, meets and succeeds notability per WP:MUSIC. Although Aggtown does not have chart success on the charts listed on WP:CHARTS, this is NOT a requirement per WP:MUSIC. Besides that, SoundClick is not listed as a non-notable chart on WP:CHARTS. This artist DOES meet requirement #5, which is satisfied by the artist's current label(s). TuneCore is a partner of Universal Music Group Distribution^[1], both of which have a list of notable artists (mentioned above and on the Wiki). TuneCore also awards music certifications^[2]-- one of the primary purposes of a record label; therefore, the validity is proven. Additionally, TuneCore releases more albums/singles in single day than any other label distributes in a full year^[3]. I find this very notable. Please note that TuneCore also MUST approve all music distributed...it isn't just a self-serve distributor. Aggtown can be found on iTunes and any other major music merchant, and if you examine the artist details, you will see that the record label is indeed listed (on all sites, and where not listed you can contact the site to retrieve the label's name). Here is an example: http://www.lala.com/#album/2306124484406495274. Aggtown has also released two or more albums.

Only ONE criterion must be met. See WP:MUSIC. Aggtown fulfills #5 of this requirement.

Quick question for everyone...why do people keep ignoring the fact that only ONE criteria must be met? Failure to notice leads to confusion. It is obvious that #5 of WP:MUSIC has clearly been met-- if you don't think so, by all means look up Aggtown on ANY major music merchant and you will see. It doesn't matter if they don't have a chart notability....#5 of WP:MUSIC has been fulfilled and one and only one criterion must be met. Aggtown is a valid entry. It appears that some users are ignoring #5 and focusing on the WP:CHARTS argument. I would like to inform everyone that not every artist appears on those charts...especially independent artists (which I think is unfair to exclude). Techno Expert (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as third-party, reliable sources, I do believe iTunes, eMusic, DJTUNES, etc qualifies. It may be advised to send these companies queries to determine the exact label for Aggtown.

- Recommendation: Aggtown biographical information be removed or downsized due to lack of third-party biographical sources; however, the Discography has been verified via iTunes etc along with the SoundClick charts (which are independent and non-notable but not listed on non-notable of WP:CHARTS). I find the music group very notable concerning #5 WP:MUSIC, despite having no rankings on WP:CHARTS-- it is obvious that Aggtown has released two or more albums on an independent label. This label may need verification however. See comments below.

- Comment: It seems this band was never signed to any label; distributing music on a music upload site is not a record label. Clubmarx (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: TuneCore is not a music upload site. It is a distribution service that has partnered with Universal Music Group Distribution to deliver music. Also, I believe that in one of the reference articles it was discussed that TuneCore would soon be managing licensing etc....essentially the functions of a label. I may need clarification on the definitions of a music label. Are you aware that according to DJTUNES and various other stores, Aggtown uses a label by the name Aggtown Records (NOT TuneCore) in addition to TuneCore's services? To determine if DJTUNES was another distributor like TuneCore, I tried to register as my "own" label but was told that all labels undergo review and must receive approval from the DJTUNES administrators prior to selling releases for their artists. Obviously, Aggtown Records received approval because they are listed as the record label (not TuneCore). I've noticed that in some stores, TuneCore/Aggtown Records is listed as the label but in others it's just Aggtown Records. I believe that this means that Aggtown Records is the label and TuneCore is the distributor. I tried to find information about the Aggtown Records label but could find very little, so I'm not sure if they're a certified label or not. But as I mentioned about DJTUNES, I was told that ALL labels undergo critical review and must receive approval; thus, I believe Aggtown is signed to a label by the name Aggtown Records. I will be contacting the music group to determine if their label is certified or not. Techno Expert (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Although TuneCore is a music distribution service, would it not be considered a major netlabel? This is where it falls into gray area, because if it could be considered a major netlabel then that would mean it is a notable independent label, especially with its list of notable clients. If TuneCore does not qualify, then the argument shifts to Aggtown Records. This may well possibly be a independent label but I am anaware of any prominent clients aside from Aggtown. Techno Expert (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CONCLUDED: I have left all comments and debates above intact to avoid vandalism claims. After spending the majority of today researching Aggtown and Aggtown Records and all this mess I've been dragging out, I've come to an agreement with the comments and claims of Clubmarx and Esradekan. Sorry guys, I was just trying to get facts so that Wiki didn't delete without reason. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and do not know all the laws of the land here. Apparently, after much digging, it appears that Aggtown Records IS a netlabel-- however it is disqualified from #5 of WP:MUSIC because the independent label does not have any other artists besides Aggtown. Therefore, its notability is not enough to sustain for Aggtown. Yes, officially Aggtown HAS released two or more albums (two albums and one single, according to their label), but because the group is only signed with a non-notable label, my previous argument is invalid. I was a little confused into thinking that TuneCore was actually a label because they do distribution, music certifications, and Billboard chart entries. Plus, they are partners with Universal Music Group Distribution (a very notable label), and TuneCore also has many notable artists. This was my argument behind #5 of WP:MUSIC; however, because TuneCore is apparently not a label my claim is invalid. I would like to point out that if TuneCore was a label or if it did merge with UMGD then my claim WOULD be valid. I was quite frustrated that Wiki members were recommending deletion solely based on the fact that Aggtown was not listed on a notable chart from WP:CHARTS. This is NOT a requirement for notability, so I hope everyone remembers that for future deletions of other bands. And there are some gray-area criteria of WP:MUSIC that I think Wikipedia should review and improve. From my recent communications with Aggtown's manager, it appears that they will be terminating music production by the end of this year so that their lead DJ can start a solo career. This indicates that future Aggtown inclusion to Wikipedia will be unlikely. I will continue to monitor Aggtown to determine if a future Wiki entry would be valid; however, for now it is invalid and should be removed from Wikipedia. I must say that this process has been an adventure, although I am a little disappointed that all my hard work and research for the Wiki article has gone to waste. I want to thank Clubmarx and Esradekan for your feedback and contributions to this debate.

Recommendation: DELETE

Techno Expert (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, including #5, as all releases are on minor/vanity-ish labels. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Techno Expert (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I have relisted this AfD to solicit more opinions. Aside from the nominator, only two experienced editors have commented in this debate. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You relisted it? How does that work? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rahim Oberholtzer

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

Article concerns a game show contestant, provides no sources other than IMDB and does not overall assert notability. TM 23:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 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. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Paşazade Timur Can

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

oh yes he is nobleman. I have researched about him and it was my fehler.er is related to the home of his ancestor Emine Ottoman sultan, however, no title of Princess was awarded to meet theirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zibi Fer (talk • contribs) 04:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC) non-notable person. Not considered a prince by any recognised authority; the only reference I can find to a House of Osman is as part of the malta exiles. "ninety years ago my ancestors were kicked out and sent to an island in the middle of the Mediterranean" is not a claim to notability; hell, I'm closer to a recognised claim of royalty than this guy. Ironholds (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'delete per nom, can't find notability
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spurious princedom. Notability not established. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable person. NeoJustin (talk) 06:06, 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 Administratively closing disruptive nomination. This article just got out of deletion review two days ago so putting it back on AfD now is clearly innapropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African admixture in Europe

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

POV fork of Genetic history of Europe and the former article sub-saharan African admixture in Europe. The Count of Monte Cristo. (talk) 23:01, 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.

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

The result was Delete With some reluctance. Author has clearly put a significant amount of work into this article, but without appropriate textual content it cannot survive. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Border history of Serbia

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

I could've almost speedily deleted this for having little context, but I'm bringing it here in case someone wants to improve it. The article is just a gallery of maps with not much coherent structure, so it's more appropriate for Commons. It's been like this since 2005, so I doubt this can substantially improve anytime soon. Also, the same arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border history of Romania (second nomination) can be applied here. Spellcast (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the moment there is no article - just a repository of images! The article could be rescued if someone had the expertise though Francium12 23:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally a non-article. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Userfication as could have been done originally to avoid a AFD. Ikip (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is not an article but a collection of maps. As such it might be instructive, but it needs some substantive text to go with it. "Serbia" has meant different things at different times. An article (with text to explain the maps) might be useful, or is that already in somethign like "History of Serbia"? CErtainly, this article cannot survive as it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if some maps have mistakes, I believe the article can be "saved" with maps' explanations from experts.--LittleTony (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very less content, just delete it. Pmlineditor Talk 08:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Ritual (band)

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

Fails WP:BAND, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~Weak keep at present. I found very little from Google searches but there was a review in Vice magazine, which appears to have moved from its original URL and they were listed on the cover of Maximumrocknroll, which almost certainly means that there was an article about them inside. Both of these would very likely constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. A case of significant coverage very probably existing but not easily found on the internet.--Michig (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to a weak keep - the Fader article, Vice review, and MAXRNR coverage is probably sufficient for a keep.--Michig (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- The leftorium 20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources Francium12 (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what sources? None have been added to the article and the Google hits above aren't what I'd call "significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources".--RadioFan (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable local group with self releases only. feydey (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only self-releases. Nowhere near enough notability. -WarthogDemon 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Their records aren't self-released, not sure why people are saying that.Prezbo (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discography in the article specifically identifies 2 of the recordings as self released and the low volume produced of the others indicates self release as well. All the record labels claimed in the discography section appear to exist but they all appear to be very very small, and none appear to be notable. Very small record labels could meet notability guidelines here if they are producing niche music that is widely reviewed or referenced but that does not appear to be the case here. --RadioFan (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Their demo tapes are self-releases. The releases on Youth Attack! clearly are not. These are the sort of volumes of pressing that are typical for small labels, and 3,000 copies of their LP being pressed strongly suggests that it sold over 2,000 copies, which is not an insignificant amount for a non-mainstream band.--Michig (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Attack! actually has quite a long history of releases ([1]).--Michig (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately the amount of coverage this band has received still appears to be insignificant and not up to notability guidelines. Perhaps a well referenced article on Youth Attack! would help.--RadioFan (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The body of work doesn't appear notable at this point in time. --Stormbay (talk) 04:04, 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 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' Kim's Fifth Studio Album

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

Contested PROD. No sufficient information avaliable yet, fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMER. The fact that she's working on it does not assert notability.Taylor Karras (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No release date - could be a year away, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Francium12 23:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's ~~Peanut Butter Jelly~~Hammer Time. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Come back when it's out! Pemberton08 (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a bunch of crystalballery. Does not pass WP:NALBUMS for lack of third-party coverage. talking birds 16:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP!!.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:54, 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. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S. V. Torke

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

S. V. Torke Torke's article fails WP:BIO. I have been unable to find reliable sources to establish the subject's notability. You may see the discussion page for additional things. This article may be deleted or kept per WP:V and WP:BLP as decided by consensus. --Donotask-donottell (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC) --Donotask-donottell (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it or not It is difficult to decide whether the article should go or not. It may be worth to contact the contributor who started this article. i did found a bit of references, thats why i added the Infobox... 09:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC) howe—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fngosa (talk • contribs) 09:28 1 September 2009 (UTC)

For example Upendra Tripathy on wikipedia was also a secretary for Karnataka Government one of the States in India. Also see Cabinet Secretary for Government of India at New Delhi to know who are Cabinet Secretaries and who are other secretaries such as Under Secretaries etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donotask-donottell (talk • contribs) 23:56, 1 September 2009 --Donotask-donottell (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete due to poor quality, with no prejudice to recreation. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Private secretary to Government of Karnataka Ministers" is not a note-worthy post.

"Secretary to KDCC Bank" (non-notable bank). Grave POV and peacock term issues. NO RS available on the net, establishing notability. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:14, 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 no consensus. no consensus/splitted on WP:N & WP:EVENT JForget 22:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mazen Abdul-Jawad

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

The subject of this article is notable only for a single event that received negative press coverage; classic violation of the one event policy. He has no other notability and no comprehensive references are available that could be used to give the negative content due weigh. The article should be deleted. Nathan^T 22:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep other than WP:IINFO, WP:EVENT is probably one of the most misused policies in deletion discussions. 2 scholar hits, 57 Google news hits. Ikip (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, lack of coverage beyond the talk show event. As stated, classic violation of WP:BLP1E. –blurpeace ^(talk) 07:21, 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. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Maglinger

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

Non notable person doing ad/graphic work. Nothing seems to meet WP:CREATIVE. There are no reliable references in the article. And google searches do not result in any noteworthy content. Clubmarx (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be promotional to me. Most likely created by the subject or someone associated with the subject. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:55, 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, JForget 22:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything in this article that clearly indicates notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promoting. Notability not established. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:18, 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 merge to pub crawl. Tone 17:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly pub crawl

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

A weird mix of original research, unsourced speculation, how-to guide and directory. I have no doubt at all that Monopoly pub crawls can and do take place. I have every doubt that being mentioned in passing in an episode of Red Dwarf confers notability on something that could equally well apply to anything listing multiple place-names. – iride scent 20:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pub crawl along with all the other articles in Category:Pub crawls. If enough verifiable material builds up on any of the pub crawls for a decent sized standalone article they can be split in summary style. By merging them now it would save future AfDs, and also keep the main information in one appropriate place where the crawls can be studied in context. SilkTork *^YES! 09:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's far too long to merge into the existing pub crawl article, and it certainly merits an article - it's a common enough pub crawl, and much easier to do than the almost impossible Circle Line pub crawl. Tris2000 (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pub crawl: none of the external links are WP:RS -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this will make pub crawl far too long. There are lots of famous pub crawls. The Circle Line pub crawl where we try and drink a beer at every stop on the Circe Line is probably more famous. Trust me guys, I live in London, I drink a lot of beer, and this is notable enough to have its own article. Tris2000 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge if wanted. Tris2000's argument that it is too long to merge into pub crawl is dealt with by merging an abbreviated version: it is totally unnecessary to have such extensive coverage of such a fringe topic. I can only assume that "Trust me guys, I live in London, ..." indicates that Tris2000 has limited knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and methods. We do not assess notability by the subjective assessment of involved or interested individuals: we assess it on the basis of substantial independent coverage. No evidence of any independent coverage has so far been shown, either in the article or here. I agree with iridescent's assessment: this is a piece of trivia. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orchidea Keresztes

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:31, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jørn Hagen

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

Footballer that has never played in a fully professional league and fails WP:ATHLETE. Does not under qualify under WP:GNG either. Rettetast (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [2] says he has played matches in the norwegian first division Francium12 23:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. But the Norwegian First Division is not a fully professional league. Rettetast (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has not played in a fully professional league. Asking the closer of the debate to take into regard that not everyone knows what kind of league he has played in. Geschichte (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played in a fully-pro league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hasn't played in a professional league Spiderone 12:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails WP:ATHLETE, and no sign that it would pass WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:57, 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) 06:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Family

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

The family itself is not notable enough to deserve its own article despite the fame of two of its members. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The family is sufficiently covered by the articles about its notable members. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notable members of the family have articles. Any mention of the other members of the family can be accommodated at those locations. --Stormbay (talk) 04:00, 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 redirect to Alright, Still. JForget 22:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nan You're a Window Shopper

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

It lacks notability 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Giblets. The song doesn't lack notability, nor does the artist. I think you need to expand this to say WHY you don't think this song is notable. It's referenced on the net, and it's received national airplay on one or more major radio stations in the UK (inc. BBC Radio 1). I think you're simply testing the AFD process :) Although I have to "assume good faith!". Thor Malmjursson (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not testing anything! I'm not saying the artist lacks notability, just this song. All songs on the album have been reviewed when the album was, so, yes, they all have references on the internet (btw, this article doesn't cite any sources); the thing is, a song is only notable to have its own article when it charted or made media impact. This song hasn't done either. It isn't uncommon for non-single songs to be heard on radio.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four days and no more comments? Where is everyone?--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 23:38, 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, JForget 22:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable Str8cash (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alright, Still, the album that this song was a bonus track on, as it would be a useful redirect. The song itself is NN. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (redirecting to the album would be ok) Nothing I can find on Google would establish notability and the article itself provides no sources at all. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is, as User:Iceflow pointed out, a notable song receiving national airplay from a notable artist. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of the artist doesn't matter, and, as I said before, it is not uncommon for songs which are not released as singles to be played on radio. So, please argue the notability of the song; "it is notable" is not an argument. In fact, a song is only notable if it has either made cultural impact or charted somewhere. This song has done neither. Though, I think I just might change my mind about the deletion after seeing the AfDs for A Place With No Name; this song meets the general notability guideline too and has been cited almost all of the times Allen was interviewed about her beginnings in the music industry. Now I don't know what to think anymore. I change my vote to weak delete.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 18:54, 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 delete. per WP:SNOW JForget 22:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Girlicious Sophmore Album

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Seriously doubt the title will include the word "Sophmore". No sources aside from Tweets and YouTube videos. The YouTube videos discuss a member leaving, not the album. The Tweets include such definitive statements as "Ooo, this girlicious song, which could be a girlicious single is called ," Grinding." Dope dope! Plus, we all wrote this track! Dope!" and "Oooo ya!!!! This song we recorded tonight is called , "don't go fallen in love "". There doesn't even approach enough material and enough sourcing to make an article, and the current title isn't even salvageable as a redirect. —Kww(talk) 22:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation once some solid information about the album is available from reliable sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incredibly Hammeriffic album title and only very questionable sources (I tend to never use Twitter as a reliable source, no matter what) to be found. Nate • (chatter) 01:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL Rlendog (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability, no third party coverage, or reliable sources for that matter. Crystalballery. Sure doesn't help that there isn't a title, tracklist or release date. talking birds 16:07, 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 keep. — Jake Wartenberg 02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAIL Blog

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

Lack of significant independent sources to establish notability. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. he is clearly trying to get rid of this blog because i wannted it kept. i would like to see this very funny website kept on wikipedia and let others know about it Chef Blue (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)This account is a sockpuppet of wikibrah, see their userpage.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –túrian^patois 22:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~if you visit the fail blog at http://www.failblog.org/ i think you would change your mind Chef Blue (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)~~Striking sockpuppet edit[reply]

Keep: Per this, this, this, this, and these. You might say that a lot of these are mentions, but with so many recommendations from over 20 something popular reliable sources, I'd say that this website is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also the fact that it won two Webby Awards. Joe Chill (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like there are enough sources to establish this as notable. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I visit the website from time to time and a lot of people i know visit it as well. I have no reference on this but it is absolutely notable in my perspective. Str8cash (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so you know: WP:IKNOWIT --Cybercobra (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Webby Awards are sufficient to establish notability. ReverendWayne (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - winning a Webby award is good enough notability for me.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 04:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with I Can Has Cheezburger?, blogs and mentions in a time article about I Can Has Cheezburger? suggests it is not notable by itself.--Otterathome (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does winning two Webby Awards show that it isn't notable by itself? Joe Chill (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Webby awards are only done by user-votes and it is likely the I Can Has Cheezburger? network of sites promoted it. This site is part of that network of websites. If more decent non-blog sources were found, then a separate article would be justified.--Otterathome (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let's keep the Webby Awards out of this. The Webby Award homepage itself says that it has "nearly 70 categories". 70! Are all these 70 websites (per year) notable? Oh, yeah, and every category has two winners, the "Webby Award" winner, and the "People's Voice" winner. And FailBlog didn't even win the Webby Award, it won in the People's Voice category. --Conti|✉ 13:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Let's keep the Webby Awards out of this" How about let's try not to boss other users around? Joe Chill (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't bossing anyone around. I was pointing out that "has won a Webby Award" is no evidence of notability. --Conti|✉ 14:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wait... let me get this right. Winning a popular vote makes it... non-notable? Metty (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Webby award makes this notable. AniMate^draw 23:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep won a Webby, popular humor website. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Webby award makes it notable per WP:WEB: The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I've added more refs today to the article. This has had far more mainstream coverage than I thought (and I generally keep up with internet memes), including a chunk of a piece in the NY Times about how "Fail" is now used as an interjection. I also added the Webby information, though it would be notable without the Webby wins.--Milowent (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just take a look at those sources. I haven't seen an article flagged for rescue before, so to me it's crazy (in a good way) for such a small article. Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 18:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When an internet meme leads to a neologism and a popular website, people are going to come to wikipedia for info about it. I do think the Controversy section sounds a bit peacocky, though. SithToby (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vissumo

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

fails WP:CORP . spam like article. hardly any third party coverage [3]. LibStar (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references listed on the article specifically mention Vissumo. Lacks evidence of notability. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 23:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:03, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of multiple swimming medalist in international competitions

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

Possibly WP:OR, however it is not fair to make such comparisons between athletes who are ineligible to compete at ALL of the championships discussed i.e. Australians and Americans cannot compete the the European Championships; Europeans cannot compete at the Pan Pacific Championships; etc. For a truly fair comparision, the championships should be: Olympics, World Champs, World SC Champs, European Champs (not SC), Pan-American Champs, African Champs, Oceanian Champs, Asian Champs. Furthermore, for the regional championships, they would need to be held with the same regularity, with the same history (i.e. European champs stated in the 1920s, but some regional champs started much much later) and the same number of events (i.e. not all champs include 50 metre events in all strokes, 800 m for men, 1500 m for women etc.) Yboy83 (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could understand compiling the lists of multiple medalists for each particular competition, but adding the medals won at all of these competitions verges on original research. I don't know what sources, if any, claim that adding the medals won at all of these competitions is a valid or useful way to compare swimmers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:46, 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) 11:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lotus (demo)

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

Non-notable demo by band that is not so significant that every recording is automatically notable. Deleted three times by prod & speedy, so AfD would seem the prudent way to go forward. ^Bongo_matic 09:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced demo. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could fine nothing resembling an independent, reliable source that covers this topic. (e.g. [4]) Yilloslime ^T_C 06:05, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Thailand Universe special awards

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

non-notable list of awards awards *besides* the main awards as a beauty pageant. No wider impact outside the competition, no third party references to indicate cultural or critical significance. Cameron Scott (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too minor to include. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing without prejudice against rapid renomination. Skomorokh 21:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starstruck (Season 5)

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

An upcoming television show: no reliable sources cited. Even the "official site" claimed was not really an official site but a registration site indeed. Also, fails WP:NFF especially that it was not released in television whatsoever. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 07:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually...this TV series will take off soon. I saw parts of the launch on GMA7, and as of now, what was announced was the opening of auditions. However, I must acknowledge that there are very few sources for this article at this point (that's Philippine entertainment for you). So I'd give it a few more months before the more substantial coverage appears online and off-line. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recently launched season, although I would prefer renaming it into StarStruck (season 5). Starczamora (talk) 09:19, 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, JForget 21:52, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 unanimity among respondents. Skomorokh 21:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tay Dizm

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

Previously deleted article. Speedy declined because admin says there are significant changes. Article made unverified claims of charting in the US, but Billboard says the artist never charted [5] and allmusic says the artist never charted [6]. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. In short, fails WP:MUSICBIO Niteshift36 (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has decent sourcing, I've tossed in another just today. No opposition to unverified claims being removed, but deletion isn't the solution here. GlassCobra 21:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see 5 sources. The standard blurb from Allmusic, an article from Billboard that would qualify as significant coverage in a RS, a college newspaper that mentions him in a single sentence, a link to the Source, which provides 2 sentences and a link to his video on youtube and a link to an interview of on a source with questionable reliablity. Even being generous......that's 2 links of significant coverage. So I'm not feeling real convinced about good sourcing. What about the other parts of WP:MUSICBIO? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a charting artist and has worked with other notable artists and is signed to a major record label. Str8cash (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did he chart? Billboard and Allmusic say he didn't. Would you mind posting a link to it? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Those songs did chart; when I was researching Billboard for this article I was able to dig up the chart statistics from Billboard's searchable database. However, Billboard revamped its website...removing the database in the process. The links that verify the chart positions have died and are nowhere to be found anymore. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic keeps track of Billboard charting....even from charts that no longer exist. They're showing nothing. I can't find anything verifiable. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: 2 of the keep !votes state the song charted, but nobody can provide a reliable source to verify that. Article also makes an unsourced claim of charting, but again, no reliable sources to support that claim.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But you don't understand that allmusic doesn't have every statistic!!!! That's my point about the searchable database. Billboard took it offline a few weeks ago and thus a lot of accurate info is suddenly unverifiable! Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not relying totally on allmusic.......2 major sources, neither one have it. Nobody had anything in 2008 to get the article past notability then. But in the past year, he's obtained notability and both major sources lost not just one, but 2 songs that were supposed to have charted on two different charts? Put yourself in my place...and see if you'd be asking how someone could be voting to keep based on something we can't verify. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's a Google cache evidence of charting, if that satisfies you. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On which chart? Not the Top 200, not the R&B/Hip Hop and not the Hot 100? Which chart are we talking about? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, without prejudice against merging should local consensus so decide. Arguments to delete here were weak – variants on WP:RUBBISH, WP:NOEFFORT, WP:PROBLEMS and WP:JNN, but those advocating keep did so primarily on the basis of an important rather than verifiable conception of notability. Ultimately, the strength of the identified sources will determine whether or not a thoroughly verified, reliably sourced description of the topic is sustainable as a stand-alone article. Skomorokh 21:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LeChuck

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

No assertion of notability. Insignificant references to reliable sources. Is essentially a regurgitation of plot summary covered in games' individual articles. Article has been tagged for clean-up for almost two years, with negligible improvement. --EEMIV (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guybrush Threepwood, there are plenty of sources for this character who transcends multiple notable works of fiction. Google Books has 51, Google Scholar has 24, and Google News archive has 218. AfD is not for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your search is actually a little flawed: it's looking for LeChuck OR "Monkey Island", not both together. This is far more accurate

12 from google books (Icon Group International does not count as they use wikipedia as their source o_O)

21 from google scholar

187 from google news archive

Now how many of them are actually usable as sources is another matter...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not just a character in an obscure game, but the primary antagonist of an entire series of very well-known adventure games (Monkey Island). Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guybrush Threepwood and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Marley were also offered for deletion by the same nominator. —Lowellian (reply) 06:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no prejudice against a Merge. Too much reiteration of game events and some amount of OR (the Powers section); remove this and you're left with a relatively short article with established notability. It may be expandable based on what other sources there are but probably is better served in a list of MI characters. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Main antagonist in one of the most notable computer game series of all time. A merge might be an option, but not deletion. Fences&Windows 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable character in multiple notable works of fiction. And by Keep, I mean actually keep it, not claim it was merged and replace it with a redirect with little if any content copied over somewhere else, or mass delete most of the article then claim there isn't enough left for its own article and then merge it. Dream Focus 14:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Toothrot, which includes Stan (Monkey Island). Not very good for the nominator to fail to mention the related nominations. Fences&Windows 15:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who stumbles into this one will stumble into the others, esp. since they also were inevitably linked in various lists of AfDs by theme, color, and hairstyle sorting. Relax. --EEMIV (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to EEMIV, he'd simply redirected those other characters, and I didn't undo the redirects until after he'd nominated the two he didn't redirect, someone else added them to DELSORT fictional elements, and I got around to investigating their notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or weak keep. LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Prediction: Every single person who want a complete keep result will spend not one minute fixing the glaring problems of it. A single line of unsourced creation concent =/= good enough. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge When cut down, little actual stand-alone article exists. Merging it would be fine at this junction.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect; the article is unacceptably bad, being about two-thirds redundant plot summary and one-third original speculation/observation about the character. Once you've taken those two out there's nothing left. Nifboy (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's rationale and Nifboy; +non-notable, unsourced fan-service material. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or partial merge - this is excessive plot information (WP:WAF), which in any event belongs in the Plot sections of the relevant games. The small amount of out-of-universe context and verifiable information is shoved into the final "Notes" and "Legacy" section which can surely be included in the series overview. Marasmusine (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per the above. Nothing here that is not better served at the main article. Spinouts are for content that is genuinely outside the accommodation of the main article. The idea that this applies here is laughable. Eusebeus (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per Masem. At least get it into a verifiable, accurate article without OR and see what there is after cleanup. MuZemike 02:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Vocab

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

Completely non-notable group. On a non-notable label. Their one and only album never charted anywhere.[7] Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Minor stab at notability by having one of their songs appear during the closing credits of a TV show. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:57, 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 redirect to White Dawg. JForget 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thug Ride

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

Simply fails WP:ALBUMS. The album itself never charted [8]. One single on it charted on a sub-chart at Billboard. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources for the album. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the artist's page as a plausible search term. Lacks independent coverage required for a separate article.--Michig (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Not notable but redirect to the artists is appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to White Dawg. Nothing like the significant coverage needed for a standalone article, however it's a plausible search term and should therefore redirect to the artist as per the guideline. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:24, 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. Cirt (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guybrush Threepwood

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

No assertion of notability. Insignificant references to reliable sources. Is essentially a regurgitation of plot summary covered in games' individual articles. --EEMIV (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News has all sorts of hits from this month about him. WP:BEFORE has obviously not been followed in this case. Character appears to be a recurring fictional element that spans a notable series of computer games, thus lacking any good merge target. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and Google News Archive has over 350 hits for the name, going back to 1990. Google Scholar lists 35, and Google Books list 62. Potential overlap aside, assertions of non-notability are simply not credible. Jclemens (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this character is about as noteable as they come, within the context of adventure games. may as well nominate Mario for having no notability in the field of platform games. RayBarker (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not just a character in an obscure game, but the primary protagonist of an entire series of very well-known adventure games (Monkey Island). Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeChuck and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Marley were also offered for deletion by the same nominator. —Lowellian (reply) 06:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as shown by the above editors, this article has clear notability. The article should be tagged with {{refimprove}} and {{expand}} and such, rather than being brought to AfD. Either way, it has been flagged for rescue now, and brought to the attention of WP:VG, and thus I expect someone with knowledge on the subject to improve the article using the sources lying about. AfD should not be used to delete articles that simply need work. --Taelus (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with no prejudice against a Merge to some list of Monkey Island characters. 90% of this article is duplicating the plot of the games. Take that out (hit the major points), and you're level with several NFC images (inappropriate) and about two paragraphs of notable information. This is not to say that I would think there should be more to establish Guybrush as a notable character from more sources. But if there's not much more, then this should be merged with other characters. --MASEM (t) 12:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable, the main character in one of the most successful computer game series ever, which defined the genre of graphical adventures for a decade. Did the nominator make any effort to find sources? Did the nominator think about proposing a merge instead? A bloody big WP:TROUT in their general direction. Fences&Windows 14:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree with all the above points. There's no discussion of deleting articles such as Master Chief (Halo), so I fail to see why such an issue would arise with this article. - Goldenboy (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a relevant article (such as Monkey Island (series)#Characters) and delete plot information (which just duplicates game plots). The article contains little useful info. LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Toothrot, which includes Stan (Monkey Island). Not very good for the nominator to fail to mention the related nominations. Fences&Windows 15:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Masem put my thoughts on the matter perfectly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Like LeChuck, the article is unacceptably bad, being about two-thirds redundant plot summary and one-third original speculation/observation about the character. Once you've taken those two out all that's left is the story about Guy.Brush, a paragraph that can safely go into the series article. Nifboy (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's rationale and Nifboy; +non-notable, unsourced fan-service material. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge - as with LeChuck, this is almost entirely plot information: if the parent articles are written correctly, they will already include a plot synopsis. Other small tidbits of information, once verified, can be included in the series overview. Marasmusine (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is the main character in a popular or cult video game series, and I don't see the article on Strong Bad up for deletion. If anything, Monkey Island has more fans than Homestar Runner, but delete Guybrush without considering Strong Bad? Never! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.148.49 (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Other stuff exists. We know. That article has nothing to do with this one. MuZemike 02:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Which isn't to say the article is perfect or anything, but this character is one of the most famous in videogames, probably the MOST famous of the adventure genre. Plus he's been a popular character for over 15 years and has appeared in 6 different games to date. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup just as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeChuck. Get it to something verifiable and accurate and take it from there. MuZemike 02:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable protagonist from popular videogame series, worthy of own article as per Goldenboy's comments. Metty (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; There's many a notable source out there: takes three seconds to search for it. A rule of thumb for the nominator: if you don't see the notability there, look for it. If you can't find it anywhere, then propose it. --Monere (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krondor Krew

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

Non-notable band that has never charted a single song and isn't signed to a notable label. Zero gnews hits. A review of the first 100 ghits couldn't find a single reliable source. Mostly facebook/myspace and youtube stuff or unreliable music sites. Fails WP:BAND Niteshift36 (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:35, 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) 11:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle of the Midwest Sea

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

fails WP:NALBUM no significant coverage in independent sources Dlabtot (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:04, 17 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 01:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:09, 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, NW (Talk) 03:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This band has had two other album pages deleted recently, so I doubt this one is headed any other way. Perhaps all this album information that is being lost can be put on the band's main page, as part of the discography section. --Milowent (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:39, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Kirkey

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources are blogs and non-independent sources; violates WP:N; WP:WEB mhking (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have The Game as a book source, he was one of the main characters in the novel. Also i was under the impression that i could use sites such as roadrunnerrecords.com as a source.

I will look for more legitimate sources, im kind of busy right now, but i will do that by this weekend.— Hunter54321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete No indication he's any more notable than the last time this article was deleted. Edward321 (talk) 23:57, 20 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 01:03, 23 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 02:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the book after significant trimming. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Edward.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Trosch

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

This was prodded as "self-explanatory". I deprodded so we could discuss it at AfD instead.

Trosch was notorious in the early-mid nineties for advocating the murder of abortion providers as 'justifiable homicide'. This came to light when he tried to post an advert in a newspaper with a cartoon that proposed this viewpoint. He also called for the killing of a specific abortion provider on the TV show Geraldo.

Despite all the tags and notices and apparently complaints from the subject and his advocates, I'd say from my reading of the sources - which I was too lazy to paste in but you can easily find on Google News - that this bio is pretty accurate, but I wonder whether it falls foul of WP:BLP1E? Fences&Windows 02:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The gent in question undoubtedly made uncouth statements regarding the death of abortionists but those were many years ago and their impact is questionable. The article is just about unsourced, much of it is patched together from what is purportedly Trosch's website (which does not appear to have been updated since '03). An editor claiming to be Trosch has edited this page, by this point the warnings at the top of the page are longer than the article itself. Maybe this guy is notable enough to deserve an article but at present, there certainly are not citations to establish this and the article is hopelessly flawed. Blow it up and start over. Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup - a quick search ([9]) reveals that the basic gist of the article is accurate, although I can't attest to every single detail. The new coverage of his controversial opinions is fairly constant from 1993 to 2000, and he has been quoted or otherwise mentioned in about a dozen articles since that time. The most recent being a LA Times story revisiting the controversy just 2 months ago. As such, I don't really see how this would fall under 1E. All the article really needs is some precise sourcing & watchful eyes. As such, I've added it to my watchlist and will try to fix the sourcing within the next couple days.--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per well-researched argument of ThaddeusB. Significant mainstream media coverage satisfies the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That search by ThaddeusB can be refined to just fully free sources, which gives ample evidence of notability, including Time magazine in 1994 describing him as the most vocal proponent of the view that since abortion is murder, stopping abortionists by whatever means necessary, up to and including killing them, is morally obligatory on bystanders.[10] The New York Times had reason to reference his views on religiously motivated violence in 1998[11] and Time Magazine in 1995[12]. The article is indeed a stub, as it would be easy for an editor to expand it. I also don't think it meets the BLP1E standard, as some of these citations are to events years later. And arguably, Bruce Lucero, M.D., New Woman all Woman Health Care, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. David Trosch, Father, Defendant, Minzor Chadwick, David Lackey, Kathleen Mcconnell, John Edwin Williams, Eleanor Stisher, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, Chris Harding, Deputy United States Marshal, Movant., 121 F.3d 591 (11th Cir. 1997) (aka Lucero vs. Trosh) may be a notable law case, as there is at least some coverage of it in secondary sources and it has been cited as precedent in other cases of the same circuit.[13][14][15] (The law wikiproject is currently drawing the line on case notability, and I'm not sure which side of the line this case would end up on.) GRBerry 21:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was never in any doubt as to the abundance of sources; it's not hard to tap his name into Google News! My reasoning for worrying about BLP1E was that his entire notability seemed based on the fall-out from that original advert placement, rather than the article being about him as a person. If editors believe that coverage of his Geraldo interview and the Lucero court case side-step BLP1E, then it might be OK to keep. Fences&Windows 07:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If BLP1E is the only concern, then a deletion nomination is not appropriate. Because the proper solution for a BLP1E issue is to either A) merge the content into an existing article on the event or B) move the article to a title about the event and then rework it to be about the event. In neither case should the article that had a BLP1E issue be deleted. If you need input on whether this should be done, the BLP noticeboard is the right place to get that input, not AFD. GRBerry 14:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, whatever. Plenty of articles get deleted due to BLP1E concerns. The article was heavily disputed, covered in tags, and I converted a Prod into AfD as I wanted a proper discussion on deletion. No need to Wikilawyer. Fences&Windows 19:22, 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 delete. WP:SNOW JForget 22:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Munetoshi Date

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

Suspected hoax. Declined speedy. An alleged actor/singer, who is not mentioned at all on the website of the agency to which he is supposedly signed [16]. The guy claims to be half-Chinese and half-Japanese, which leaves us with a bunch of names to search for:

Search for Japanese name in kanji gives 5 Ghits
Search for Japanese name in hiragana or search (also in proper name order) in romaji gives coincidental hits related to a 17th-century historical figure with the same name reading/different kanji.
Search for English name "Torny Li" gives only Wikipedia mirrors and his facebook page.
Search for Chinese name 李伊達 gives blogs, Wikipedia mirrors, and similar internet flotsam.

cab (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His supposed singles are unknown to Oricon, as is he himself. Delete as hoax. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Oda Mari (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some 20-year-old who "has appeared in varies of commericals and music videos since 2004" sounds barely noteworthy even if he's with "KEN-ON ENTERNATINMENT" and actually exists. As stated above, Ken-On's site doesn't seem to mention him, though it has stuff about other pretty people and keeps going "ping" when you move your rat around the screen. ¶ It seems a pity that intelligent adults (as well as thick ones like me) have to waste any of their time in AfDs on this kind of thing; if I were the autocrat of Wikipedia I'd decree that any article about anyone alive and under 25 or maybe 30 were speediable unless it already came with at least one link to a disinterested, reliable source that credibly asserted noteworthiness. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He doesn't not seem to have done anything notable, and searching around didn't give me reason to change my mind. I disagree with Hoary's rant though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:15, 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. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Marie Kerr

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

Article doesn't state notability. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't matter if the article states notability, mind you; what matters is whether it demonstrates notability through significant coverage in reliable sources. This does not, and despite some searching, I have not been able to locate reliable sources myself.
Therefore this article fails Wikipedian content policies as well as the notability guideline and I do not think it can be saved.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:38, 24 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) 01:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete One book, in about 200 WorldCat libraries. The claimed JAMA article is a brief editorial item not included in PubMed. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Independent sources have not been provided to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:49, 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) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianne Ahearn

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

Article doesn't state notability. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Location (talk) 05:38, 25 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) 01:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author of two books, held in only a few dozen libraries a/c WorldCat . DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 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.

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

The result was speedy keep. Cleanup, not deletion is the remedy here. Speedy closing. Tone 21:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sport in Estonia

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

Listcruft/Trivia. A long list of sports acheivements, many of them non-notable on their own. One of several weak "Sport in x" articles. Hairhorn (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep If it's weak, fix it. (or ask someone to who might know about the subject) AfD is not cleanup. I think it's a fair start at an article. It's not a list, so it isn't listcruft. And I am puzzled how an article that primarily discusses multiple Olympic medals and world championships, where almost all of the people mentioned are Olympic or world champions in their sports, can possibly be considered trivia, or discussing topics non-notable on their own. I do not understand this nomination. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ReWire DJ's

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ReWire DJ's

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

(I speak the language which the article is written in) Currently non-notable DJ duo established 6 months ago. All claim of notability comes from them expecting to release four singles and expecting to perform at various festivals. Even taking that into account, their notability seems marginal at best. Peasantwarrior (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Peasantwarrior --Notedgrant (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Here is the Google translation: [17]. ... discospinster _talk 02:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:42, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Sillada

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for inclusion. Reference [18] has no related pages mentioning the subject. Also [19] do not exist. There are no news sources relating/or saying his notability. The image used is possible copyright violation from one of the external links. Finally, external links that are supposed to detail on how he should be notabvle fails to describe this, some are of weblog. In particular, not all painter/philosopher, performanec artist or critic is notable. JL 09^{Talk to me!}_{msg 4 u!} 05:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-pasted from the talk page:

The artist, according to the present version of the article [20], has been the subject of a student newspaper article and a University research paper. In itself, this does not constitute notability. Things that would help include: evidence of significant press coverage, major prizes or awards, work held in significant collections.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant accomplishments, no credible sources. Student newspapers are not really credible for establishing notability unless what they report is especially significant. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : According to WP:Artist, he must least developed new concept in the field where he excelled, in this case, he is a surrealist painter and he doesn't developed that idea. Yes, he have "Menstrual Period in Political History", supposed to be an important media in history especially during Hello Garci scandal, but what about other painters that did the same and has the same ideas with him? The inline citations rarely distinguish him, or at least, the links never mentioned him, I do not know why this happened. Most links came from Multiply or privately-owned blog sites. ( According to this rule, it is unwise to use blogs as external links or as citation. To paraphrase, blogs are solely interpretation of the concern and are subjected to bias; i.e., I can say on my blog that "Sillada is the greatest born Filipino painter, greater than Amorsolo and others". That is extreme bias, especially that majority of blogs (esp. Multiply) tend to give opinions rather than the truth. ) To continue, it was also said that the artist's work(s) must "...(a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention,..." In this case, the "Menstrual Period" was the only mentioned work that gained critical analysis: and it was referenced to a website where it is very very difficult to confirm whether it was really said on that site. Furthermore, the article fails WP:MUSICBIO. Finally, Google search of his names will give us blog sites, Amazon/Twitter/Facebook and other links to social networking sites and there are no reliable news sources to confirm that Gloria Arroyo conferred him such an award. Sure that it is cited, but do we have any ways to confirm that? If that was published in a coffee table, sure that there is, at least, a news article from an online local newspaper saying that.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 12:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those subject-specific criteria do not have to be fulfilled if WP:N is. Print sources are perfectly acceptable is they meet WP:RS. The way to confirm it is to buy the book or find it in a library. There is no requirement for sources to be online. Ty 03:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DELSORTed under Arts. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has improved since the nom with more references. The link [21] mentioned as not existing is on the Internet Archive and now linked.[22] Ty 03:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep My comment above, quoted by the nominee, was added to the talkpage to explain why I had re-added a notability tag [23]. Since then, even before the AfD nom, the article had been improved. Still doesn't meet the WP:CREATIVE criteria I was alluding to, and the subject isn't in any way a major artist. But multiple refs make it OKish.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has been improved. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, still needs credible work though...Modernist (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, he did won an award, but I'm not sure of its significance; I have the impression that it's a local award created to commemorate a centennial. The fact that the President of the Philippines doesn't automaticall(y) make the award notable; would have also said the same about the artist in this article. I'd agree with Ethicoaestheticist, I was looking for something more substantive.

One more thing: improving the article doesn't make it more keep-worthy. For all I care, even a hoax article can be improved to bring it up to the level of a featured article, but that doesn't make it more worthy of a keep. In considering whether an article should be kept or deleted, one should evaluate the merits of an article based on its notability, and the sources with its verifiability and reliability. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about the improvement was meant to mean that it had improved sufficiently to be kept, but that there was justification for the nom, because at that time it was not in a state to be kept. Ty 01:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about the improvement: Even though the article was improved, the concerned person is still not notable. The fact is that he only have one painting mentioned that became "controversial", and citations rarely mentioned his name. He was also a recipient of only one award, but the award's notability is still in question. Apart from that, the article does not give any assertion why he should be notable. One of the links is still a work done by Sillada, which according to this is not good. Okay, so the article has citations that point into some website: but they are pointed into the homepage of a certain website that is difficult to find where on the earth he mentioned [24]. As such, winning an award does not mean a very fast elevation to notability. I agree with Titopao, if I'm not mistaken, certified hoax, when written very well can be an FA -- a good-written article does not mean a good content, it must also be subjected to WP rules since this is Wikipedia.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 12:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An artist's works do not have to be controversial. The ref you mention to the homepage gives the issue date and page number for the print source: it does not seem to be online. If you check the refs, you will find articles specifically about Sillada in different sources. There is no indication this is a hoax. Ty 01:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not saying this is a hoax, but I am citing a hoax article as an example.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 14:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Ty and others. There will inevitably be much less coverage in Anglophone media of Filipino artists, which sways me. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Camargo Monteiro

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

Notability has not been established despite requests. Bio information is not referenced and may be autobiographical. EndoSTEEL (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources are self-published. Nothing to indicate notability. No ghits. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 19:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Falcon8765 (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable per WP:AUTHOR. Algébrico (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World War II.5

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

This article falls under the category of "things I made up one day that sound legit". It is particularly tragic because, as far as things go that are made up one day that sound legit, I'd have totally believed this article were it not for the cheesy title (which shows no relevant hits on Google) and the inaccurate lists (Indiana Jones didn't take place during World War II but rather throughout the 1930s, and The Sum of All Fears is a quintessentially Cold War book). Good effort though. Alas, the jig is up and it's time to send this article to a digital graveyard. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely WP:MADEUP. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 19:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and could have been speedy deleted. I suppose there's a sort of air of possible legitimacy about it which refrains people from the speedy delete.Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 22:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Made Up. Joe Chill (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Care: I wasted enough time on this. Let some else save it because later on someone else in the future will rewrite the same article if you delete it.Septagram (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(By The Way)

- WWII+: [25]
- WWII+: [26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Septagram (talk • contribs) 05:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is a course catalog from the University of North Dakota, and makes no mention of "WWII+" or any variant thereof. The second link is a forum with 1 mention of "WW2+". This is not enough to show that this term is anything more than WP:MADEUP. I see no indication of widespread use in the industry. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 04:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Tarantino's World War II Redux http://calitreview.com/4560
- WW2 Redux and world war II redux has a better search result on Google. Would ww2 redux be a better title than ww2.5?Septagram (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. Gosox5555 (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Alternate history. Hairhorn (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate history is tempting but it covers all periods of history (including WW2) while there is a whole genre of WW2 alternative history that is more prolific than steampunk and is not covered in much detail by any single article. If a section dedicated to WW2 was added (would be large), it might work in Alternate history. Septagram (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate WW2 histories are discussed at Alternate History. I'm not convinced this needs its own entry. Hairhorn (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, with all possible speed.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kolev

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

Non notable - 8 year old footballer. Fails notability guidelines at WP:Athlete noq (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I contested speedy deletion because there was a claim of importance, and the birth date could have been a typo, but the claim to play for Slavia Sofia isn't backed up by the the team's web site, and on further reflection I suspect that "Slavia Sofia 2001" is the Bulgarian equivalent of what would be called in England "Slavia Sofia under-9s". There is a Kolev playing for Slavia, but his first name is Todor. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:ATHLETE Spiderone 12:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Geschichte (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have tagged this for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G7 as the author and sole contributor has blanked the page. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:21, 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 22:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B.C. Williamson

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable. Newly created fictional musician that is trying to use Wikipedia to increase its credibility. noq (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I am allowed to debate here, but noq, B.C. Williamson does not intend to use Wikipedia to increase "his" credibility. The article plainly states that he is not real, and the aim of the article is to merely inform other users on B.C. Williamson, the same as any other article on Wikipedia Coolguy1793 (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are OK to make a case here. On the articles talk page you stated that you needed a Wikipedia entry to maintain interest in the fictional musician. That seems to me like using Wikipedia to establish credibility. noq (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. No third party coverage. The extent of B.C.'s notability extends to a mere 240 plays on Last.fm and, as far as I can tell, one EP on iTunes (which has only just been released in the past few hours). ∙ AJChamtalk 17:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Notability has not increased since the previous version was debated and deleted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Note that the previous AfD resulted in the article being tagged {{db-hoax}}. The deletion was not carried out as the criterion did not apply.~~ ∙ AJChamtalk 19:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies - on closer examination I see that the db and previous AfD were unconnected. ∙ AJChamtalk 19:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable subject. Pemberton08 (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete and salt Its essentially G11 material, G4'able if the previous deletion discussion had been closed normally, violates MADEUP, fails MUSICBIO. This is precisely the sort of reason why MADEUP should be a new speedy criterion. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sssoul (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient notability. Master Runner (^Talk/_Contribs) 06:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has increased, I think- a .com website has been added, his following has increased, and 4 tracks (not one, as previously stated by someone) are now for sale on iTunes, with a 20 track album being released very soon, according to his website. Also, noq, I take back that point about using the wiki to increase his notability- I phrased it badly: I meant to say how the wiki would be used to join all knowledge of BC (be it in the real or virtual world) together in one place, for others to add to and help edit. Isnt that in the very spirit of Wikipedia? Coolguy1793 (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I aimed to create this wiki for the same reason as anyone would create any other wiki for any other public figure- so people can search for him and learn a little about him- when interested in a public figure, I at least, give them a search on google and on Wikipedia just to find out about them. Why shouldn't B.C. Williamson's prospective new fans do so too? Because, at the moment, as you said, the only media available on B.C. Williamson is on his site himself- so why shouldn't there be a wiki article for everyone to view, and (especially if the article is biased, as you may suspect) edit it? Coolguy1793 (talk) 12:16, 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. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Wind B.V.

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

I have serious doubts that this article can pass WP:CORP. It is entirely self-referential to the company website and has a tone that sounds suspiciously like corporate PR or someone else with a WP:COI has written the bulk of it. If notability cannot be established, the article should be deleted. --Dynaflow babble 18:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no effort to assert notability, zero referencing, written entirely like an advertisement. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: only reference is a deadlink (and has been marked as such) -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:14, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FFF (gang)

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

Non-notable groups that fails WP:ORG and doesn't bother to assert notability.. Would have nominated it for speedy delete except that they got talked about in a single article in Rolling Stone 23 years ago and I'm sure some admin would call that an assertion of notability. Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rolling Stone magazine published a very extensive multi-paged exposé on this gang and its members (a heavily abridged, yet still multi-paged reprint of it can be found here), thus easily passing WP:NOTABILITY. That's why I created an article about it. Additionally, the Los Angeles Times has published significant coverage on this topic [27][28] (despite the nom's claim that it lacks "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources", that 1st LA Times article was found in the link provided by the nom above in this AfD!). Being a unique Caucasian Los Angeles gang that has received significant coverage from very reliable sources is an assertion of notability. A reliable source can be published 23 years ago, 2 years ago or 230 years ago and still be a valid source per WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say notability expires? No. So stop pretending that I did. I said lack of significant coverage from multiple sources. I found the LA times abstracts. The second one was more about individuals than the gang, so I dn't count it as significant coverage of them. Nor did I say the Rolling Stone one couldn't be used....just that it was the only one cited in the article. Even that article spends a lot of time talking abotu the people, their motivations etc..... but not that much about the gang itself, so I'm not so sure that the article really helps the gangs notability as much as it would look if you don't bother to read it. It appears to me that they were more novelty than notable. That's why I brought it here. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By stating "single article in Rolling Stone 23 years ago" gives the impression that "23 years ago" is some kind of handicap to the source. It isn't. In regards to the odd "Even that article spends a lot of time talking [about] the people, their motivations etc." statement, if the source didn't go in-depth about those aspects of the gang, than the coverage would be much less significant and in-depth. The Rolling Stone article actually goes into much more detail about the origins, history and activities of the gang in addition to "the people, their motivations etc." --Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And still, when I repeat that I didn't say notability expires, you feel the need to tell me that is doesn't expire again. How much more clear can I make it to you. I didn't see that much notability in the Rolling Stone article. You could substitute pretty much most generic gangs and much of it would fit. And even if I thought that article was significant coverage, that is only one. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that a multi-paged in-depth article from a national and very prestigious publication about this topic, which you even admit "spends a lot of time talking [about] the people, their motivations etc.", is not significant coverage is noted, but WP:NOTABILITY doesn't agree. As it being "only one", (actually, it's two multi-paged in-depth articles about this topic), WP:NOTABILITY doesn't require more than one. It states "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." --Oakshade (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:ORG says sources, plural. I believe they were treated as a novelty. Had there not been a music tie in with members being part of a non-notable punk band (their article was deleted as non-notable in 2006), I highly doubt Rolling Stone would have bothered at all. It's not like the gang actually did much that was notable, especially compared to other gangs in that area. After 20+ years, you can't find anything beyond about a one year time frame and damn few at that. Oh well, let's see how the AfD goes. I don't particularly care either way, but you are clearly taking this very personal.Niteshift36 (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, WP:ORG doesn't trump WP:NOTABILITY. It's the opposite. Secondly, there are two multi-paged sources about this topic (you keep ignoring this) which currently makes it plural anyway. Your opinion/blind speculation of why Rolling Stone choose to do a major exposé on this topic has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia's guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY, specifically WP:GNG, says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sourceS...". That letter s at the end source sources means plural, as in more than one. So I'm not sure where you get this idea that "WP:NOTABILITY doesn't require more than one". It goes on to say that if it meets this "by consensus" it is "usually worthy" for inclusion. So do me a couple of favors: Stop misrepresenting GNG and stop acting like it is a drop-dead issue that isn't allowed to be discussed. And while you keep repeating "multi-page" ad nasuem, you gloss over the fact that while technically correct, it is because the article is in a column format and the space is just foudn where ever. This is obvious from the link you provided. My "opinion/blind speculation" is allowed here. That is how consensus is arrived at...by editors giving opinions. I'm sorry that you are so annoyed at the fact that someone disagrees with you or that someone would have the audacity to nominate an article you wrote, but such is life. And other editors do feel that criteria like WP:ATHLETE, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ORG should be looked at first because they deal more directly with the topics at hand. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Firstly, there are at least two in-depth very significant sourceS about this topic. Secondly, WP:NOTABILITY, specifically WP:GNG states "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." Both these points you have completely ignored. If you'd like to change WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG to require more than one source, you need to make your case at WP:NOTABILITY's talk page and not attempt to change it in a specific AfD. But again, there are already sourceS so we don't know why you keep demanding more than one source when there is already more than one significant source provided.
In regards to the "After 20+ years, you can't find anything beyond about a one year time frame and damn few at that" statement (odd that you kept repeating that you didn't say notability expires, not to mention admitted there are sources), a topic could have received significant in-depth coverage in a one-year time frame 200 years ago and still pass WP:NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you intentionally trying to mislead? You're back to this claim that I'm saying notability expires? I'm saying if they were that notable, usually there'd be more coverage than a short time frame. It's not like this is somethig that just happened and there hasn't been time for the media to cover it. Two decades and they've pretty much ignored it except for the local paper and one magazine. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Rolling Stone being a national publication and the Los Angeles Times being one of the most prestigious newspapers in the US, there has never been any kind of "banning" of local reliable sources as evidence of notability. (Actually, the Chicago Tribune, which isn't local to Los Angeles, also did a profile of this gang [29])--Oakshade (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the first I saw of the Chicago Tribune one. Thanks for the link. Regardless of the size or prestige of the LA Times, it is still the local paper for them. Local papers carry local news. That's a given. We're just not going to see eye to eye. Let's agree to disagree and just let the AfD take its course. I personally won't lose a minute of sleep one way or another if it is kept or deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to change WP:NOTABILITY to not accept local sources as evidence of notability, no matter how in-depth and significant the coverage of a given topic from those sources are, you are free to make your case at Wikipedia talk:Notability. --Oakshade (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh....whatever man.......If you're so damn certain about it, then why are you wasting so much time defending it. This should be an easy keep when it closes if this is how you say. Or is it just personal for you now? Don't bother, that was rhetorical. I'm done talking with you. Enjoy playing the sound of one hand clapping. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you are the nom and throwing up misleading statements about WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG (like multiple sources are required) or arguments that have nothing to do with our guidelines, they need to be called on. I could ask you if you're so certain about this AfD, "then why are you wasting so much time defending it?" I'm sorry you're offended so much that you feel need to make a personal attack. --Oakshade (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: See Oakshade - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In addition to what's already mentioned, there is also a New York Times article that discusses this gang in several paragraphs; I've added that reference. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There isn't a huge amount, but the sources are significant: Rolling Stone, The New York Times, Associated Press/Chicago Tibune, and Los Angeles Times... and local coverage in Los Angeles, California is a bit different than local coverage in Mayberry, North Carolina. Besides, when the Weekly World News writes about them, they must be notable.[30] (BTW, FFF mentioned in another LATimes article about white youth gangs: [31].) Location (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW JForget 22:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear overload

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

This a new theory of the author's, i.e. original research. It was PRODded, but the author has objected to deletion on the talk page, so I bring it here. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New editor, first contribution, I'll try not to be harsh. But as the nominator points out, a search for the term doesn't indicate that it's used in the sense that the editor suggests. The concept of all the world's nuclear weapons going off at the same time because of some Y2K-like computer glitch is probably mentioned in science fiction, but I wouldn't know where. You have to have sources to back up an article, and this one seems to be the editor's own idea. Mandsford (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure original research. Any article on the topic of arms control/limitation, nuclear weapons policy/proliferation etc. that does not cite Albert and Roberta Wohlstetter for at least one of its sources should, in my opinion, be viewed with suspicion. L0b0t (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism and just plain dumb. Hairhorn (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete rubbish. Nuclear weapons do not explode because of a "computer overload", and the author's heavy use of weasel words like "theorists say" is a pretty clear signal that they're making this up. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MADEUP NEOlogism. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:42, 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) 06:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing (character)

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

This doesn't assert notability independent of the main article. The only thing that could potentially assert notability is the character's death, but E.U. (TVB)#Reception already covers that. The other language versions of the article have a number of sources, but as far as I can tell from bad online translators, they all pretty much just say the same thing. Anything else can just be added to the reception section of the main article. TTN (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom completely. Eusebeus (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable subject. Pemberton08 (talk) 20:14, 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.

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat

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}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural re-listing of this AfD, based on the outcome of a recent deletion review discussion. There was considerable concern over the the presence of sockpuppets, and both discussions were highly divisive. The original justification was that the article failed Wikipedia's criteria for notability. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a pure vanity insertion and is just another CV of a Bureaucrat. The gentleman has done nothing worthwhile which should encompass the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:BIO. -- MARWAT 17:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable subject. Pemberton08 (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep The sources mentioned are enough to testify the notability. [[[Special:Contributions/115.186.142.37|115.186.142.37]] (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)] — 115.186.142.37 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What Notability? What special has he done apart from holding a certain position as a bureaucrat like thousands of others in Pakistan. Can you name one which conforms with Wikipedia:Bio? -- MARWAT 00:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep It must be kept in order to pay encomium to the officers of police who are doing their duty in war torn part of Pakistan . I went through sources and find the gentleman holds a senior position. Fulfills WP criteria. [[[Special:Contributions/202.69.15.29|202.69.15.29]] (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)]— 202.69.15.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep I believe there has been enough debate on this article and i think now it should be kept since it qualifies WP Bio noteability.[[[Special:Contributions/119.73.6.184|119.73.6.184]] (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)]] — 119.73.6.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Closing Admin - Just like the earlier AFD the anonymous IPs are back to sabotage this AFD as well. Please note that all the above three Keep are from IP Addresses who have only contributed to this AFD. My request would be to identify them as users with one or few edits or purpose built log-ins. Clearly someone related to the gentleman is doing this and this is no less then the sockpuppetry exhibited in the earlier AFD. None of them would however, explain the merits of this entry as asked by me. Please take note of this. -- MARWAT 14:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not a vote tag added; SPAs tagged. Tim Song (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Nothing more than a police officer's job like in every town of the world. AliUmer (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC) !vote by suspected sockpuppet (indef blocked) struck. Tim Song (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as joint chief of police in a province with a population of over 20 million - larger than all but two US states and many independent countries. By any half-way sensible criterion that would mean that this is an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The listed references mention the subject but are not about him. Notability requires more than just getting your name in the paper. I'm sure the subject has an important job and he does it well, but Wikipedia does not exist to recognize that kind of thing.--RDBury (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has remained my class-fellow, while studying at University of Peshawar and still is one of my close friends. However, he is not holding a notable job. Every city has a police officer like him. WikipedianBug (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep This article must be kept. Abbasmaj (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Why?? just to vote a keep here and giving no reasons whatsoever. To bring it on record I have just found out that the name of this gentleman's son is Abbas Majeed and the user Abbasmaj looks a clear combination of Abbas and Majeed. This user is also the original creator of this vanity article too and would not explain about the genuine merits of keeping this article over here though. -- MARWAT 01:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO/WP:ANYBIO. Just having an important-sounding title isn't sufficient, he has do accomplish something notable for the sources to report upon. Favonian (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to lack of sources that specifically talk about him. A police chief doing his duty, the sources aren't about him. His name appears because he was the police chief at that moment. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skill360 Australia

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Australia has only about 19 million people in it. In America, we have 15 times as many people. If instead of helping 15,000 Australians, a nonprofit organization was helping 225,000 Americans, would it then be considered notable? Dream Focus 16:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No refs to establish that this training provider meets WP:ORG and the article doesn't make any strong claims of notability. 15,000 students over 25 years is pretty small for an Australian vocational education provider (most TAFE colleges would train at least that many students per year). Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources, no real claim to notability (training ~600 people a year doesn't seem notable to me). Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:52, 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 16:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Speed

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

The pressure group Safe Speed does not reach the notability criteria for organizations and companies - coverage of the group by secondary sources is trivial and incidental, and depth of coverage is not substantial. It is not truly a group, but the work of a single woman and her late husband - it is no more a national or international organisation than any online forum. Kouros (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], and a particularly scathing critique here. Not to mention founder Paul Smith's (and his wife) many television and radio appearances over a period of many years, details of which may be found here. Coverage of this organisation is by no means trivial, or incidental, and I am unaware of any rules on notability that mention the size of a group. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Add this to the list of sources which mentions Safespeed and its founder, Paul Smith. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Paul Smith was (briefly) quoted in the UK news media, resulting in a fairly detailed review of their claims by consumer magazine Which?, unusual for a group like this; per WP:BLP it is right to cover this under the name of the group. It was always a one-man band, true, and the fifteen minutes of fame ended quite some time ago, but in the brief period before everybody realised that the sciencey talk was all smoke and mirrors (Smith repeatedly refused to submit his work for peer-review) they were just about the only source quoted against the mainstream view on speed enforcement and there are some in the Provisional ABD who actually believe the absurd one in three and 12mph claims, as well as crediting him for the long-established regression to the mean principle described in Death On The Streets a decade before Smith "invented" it. Yes, barking mad and grossly intellectually dishonest but still has obsessive followers even today. Anyone interested in my biases and involvement can see my website page on Smith. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A frequent editor of this article, Parrot of Doom, has been posting into the SafeSpeed site. He pleads with other posters to "please don't edit this entry if you're not a regular Wikipedia contributor". He acknowledges that if they do, then "what I'm doing here may then be viewed as canvassing opinion". However, he does ask for "evidence to support the case for keeping this article". I'd politely suggest that Parrot of Doom has indeed "canvassed for opinion", and we should consider that activity when judging the validity of the article. Basingwerk (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) - PS this is not to "teach PofD a lesson" or anything like that. PofD is doing a sterling job in protecting the site. But I want to make it public that the site has been approached in this way, which distorts things, in my humble opinion.[reply]
- I was not canvassing for opinion. I was asking contributors to that forum for evidence that I could use in this discussion, and to date one forum member has responded to that request. Besides which, activity outside Wikipedia has no bearing on this discussion unless anyone from that forum turns up in this discussion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for responding, PofD. The response concerns a book by Chris Booker, who has in the past has claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008, that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health, that "scientific evidence to support the belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist" and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans". He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions". So, that's all very helpful for cranks, but it's not the type of thing we are looking for on Wiki. In fact, it's just opinion (IMHO!), not based on science at all. On the other hand, perhaps it makes the site "notable", but not as a rational road safety organization. Can it be put under a category for "Anti-science belief systems", or some such thing? PS: Guy's comments on "obsessive followers" ring true in this regard. Again, is it a valid road safety group, or a grudge site? PPS: you didn't ask for "evidence that I could use in this discussion". You specifically asked for evidence that supports keeping it. That is the source of the bias.

- - My posting the link to the book was unrelated to the content of the article, and discussion of which category this article should be placed under is irrelevant here. The question is, is the subject of the article notable? I believe it is. Do not accuse me of underhand tactics again, it is insulting and wrong. I have no interest in seeing this article deleted, and therefore will not ask for evidence to that effect. Talk about whatever you like, notability is the discussion here, and publication in sources such as the afore-mentioned book helps assert it. By the way, you have not stated your reason for wanting the article deleted, which renders it worthless. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I am publicizing your support for SafeSpeed ("Paul, you have my support on your campaign..."). Also, please strive for articles that advocate no single point of view, whatever your personal tastes. This means that you must be even-handed when asking for evidence (do not go on more "fishing trips"). Yes, SafeSpeed was notable, for a period. It is no longer. Please take these views into account when judging the suitability of this article. It's depth of coverage is not substantial anymore. It is not truly a group, but the work of Paul Smith, it is no more a national or international organisation than any online forum. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Basingwerk (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC) PS: it might be sufficient to talk of the "group" in the past tense; as its influence only existed briefly. While the "site" still exists, the "campaign" died when Paul Smith did.[reply]
      - (indent)I couldn't give a flying inflatable pig what you think of my private views. It is my actions on this project that count. Whether or not I support Safespeed is irrelevant. I have deleted swathes of material from that page that could be seen to be supportive of the group, but as it was unreferenced it went in the bin. You appear to be quite deluded as to the purpose of this discussion. If you are going to make claims of bias or a lack of neutrality in this discussion, provide diffs and entries I have made to do so, or stop right now before people with thinner skin than I start taking notice. For anyone else who may be interested, I am the third largest contributor to this start-class article. Frankly I have more important articles to attend to. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "Yes, SafeSpeed was notable, for a period. It is no longer", as far as Wikipedia is concerned notability is not temporary. Abraham Lincoln didn't stop being notable when he died and if, as you just said, the group were notable at one point, they still are regardless of their current level of influence. Nev1 (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already dealt with that, Nev1. We speak of Lincoln in the past tense. It might be sufficient to talk of SafeSpeed in the past tense. SafeSpeed is synonymous with its founder, who is dead. The article doesn't faithfully convey it's demise. Furthermore, while WP:NTEMP, relevance is temporary. If the power of SafeSpeed is diminished, then it is no longer a pressure group but merely a web site, that used to run a campaign. It becomes an historical event. The web site is something different, but SafeSpeed's glory days are over (for good?)

If you feel the article needs improvement, then improve it. If you don't want to, then don't bother. But don't try asserting that just because it could stand a bit of spit and polish it should be deleted, because that rationale would see more than half the en.wiki articles disappear overnight. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That the group was notable does not really seem to be in dispute, and as notability is not temporary, as Nev1 says, then this group remains notable. I also find the unfounded accusations of a lack of neutrality in the writing to be risible. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PofD - did you pledge your support to the SafeSpeed campaign, or not? If so, the lack of neutrality exists in the "writer", not the "writing", doesn't it? I've already responded to Nev1's point, so Malleus_Fatuorum is adding nothing new.Basingwerk (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC) PS: and let's have a little less of the "old boy's club" as well, please.[reply]

I suggest that you watch your mouth Basingwerk. If you want to make any accusations then please have the courage to do so openly. Your logic appears to be no better than your manners. We are supposed to be judging the writing, not the writer, although it is clear from your comments that you have not yet internalised that fundamental difference. Whether PoD did or did not "pledge support" to the Safe Speed campaign has no bearing on that. I might as well question your motivations for wanting this article deleted. Did you "pledge support" to another group promising that you would have it deleted? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MF. No, I pledged support to no-one. But we know that PoD did pledge support to the Safe Speed campaign. If you have read something into that, then that is in your own mind. Would you prefer not to know things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basingwerk (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I've been a little hasty. I'm not saying that PofD is a bad man - far from it, I'm sure he's ace. He really gets stuck in. He can edit any wiki article he likes, but he has chosen to aggressively protect the article of a group that he supports politically. I've said enough - ignore it as you wish. But (as a general note) "tough-guy" editors should not throw out one-sided invitations for evidence, nor should they they be involved with the groups concerned. Let's just use our common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basingwerk (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've said too much. You have presented no argument for the deletion of this article. All you've done is sling some accusations around. Any more and I may take the issue elsewhere. I will not have people cast doubt upon my neutrality and commitment to this project. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs more RS refs adding but that appears to be easily sortable. Looks notable enough to me given the links PoD has brought to the discussion. As for the rest of the comments seen here... anyone smell anything coming from under that bridge over there? --WebHamster 18:02, 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. Not enough strong, policy driven keep arguments to counter the those wanting deletion. A few keeps' main focus seemed to be 'wait and see in a few months', and those remaining didn't do enough 'illustrating' of notability. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Pusspuss

The result was Speedy close Sorry folks this AfD was started by an indefinitely blocked user - acting through his sock-puppet. I am closing as a matter of correct procedure - illegitimate socks cannot edit anywhere on the 'pedia and should not be allowed to start an AfD. Please note I do not close this discussion with any objection to it being immediately restarted - and I ask that an interested editor please do so with their own reasons as soon as possible.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Cool Hand Luke has reinstigated this AfD after correctly usurping responsibility from the illegitimate sock who initially commenced this AfD.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I take full responsibility for this nomination. This was originally nominated by a banned user, but their reasons were sound. In particular, WP:BIO states that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There are few independent and reliable published secondary sources about this character; the bulk of them appear to be self-written. Cool Hand Luke 22:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

Original nomination from banned user

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The subject is not notable under their real name. In 'real life' the subject is a journalist for a online publication which is not particularly notable, and Googling their real name only returns a handful of results (I will not divulge their identity, but I will answer good-faith questions by email).
WP:BIO states that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". 'Independent of the subject' means material that was not written or published by the subject. But many of the references in the article are clearly by the subject, e.g. [40], which is a letter to the editor of the SF Bay Times, [41] which is promotional, see also [42], [43], [44], among others.

The Land Surveyor (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the last AfD and talk pages, it has been suggested that DJ Pusspuss=Sister Kitty Catalyst=Benji Holmann, and it seems ~~likely~~ certain that this is correct: "DJ PussPuss (Sister Kitty/ Benji)"[45]; "Benji aka DJ Pusspuss"[46]; Benjamin Holmann says "I also dj as DJ Pusspuss"[47]; Both Holmann and Sister Kitty are co-founders of "Beautiful Lips on Whistles" and OUCH and organisers of the SF Aids Candlelight Vigil[48][49]; B Holmann uses the Yahoo identity Pusspusspuss, which is Sister Kitty's email address, and the profile for that ID is under the name DJ Pusspuss[50][51][52]. Do the real life person and the two personas not have enough notability between them for an article? Fences&Windows 16:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to rain on the identity parade here but in all that research there is only one unreliable source stating the two people are the same. This is not new, the rest of your original research is definitely interesting but only suggests the two are likely the same. Many organizations have multiple co-founders so not much there. Sharing an email account is more compelling but also not conclusive. -- Banjeboi 21:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going with a very weak keep, on account that he has his name out there. Given Fences' note that the three personalities are pretty much the same, I'd be more inclined to merge the three articles out there, since they are the same person. Does Benji have an article of his own?.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holmann doesn't have an article. As I'm playing join the dots with primary sources Wikilawyers may argue against a merge - there's no reliable secondary source that says in black and white that the three are the same. Fences&Windows 16:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with other page and make one biography based on original person. There is not enough notability to suggest having two persona pages, and they are best used as two parts of one greater biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 19:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 19:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 19:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. Since I last went through and added sources I have been unable to find the radio interviews that were online previously. I'll leave it for others to decide if this meets GNG with what we have. With Fences and windows' excellent detective work seems they co-founded several organizations. There were several two-hour interviews that certainly were independent although they were hardly hard news. They were, BTW, with the same person being used to source the connection but nothing in the interviews addressed any connection or identity besides the DJ one but was helpful to add in some biographical and early life content. Despite Fences and windows' excellent detective work I don't see any sourcing to back up a merge. There is only one unreliable source - an entry on livejournal.com no less - making the assertion but looking through their other entries they seem to make mistakes. There is also the possibility we have two people sharing one email account and by extension, likely live together and work on projects together. -- Banjeboi 21:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you DJ Pusspuss? Cool Hand Luke 21:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll give you the same answer I give everytime I'm asked if I am so-and-so. I've been accused of being many of the folks in the bios and articles I've worked on, even being a part of Rosie O'Donnell's R Family Vacations. Because of both real world and wikipedia attacks and threats I keep my information private. The one exception to this rule is Chris Crocker who i will again deny being as he apparently gets daily death threats. Editing Wikipedia is not worth being killed. -- Banjeboi 22:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't speculate on the identity of Wikipedia editors. If they chose to be pseudonymous, we respect that. Nobody has yet asked me if I'm Naomi Klein, despite my username. I'm guessing Cool Hand Luke isn't Paul Newman.

As for my detective work, the blogger Ms. Kittywhore/Melinda Adams makes the same association in another post, and certainly seems to know Holmann well, especially as her name appears side-by-side with Holmann's in a section of thanks in this newsletter, she worked with him an event and she should know Sister Kitty as she works with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. So whatever Wikipedia rules say, I know the truth. Fences&Windows 22:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We out people all the time when we think they have a COI of interesting, outting only seems to be a problem when it's someone who's been around for a while (which is a double standard in itself). I would hope that if a COI interest did exist for any of our editors, that they cease and desist. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::: No we dont out folk "all the time". If we suspect there is a COI, and there's a clear case someone's editing against NPOV, then in the first instance the polite thing to do is to ask them to take a step back. There are plenty of other options before we should hassle an editor concerning their real life identity, especially when they've advised they may be at risk of hate crime. Lets try to retain a sense of decency here please. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. It seems that the nominating account has been blocked by an admin. I wasn't sure why, but looking at their contribs they seem to be a sock of User:Peter Damian, who is banned. I suggest we close this now as a bad faith nomination. Fences&Windows 23:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the blocking admin I think it should remain open. This article has been extensively discussed in a number of places and my block was in no way an attempt to quash as what I think is a legitimate deletion debate. If this discussion is closed I have little doubt there will be another one created shortly. Brandon (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, we are in no way attempting to quash a legitamate deletion debate, we simply feel this one is not legitimate. Wikipedia should not reward abusive editors. Editors can open another AfD immediately without it being tainted by an abusive sock puppet. If you feel strongly about this debate, close this one, and open a fresh new one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (3rd nomination). Ikip (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a bad faith nomination at all, but if it gets rid of unhelpful baggage, I'd be happy to restart with a blank slate for #3. Cool Hand Luke 04:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not seem to be notable. There are a large number of sources but many of them are dead, do not contain the information to substantiate their claim or are from highly questionable places. The potential COI is also rather disturbing. - Schrandit (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close now The nominator has been blocked indefinitely for block invasion.[53] We should not reward such behavior. AfDs should be closed immediately if created by a sock, see for example, a case were an admin closed the AFD by a sockpuppet[54] Editors can open another AfD immediately without it being nominated by an abusive sock puppet. Please close immediately. Ikip (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with their other article. Schrandit says everything I want to say. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would seem to fail WP:BIO and is therefore non-notable. Skinny87 (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. Crafty (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. - Queer Cultural Center describes him as "DJ Puss Puss aka Sister Kitty" Photo © Tommy Kohl (larger photo) (note that Tommy Kohl is the photographer of File:DJ Pusspuss by Tommy Kohl .jpg) and "DJ Puss Puss of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to see the Conflict of Interest problem properly addressed. There is an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. that turns on the same issues. Something or someone seems to be out of control here, and addressing the conflict of interest might be the way to simplify the whole thing. Smallbones (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These two articles were the first (and for a time, virtually only) content submitted by author. Cool Hand Luke 15:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I found this above and posted at the other AfD - This seems to be verification of the identity of Holmann, of the Spectrum, being DJ Puss Puss - "I also dj as DJ Pusspuss (mainly private events and awide variety of benefits) so I have an active and street knowledge of what people are seeking." It is reliable as it comes from the individual himself and is done as an official act in promotion of the column. The column happens to be used as reliable sourcing. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't want to verify, the article says: "Pusspuss' writings appear in various LGBT publications including San Francisco Bay Times,[4] San Francisco Spectrum[12]," Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: do not merge without extremely high-quality sourcing I'm rather uncomfortable with the amount of original research going on at these two AFDs. These are BLPs; we simply can not conflate these two identities without excellent sources showing that they are the same individual. "Verifiability, not Truth", 'member? Blog comments and mailing list posts are not going to do it, folks. Stop playing internet detective and find some real sources. -- Vary (Talk) 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research to read emails sent by Holmann and signed as DJ Pusspuss and Sister Kitty Catalyst and conclude that it's the same person. It's not original research to read an email written by Holmann in which he says that he's DJ Pusspuss. It's not original research to read blog posts written by a close acquaintance of his who says they're the same person. It's not original research to read the caption on a website that says that DJ Pusspuss is Sister Kitty, even if it is in the Internet Archive. ~~But as it's farcical to have two articles about personas of the same person, delete both.~~ Fences&Windows 20:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping my support for a merge, and I think DJ Pusspuss lacks the notability necessary for an article, so delete. Fences&Windows 08:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as outlined by Vary. This person apparently kept personas separate in most cases. DJ Pusspuss fails on its own, and the sources don't compel us to merge it. Cool Hand Luke 19:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources to the persona being connected to a real person makes me question notability. Brandon (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vary. Ironholds (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vary and Brandon. Keegan (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I followed to this link from the other AfD but i think the same issues are present. There seems to be some sleuthing going on which seems like it violates our original research policy spirit, if not the letter. Delete per lack of proper sources. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vary makes an excellent point. I don't see the nominator being banned as a reason to speedy close this nomination -- good faith edits from even banned users (which this user isn't) do not have to be reverted if they appear to be productive. — neuro^(talk) 06:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. to Benjamin Holmann. -->David Shankbone 16:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of those cases when merging is not an option. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. These AfDs are hot tempered and I feel the articles should be given to time to be evaluated and perhaps improved over time, when everything has cooled down. There is no deadline. If necessary, the situation could be re-evaluated in a few months. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Reinoutr. Or at least Merge it with Sister Kitty. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one manageable article about all the personae to Benjamin Holmann or in case this is not possible (e.g.) if Benjamin Hollman is not notable or because we have no way of conforming whether they are the same Delete.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It makes me suspicious that there are so many refs, but having looked through quite a lot of them, they don't seem to be much good. If it is wished to show that this person is notable then I suggest a radical pruning of the unreliable refs, and those with only a brief mention (e.g. being in a list of sponsors for a charity run) - there may be some decent refs that I have missed in amongst the rest. The problem with these sort of articles is that they give out an appearance of trying too hard, and makes notability more questionable, not less. Quantpole (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads like a promotional piece, no clear evidence of notability of this persona. perhaps this could be merged with material about all the other personas if it could be identified who the actual person behind them is, although I have my doubts, but not clearly independently notable. ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears overinflated with refs that aren't actually reliable on examination (like a letter to the editor). Is someone gaming the system by adding dozens of poor-quality refs and hoping no-one will check them? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No actually, I was adding what sources that were there but agree they should be clumped instead. As is one ref for six sources showing they had been quoted. Gaming was certainly not intended at all. -- Banjeboi 22:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Articles which conceal important information about their subjects (in this case that they are the same person) constitute deliberate disinformation. There is no place in Wikipedia for that. 195.188.41.154 (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Skomorokh 14:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdennour Cherif El Ouazzani

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

This link [55] shows that he hasn't made an appearance in a league that isn't pro. He also has limited independent news coverage. Spiderone 12:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on second thoughts, since Struway improved the article drastically, I think it's now worth keeping - a number of sources plus a big money transfer means this guy is porbably notable. Giant Snowman 11:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article and the link quoted above were a bit out of date. This shows he is now playing regularly for his new club in the Algerian top division, which is not proven to be fully professional (the division, not the club). And one or two references have been added to the article, one of which focuses on the role played by the player for his previous club and one contains a short interview regarding his transfer. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see. I'll have to try and get more people in here to see if this is enough to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone 15:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article looks much better now, well done. I'm still unsure if he passes WP:GNG though...Giant Snowman 16:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now. Article contains several sources from various Algerian publications, including verification of his transfer fee of £6million-plus; even if the Algerian league isn't proven to be fully-pro it's pretty serious money-wise at the top end... I'd say news coverage is now sufficient to pass WP:GNG. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plays in a notable league and article is well-referenced Eldumpo (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The threshold for inclusion of an article on a topic in Wikipedia is that that topic be important or laudable, it is that it has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The burden of proof is on those editors seeking to retain the article to show that these sources exist. Unfortunately in this instance that has not been achieved. Skomorokh 14:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Software Freedom Kosova

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

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

Not yet notable: a local conference organised for the first time. Miym (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How can you decide to delete it on the day of its event?

It is notable because for the first time, Government, Education and University supported Free Software, Wikipedia and other projects in Kosovo. We had speeches about wikipedia and open course ware. Also there are numerous references in google dev calendar, linux journal calendar. We have signed a memorandum of understanding with the University. There are plans for next year. We also have to include FLOSSK into this article. The name of the conference is SFK Software Freedome Kosova. Not Kosovo. please change. The conference was in the TV, newspaper and all over. Blogged about. We are working on the videos. Mdupont (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It was covered by one of the most accomplished newspaper in Kosova, Koha Ditore. --Aeternus ^(talk) 17:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Covered in what degree of detail? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Koha Ditore article on SoftwareFreedomKosova. --Aeternus ^(talk) 18:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is not a local conference but an international one, organized for the first time. It is going to have international speakers, among them Richard Stallman. kedadial 22:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, according to Speaker's Bio RMS won't be part of the conference. I know that he was invited and as far as I know he accepted to be part of the conference, but things seem to have change in the mean time. Maybe User:Mdupont as a founder of the conference can clarify the situation regarding RMS a little bit more as I personally am not affiliated in any way with the conference and I didn't follow their lists for a pretty long time now. Thank you. kedadial 23:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mdupont (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More than 400 people were there. --Heroidshehu ^(talk) 07:46, 01 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There were actually over 500 people registered, 40 topics and 20 international speakers. The shortcomings can be fixed. This was the biggest FLOSS gathering to have ever happened in the Balkans. 82.114.80.218 (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it would help a lot if those who want to keep this article could provide concrete examples of how this event was covered in media, in English. Don't just say that the conference was "all over", provide concrete references. If the original sources are not in English, could you perhaps give a translation of a short excerpt so that others can more easily get an idea of the content? Currently, the article has 4 links to sources. However, only 1 of them [56] is in English, and this particular article seems to be written by Arianit Dobroshi who also seems to be affiliated with the conference [57]; therefore I cannot take it as a source that is "independent of the subject", as required by WP:N. — Miym (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Covering event in English is not necessary for relevance of one event. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 09:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry, but I can not see how this even comes close to meeting inclusion criteria. Such coverage as has been mentioned here is pretty clearly the type of routine coverage contemplated by WP:NOTNEWS. It isn't notable based on English language sources, and while I normally prefer to err in favor of inclusion in possible language-bias cases, the fact that this was the first year of the conference makes me feel pretty comforatable that there is no there there.Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 12:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Aeternus's link to the Koha Ditore article fails to show how this passes WP:N. The article appears to be a press release or community announcement; this does not establish notability. I may be wrong because I can't read the language of the article, so if someone can provide a translation of it, my views about the Koha Ditore article may change. kedadial's arguments fall afoul of WP:INHERITED, while Heroidshehu (talk · contribs) and 82.114.80.218 (talk · contribs)'s arguments fall afoul of WP:BIGNUMBER. I would reconsider my vote if more sources could be found; however, at the moment, I cannot see how the current sources are sufficient to pass WP:N. Cunard (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The event has been great, with a lot of people and mainly with some very good speach from everywere in the World. It has been nice to see a lot of very young people directly involved and so enthusiastic! They will do, next year, the first Software Freedom Conference for Balcans! Many politicians did and will support the event! Flavia Marzano (talk • contribs) 13:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regionally relevant event. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 09:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - roberto galoppini write http://robertogaloppini.net/2009/06/25/kosova-sfck09-the-first-free-software-freedom-conference-of-kosovo/ Mdupont (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm canvasing http://groups.google.com/group/free-software-conference/browse_thread/thread/869f79133e06305d/407ec7d2a8c45cb2 .©Geni 17:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and rename to Sharpe family murders. This topic (broadly conceived) has received coverage that satisfies our general notability guidelines, and this coverage has persisted half a decade later. That said, the article as stands is a coatrack for the event of the murders, which are more notable than the individual, and so in line with WP:BLP1E the article is to renamed and refocused with the murders as its topic. Skomorokh 14:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Myles Sharpe (Australian murderer)

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

Delete Non-notable person known only for having murdered his wife and daughter. While horrendous, these kind of events are unfortunately not rare. The only sources are (as to be expected) a short`newspaper article that he got convicted, a notice that his house is on sale, and the curt proceedings (a primary source). There will almost certainly be some more newspaper articles about this crime, but clearly WP:BLP1E applies. I don't think that Wikipedia can or should have an article on every single murderer who ever walked this Earth. Crusio (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of sources available for this article (including major features in major newspapers; the crime was reasonably notorious, at least in Melbourne) but I agree, BLP1E applies and unfortunately murders of this kind are not particularly rare. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most murderers aren't notable and there is no claim that this one is. Joe Chill (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't live in Australia, but judging by the sources, this doesn't seem to be much different than the Susan Smith case that captivated the United States (i.e., person murders family in a bizarre manner, hides bodies, and then goes on national television in a fake emotional plea for their return). I'd add that the Google search by the nominator was looking for the exact phrase "John Myles Sharpe (Australian murderer)", so it's not surprising that those five consecutive words didn't turn up. Searching for plain old "John Myles Sharpe" "john+myles+sharpe"&cf=all turns up this, and it's a matter of opinion whether that's enough to be notable. Seems to have been big news down under in '04 and '05, but on the other hand, Speargun Sharpe doesn't seem to have rated his own book in the True Crime section of the bookstore. Mandsford (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Google search mentioned above is automatically added, I didn't do that. I haven't looked into the Susan Smith article in detail, but to me it looks to be a WP:BLP1E case, too. Perhaps an encyclopedic article could be written about "people who murder their family/children and go on TV to ask for help in finding them" (but with a better tile :-), but individual articles about all these sad cases (which sadly will all be forgotten in another few years except by those who were directly touched) doesn't seem very reasonable. These articles will never become encyclopedic and cannot present more than: murder description, attempts to hide the crime, discovery and arrest, conviction. Adding the fact that their house is for sale/was sold really crowns it. Sorry, tis is newspaper article stuff, not encyclopedic content. --Crusio (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I thought you did the Google search. These only seem to have started recently, but now I know. Thanks. Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Where will it end? There are thousands (probably tens of thousands) of articles similar to the notoriety of this one (initial [inter]national shock at the gravity of the crime, then quick fading from the media, the a trial some months/years later, to be followed by lingering but "limited" web-based discussion and pages such as this...). The point is, if this page is deleted, then ALL of the pages on wiki about individual murders or attempted murders that arent notorious or unique enough to become "significantly internationally famous" would therefore be eligible for deletion too. For me, the point is not deletion of a minor article [that's why wiki has a search function - to find the exact info you want from amongst all the other minor articles], but it's about how the article is presented (which seems to be the primary criteria for deletion here) Jabberjawjapan (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jabberjawjapan's comment- while this guy is no more notable than the many other murderers listed on wikipedia, he is no less notable either. Precisely why this guy has been singled out for deletion I don't know. Unless there is: a) some reason that this particular case is less notable than all the others like it, or b) any plans to eliminate all the other articles as well, I see no reason that it should be deleted while others are left intact. There are plenty of individuals listed on wikipedia who are not "significantly internationally famous", but that doesn't immediately make them non-notable.122.106.156.3 (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Jabberjawjapan and preceding IP: I don't think that WP:Other stuff exists is a good or even valid keep argument. As for why this article: I stumbled upon a similar one during new article patrol and then went through the category "People convicted of murder by Victoria (Australia)". WP remains a work in progress, many thousands of articles still need to be added, many thousands of others may need to be deleted or merged, and countless thousands of stubs need to be expanded. In none of these cases can we just say, oh, there still thousands to go, lets not do this. I look forward to your arguments showing that this person is notable. --Crusio (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems a straightforward case of WP:BLP1E to me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I note that the oft cited WP:BLP1E (sorry - couldnt easily check the link to "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" - it goes to a "WP" DAB) talks about "a low-profile individual". Then again, how many "low profile individuals" are given names such as "The Mornington Monster"? For many, the shocking nature of this crime means its not low profile. Again I iterate that i think all this attention stems from the poor presentation of this article (and the absence here of any comment or attempt [besides my own recent ones so far] of re-editing or salvaging it).Jabberjawjapan (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry for the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS mistake, it's corrected. I don't think that "The Mornington Monster" indicates any special notability. Newspapers will often use such terms/headlines to generate sensation which increases sales. It doesn't take away that this person is known only for this one single event, which only generated some news coverage for a very limited period of time. And although I recognize that you are improving the article, it still is not very encyclopedic and as far as I can see never will be. --Crusio (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I note this website [58] lists only 29 "Australians convicted of murder", with one of them being Sharpe... And yes, its a single murder event (one that was perpetrated twice), but made more heinous by his callous post-mortem behaviour Jabberjawjapan (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it was heinous and callous, but as far as I know, that's not one of the criteria for notability. (BTW, even if this guy is a callous murderer, WP:BLP still applies, so I am not sure that the accusation of abusing his daughter is admissible under BLP - not saying it isn't, I just don't know). As for the website listing only 29 Australian convicted murderers, I am not sure what you mean with that. Do you mean to say that murder in Australia is rarer than we might think? Note that the source for this website is Wikipedia (see small print at bottom). --Crusio (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess the info is based on wiki, but who compiled that shortlist (out of all the cases of murder in australia)? anyway, so far this debate focus has been on sharpe and BLP notability - so why not simply rename/re-edit the article to something not using his name?...i never really liked the 'australian murderer' tag anyway Jabberjawjapan (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it might lead to a solution. What I would think could be a good solution would be one article List of Australian murderers, along the lines of List of Portuguese supercentenarians, where each case has a few lines of bio. In the current case, that could include number and relationship with victims, and details such as the fact that he went on TV to call for a search. The current (and other similar) articles could then become a redirect to this list. --Crusio (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jabberjawjapan's comment and pursuant to WP:BLP1E, where is the tip over point to attain notability? Consider the sentence, "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." The event/individual has been given coverage beyond newspaper reportage at the time. Jabberjawjapan has provided evidence for two TV shows (1st in 2004, 2nd in 2009) which describe the event/individual and two books (1st in 2005, 2nd in 2008). These constitute persistent coverage in reliable secondary sources: the tip over point has passed, hence the article should be kept.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 10:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And how exactly does this satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)? --Crusio (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consider Perpetrators subsection, third dot point with "Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role" In said TV shows & books significant attention was drawn to Sharpe, to his use of the spear gun and to his duplicitious presentation as a concerned father/husband while knowing he was guilty. Once again persistent coverage has been shown in reliable secondary sources.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 20:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Featured on Crime Investigation Australia (TV series) and reported as "one of Australia's most ghastly crimes"/"one of the most violent crimes ever perpetrated in Australia"[59]. I tend to agree with Jabberjawjapan regarding the "The Mornington Monster" label. I'm not convinced that journalists invent sensationalist labels simply to make insignificant crimes significant. Location (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: subsequent to half of the discussion here, over the last week or so, the article has been significantly modified particularly to include more details of the participants/events, as well as the ongoing effects/significance of the case in the media...Jabberjawjapan (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also note Sharpe is listed on the Crime in Australia, Timeline of major crimes in Australia, and List of convicted Australian criminals wikipages too...Jabberjawjapan (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Sharpe family murders or something similar. The crime is notable, but the perpetrator is not. Moving would satisfy WP:BLP1E while retaining what is a valuable article. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Skomorokh 14:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Ellis

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

Unremarkable author. Prod tag removed by single purpose account which has previously been used for promoting this author on WP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Googling brings up very little, other than sales pages for her books. -- Hoary (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per the lack of relevant, reliable coverage. I have been unable to find any coverage about her on Google News Archive. Cunard (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep. The reviews below indicate that this author passes WP:CREATIVE. Cunard (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a British-German author. Google results vary wildly depending on where in the world you execute the query. Google Germany brings up dozens of relevant secondary sources including many independent book reviews, thus the author clearly meets the notability criteria (WP:CREATIVE Rule 3). (If it is okay to post external links in this discussion, I'll be glad to add some.) Additionally, rule 2 of WP:CREATIVE applies as well as the author arguably has - 25 years after Amateur City by Katherine V. Forrest - created the first post-feminist lesbian mystery (series), a stepping stone in the genre. Dana1964 (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes do please post external links of independent book reviews. Not a lot of them, instead just the most significant three. -- Hoary (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three independent book reviews available online, all discussing Ellis' first book. The listed sites also feature reviews of other books in the series. I deliberately chose non-LGBT related review sites to highlight the fact that the books have gained attention outside of LGBT media, something few lesbian mysteries achieve. Dana1964 (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Book Review 1 (Largest German book review site, 60 dedicated reviewers, >13,000 in-depth reviews.)
- Book Review 2
- Book Review 3

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 12:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The book reviews posted seem decent, it would be better to see something a more mainstream like Der Spiegel. Since it seems that she writes in German, I would be more convinced if she had an article in the German Wikipedia, but she only has a red link in 'Liste der Krimi-Autoren'. There are several links here from list type articles, nothing that would be missed if the article were deleted but enough to be considered.--RDBury (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the first review posted above to the article. It seems not too spammy and has biographical info.--RDBury (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The German reviews look ok but otherwise I can't find anything about her, not a thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per ehr notability. i have heard of her. external links point to notability and not the opposit.--Judo112 (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black African genetic contribution to the population of the European continent

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

POV fork of Genetic history of Europe and African admixture in Europe. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete, POV fork and may meet the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. If there is any useful information, it can be included in African admixture in Europe. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, delete Unnecessary content/POV fork. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Content fork aside, a cleanup won't help (it's horribly written to the point of being painful to read). Can't say nonsense - I was able to read enough of it to know it does make sense (i.e., all of it (!)), but it all boils down to a content fork. I can't even call POV - that, to me implies politics. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed !vote to Speedy Delete G5 (Article created by banned user). This one's on the fringe of that if anything, but I'm thinking it should be OK. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NoteI nominated this article for rescue because it is completly sourced its kind of messy but that means it should go under wp:articles for cleanup .The Count of Monte Cristo. (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed,
Week keep this article is well sourced although it may need some cleanup also it should be noted that it is not a POV fork since it is reliably sourced (E.G from scientific journals ) . Podoko (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Strike, editor Sophian under different signature.[reply]
Agreed, The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and send article creator back to the 19th century. "Negroids"?!?! What next, articles on the existence of aether? Fences&Windows 23:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article no longer uses the word Negriods Concerned Editor (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Strike, editor Sophian under different signature.[reply]
Delete. Obvious fork of African admixture in Europe. Unfortunately, there is no WP:CSD criteria which justifies speedy deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: several of the comments above with various signatures (The Count of Monte Cristo, Podoko, and Concerned Editor), were all left by User:SOPHIAN, who is the creator of this article. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless fork.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, redirect, or merge I am concerned that the first edit of the nominator was this AFD nomination, in violation of WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE.[60] Could a kind note to the creator have allowed him to userfy or redirect this page to a more proper place, avoiding the disruptive process of AFD? We will never know now. I don't really understand this article, and I doubt anyone else here does too, maybe not because it is badly written, but because we are all ignorant of genetics. That said, I see it is well referenced. I am going to encourage the creator to userfy the article, regardless of AFD delete, as should have been done originally. Ikip (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update, damn, I hate how editors bad behavior makes me look bad. The creator has been blocked indefinitely. Ikip (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Ikip, the answer is that a kind note almost certainly wouldn't have worked. I don't mean to be rude, but I nominated this with probably a lot more background knowledge than you have, I think your concern with my actions are misplaced. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge wherever appropriate if we can find attribution to an expert of the gist of the article (i.e. that the sub-saharan genetic contribution to the genetic makeup of the European populations is very small). Otherwise, this is OR and should be deleted.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with African admixture in Europe or Genetic history of Europe. This article and African admixture in Europe are about the same thing. What is the difference between the subject matter? However African admixture in Europe is also subject to deletion/merge pressures, so maybe Genetic history of Europe is more survivable.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't see the need for an extended discussion on the matter. SOPHIAN who created the article has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive edits related to creating this article. There is no difference in subject matter between this article and African admixture in Europe. The reason he created it was simply to avoid having to come to a consensus with other editors. This is not the first time SOPHIAN has created a content fork, he was blocked for recreating Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe, only a day after it was deleted. I therefore see this as worthy of "speedy close". Whatever content is here is already being discussed and debated in African admixture in Europe, and the article is therefore redundant. The title of the article is very direct but it is unscientific, politically incorrect and opens up a can of worms as to exactly is a "black African". The question we should address is whether to preserve the title as a redirect or delete it altogether. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need for a redirect. Redirects make sense when an article has been around for a long time and has accumulated a body of links (and perhaps extra-wiki bookmarks) to it which you don't want to break. Or, when it's something which is likely to be typed in cold to a search box. This is neither of those. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is a self evident POV fork, the work of one author whose opinion clashed with others in other articles about essentially the same subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -SOPHIAN is obviously trying to circumvent the collective decisions of the WP community. How does a user who is indefinitely banned manage to create articles???????PB666 ^yap 16:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created before the block. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - a complete POV fork. The Ogre (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Jack007 (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fork. Abductive (reasoning) 06:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No reason has been offered to delete the article; deficiencies identified are problems that can be resolved through regular editing. Skomorokh 14:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Covisint

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

This page is advertising with no connection to other parts of wikipedia. Bonglander (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article needs a total revamp and a good scrubbing to remove the promotional tone. It seems to be well known in the auto industry. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and totally overhaul. You can tell when articles were written by marketers as it's impossible to tell what the bloody organisation actually does. As far as I can fathom it allows car companies to talk to each other and sell things to each other online, or in jargon it's an "automotive eMarketplace", or a "B2B online exchange". It seems it started off as a supposedly neutral auction site after wranglings about whether it broke anti-trust laws, took forever to get a CEO, then got bought, thought about and balked at an IPO, and finally went into the online healthcare business. After wading through the churnalism that passes for journalism in the business world, here's some articles about Covisint:[61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95] Fences&Windows 17:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 17:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 17:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up -- This sounds like a notable company, but it is an extremely spammy article, and full of abbreviations and jargon that mean nothing to the general reader. I have just given it a valid category and removed the "locations" section, which is better dealt with by using a link to the company website, which will certainly be maintained. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:51, 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.

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

The result was delete. Skomorokh 14:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Goldstraw

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

See WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime stories. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly in the news, and that is all. But we are not a news source. Delete. Dominic·t 08:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A regular murderer. Joe Chill (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E applies. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep in that I think spree killers (especially those in the UK) are notable; however, I would acknowledge that he does appear to be your garden variety spree killer. Location (talk) 06:45, 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. Skomorokh 14:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cindi Love

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

This person does not meet Wikipedia's noteworthy guidelines. Serpentduv (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: For the past four years, this woman has been the chief operating officer of a global Christian denomination, and she helped create a national anti-discrimination campaign that is still in operation. Moreover, she has had a successful career both as an entrepreneur and as an educational advocate for the state of Texas. I admit that it is difficult to find news items about her apart from the church's official announcements, but I would say that she is presently a significant figure within LGBT Christianity; whether she will stay this way, I cannot tell, but at present she is an internationally known leader. Aristophanes68 (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Your argument seems to appeal to moralizing rather than locating sources to verify notability. The encyclopedia is supposed to document the verifiable state of a topic others have noted. You can appreciate the problems in trying to rely on sources that tend to be more promotional than scholarly. If you are concerned with lack of coverage by mainstream media, you may be able to make a case for independent coverage by unrelated but edited special interest publications- educational journals, unrelated churches, etc. The wiki criteria want something more than "local" interest but if you can find sources that could be presumed to be reliable and independent at least you could argue about this subjective area. Arguments about "worthy cause" and "I would say" from an anon source may not make her life encyclopedic as this could cover just about everyone. The social networking sites may be more receptive however. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aristophanes said "I admit that it is difficult to find news items about her apart from the church's official announcements" I was about to remark on that fact, together with the observation than most of those references were 'trivial'. We have no other way of judging if someone is notable, so I would say she fails WP:N Ohconfucius (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I didn't have too much trouble finding news items about her, and the article already had a couple of worthwhile references. While it is true that some of the references only have trivial mentions, a few are definitely non-trivial and meet the notability requirements. She's actually an interesting figure, it seems, and has been noted for a number of very different roles in her life. - Bilby (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to comment about the sources, in case it helps: I think it depends a bit on how you see the Abilene Reporter-News, as they've given her a fair bit of coverage over the last decade. If it counts towards notability then there isn't a problem at all, but if not then we need to look at the others. Of these, PC Week, Network World and Call Centre Magazine all have non-trivial sections where they interview her, but most of the content is in relation to what she's been doing at companies, rather than on her personally. I'm inclined to count them, as they're covering decisions she's made in her roles, but others may vary on this. Less doubtful is one of the Network World articles, as it has non-trival coverage where they also refer to her background, so I'd count this towards notability. The Dallas Morning news article also seems non-trivial and general enough to count as well. Personally, I think there's enough to meet basic notability guidelines before we start including the marginal stuff, and the marginal stuff (local news, mostly) may not count towards notability, but it is enough to limit the dependency on self-published or primary sources. And the more I dig the more I've been finding, mostly because of what she was doing in the mid 90's, which was far more prominent than I expected. I'll keep looking, if only because I'm really enjoying learning about her. - Bilby (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Commentary at User_talk:Aristophanes68 and elsewhere may seem to be going down the wrong road. Let's keep this civil. The Squicks (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not see that Aristophanes68 has been in any way uncivil in this discussion. His text ("For the past four years, this woman has been the chief operating officer of a global Christian denomination, and she helped create a national anti-discrimination campaign that is still in operation. Moreover, she has had a successful career both as an entrepreneur and as an educational advocate for the state of Texas. I admit that it is difficult to find news items about her apart from the church's official announcements, but I would say that she is presently a significant figure within LGBT Christianity; whether she will stay this way, I cannot tell, but at present she is an internationally known leader") does not appear to be anything other than an argument in favor of keeping the article. Could you please tell us which part of this seems to violate WP:CIVIL? Mandsford (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serpentduv typed on User_talk:Aristophanes68 that "I advise you to learn the meaning of the word propaganda." I interpret this (although I certainly may be wrong) as an attack on Aristophanes68's editing that is unhelpful to the discussion. The Squicks (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would observe that Serpentduv has not said anything at all uncivil in this discussion either. As a nominator, he or she has expressed an opinion pertaining to Cindi Love, saying that "This person does not meet Wikipedia's noteworthy guidelines". Whatever comments may been made by one person on another person's talk page are irrelevant unless they are repeated here. I would caution all editors to not raise WP:CIVIL within an AfD discussion unless they are responding to comments made during that discussion. Mandsford (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to type something, but then I realized that I could not put it any better than Bilby just did. The Squicks (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: Looking at the article, it is possible notability could be established but if you take out the self-cites, you have a few isolated local stories: I didn't check which ones were non-trivial but all the sites looked like small town news or stations. Personally I'm big on obscure-but-notable but there needs to be something that has already been noticed by wiki criteria. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - of course she's notable. Tris2000 (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bilby. The article seems to have plenty of sources. --Alynna (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is clearly notable, plenty of mention of her, and an important figure in this movement. Dream Focus 14:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I conclude that she is marginally notable, thus keep. There is enough non-local coverage by independent sources to get over that bar. However, being the executive director of the MCC is not a primary leadership role for the denomination, the denomination being led by a moderator and board of elders that appoints the board of administration, which would then hire administrative staff. Indeed, it appears she was not even on the board of administration, as she held her position with them until May 2009, yet in a document updated April 2009 listing the members of all the church's leadership boards her name does not appear.[96] I conclude that as regards the denomination, she was an employee rather than a leader. GRBerry 21:04, 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) 06:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panasonic DMP-BD10

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

Reiteration of techinical aspects from an owners manual, player isn't notable in itself. It may be Panasonic's first blu-ray player, but that in itself isn't notable. Was listed previously in a group listing and no consensus reached, relisting. Ejfetters (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WIkipedia is not an electronics catalogue. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable subject. Pemberton08 (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing special about this particular model. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Edison (talk) 18:51, 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) 16:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cornejo

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

fails WP:GNG; a single entry in a dictionary of every applicable surname (which is what the ancestry.com page is derived from) is not enough for notability. Ironholds (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Surname. The article Surname has an example of a surname formed from a parent's name, but no example for "surname based on a person's geographical origin", which is listed as one of the options in Surname#Formation. Supposing that the information in Cornejo is correct, it could be useful to include a trimmed version of the article as a section in Surname. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The topic does not seem particularly notable, making either merge or delete appropriate. The questionable nature of the sources (asserting that the name appears in historical documents?) makes me uncomfortable supporting a merge. I'm therefore leaning toward deletion. Cnilep (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OPPO BDP-83

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

Unnotable blu-ray player. The article is just a reiteration of information found in the instruction manual. Doesn't conform to numerous parts of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not Was previously listed in a group listing and no consensus reached, relisting Ejfetters (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blu ray players are a dime a dozen. WIkipedia is not an electronics catalogue. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable subject. Pemberton08 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing special about this particular model. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Edison (talk) 18:52, 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) 06:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung BD-P1200

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

listed before in group, relisting individually again because no consensus was reached. This player does not appear to have notability to have its own article, as this article is just a collection of material from instruction manuals and original research, fails several aspects of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not Ejfetters (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blu-ray players are now a dime a dozen. There are no external sources to indicate that this is indeed groundbreaking. WIkipedia is not an electronics catalogue. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a mirror of manufacturer's catalogs, no evidence of notability, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Edison (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search gives only 35.000 hits.Jack007 (talk) 11:32, 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 Keep. Taking into account the discussion below, I do not believe this is a controversial outcome, so I think this debate suitable for NAC.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Sony BDP-S1

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was listed before and reached no consensus, relisting. Article is written like an instruction manual. Being Sony's first player doesn't seem to be notable in itself, and would better be included in an article for the technology itself. Fails numerous criteria in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not, including WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTMANUAL to name a few. Ejfetters (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -per the sources presented in the second afd. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete of the sources listed, only one appears to be independent. The others were commercial sites I wouldn't trust from Jim. Delete unless more sources can be found Ohconfucius (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How are they not independent? Joe Chill (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per my sources in the second AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications that this BD player is notable. All sources in the article are primary sources from Sony. TJ Spyke 18:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the sources that I added in the second AFD? It seems like you didn't put much thought into your !vote. Joe Chill (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources appear to be just reviews of the product, I'm sure every other Blu-Ray player has countless reviews as well. Ejfetters (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's surprising that ultra deletionists are saying that reviews don't show notability. If everyone had the same view as you, hundreds or thousands of articles would be deleted even though they have been considered notable for years. Joe Chill (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "I'm sure every other Blu-Ray player has countless reviews as well." Then every other Blu-Ray player is notable. That's how we judge notability, i.e. whether something has received significant coverage multiple independent secondary reliable sources. Fences&Windows 02:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there are independent and reliable sources with significant coverage to support notability, then add them to the article or list them here. Please do not just refer to comments in a prior AFD. I do not in general see that making Wikipedia a mirror of manufacturer's catalog specs listings is encyclopedic. I do not create listings for every model of every gadget put on the market by companies 100 years ago, and they would have as many sources as these articles about the latest gadgets. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Edison (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here: this, this, this, and this. That is 6 reliable sources with significant coverage (the last one is a list of 3). I really don't understand why you're bringing up indiscriminate collection of information when this doesn't meet it in any way. For some reason, you think that this does but television schedules don't. I also don't see why someone would be so lazy not to be able to click on the previous discussion and !vote without looking at those sources or trying to search for any others. Joe Chill (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't a vote, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Those are the same sources that I was referring to, what makes them notable sources? How is a Crutchfield review a notable source? Ejfetters (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What guideline supports your opinion that reviews don't show notability? I know that AFD isn't a vote (My keep wasn't a vote which should be obvious). So far, no one has been able to reply to my questions. Joe Chill (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - By the way, !vote (notice how it's spelled differently?) is always used to refer to keeps, deletes, merges, redirects, and userfies in AFD. I think that users treat AFD as a vote when they can't say why sources aren't independent, how this is an indiscriminate collection of information, why they won't look at the sources (there is never a good reason for that), and what guideline says that reviews don't show notability (By the way, there isn't a guideline that says that reviews don't show notability). The only way that this article would be deleted is if the closing admin went by a head count. Joe Chill (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's bloody loads of reliable sources about this product, it's obviously notable. Just look at Google News:[97]. It took me all of a minute to click on some of those links and see that they're in depth and reliable. The delete voters don't seem at all motivated to even look for sources; don't tell me to add the sources, Ejfetters, Edison, TJ Spyke, you can add them. Fences&Windows 02:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Geez. The first camcorder is notable, the first TV is notable, the first um... airplane is notable. Why the first Blu-ray player is not? Mikus (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD1: 12 August 2009; AFD2: 20 August 2009. I know that there were few people that participated in these afds, but the short period between all three (less than a month) really gives me pause. Does this qualify as WP:FORUMSHOPPING? I will look at the rules tomorrow. Ikip (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing this, the first AFD had no outcome, there was no consensus, so there was never a "keep" or "delete". The second AFD was posted, then very shortly withdrawn by the nominator, again there was no outcome, no "keep" or "delete". That is why I posted the third AFD to broaden the input and get a true outcome. It is not forum shopping, I am just looking for an outcome. Forum shopping says that you would keep posting until you got the result you liked, when in fact both of these had no result. The previous AFD's were mentioned as well, and are listed so users can go back and view them as well. Ejfetters (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sourcing exists. No problems exist otherwise w/ the article that can't be solved w/ normal editing. Also cool it on nominating this article, please. Protonk (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reliable sources are reviews. Point I'm trying to make, there doesn't seem to be any other reliable source, i.e. reception, impact on market, history behind the player (how it came to be), news about the player, etc. A review may be notable, but if there is only the review then how can the article stand on its own. How is the player notable in other aspects. The article is simply an instruction manual reiterated, the sources being provided aren't even discussed in the article so they don't add to why the technical specs and instruction manual style article should remain. If the subject is notable, please provide other notable information on it, other than reviews. A review on its own cannot justify the article, 100 reviews even, other aspects of the article need to be added, not just a review. Ejfetters (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Reliable source reviews are the best way to establish notability for a product and this one has plenty of RS reviews. Any problems with the articles tone can & should be solved via normal editing, not deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per abundant sources availalbe. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loadsa sources as would be expected for a major new product release from Sony. Reviews are more than adequate to meet the GNG. We don't have a "list of things an article needs to have reliable sources for" before it can be made, even if it would be really good to have sources on reception, impact etc. Quantpole (talk) 16:37, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akimuddin Gronthagar

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

I cannot figure out why this library at a primary school with a total of 500 books is notable. DGG ( talk ) 07:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Jaminpur. It doesn't have any credible source for its notability. Also, most of its content is already covered in Jaminpur. Alefbe (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bizzare article with a major section about an eclipse which I found scarcely relevant. Furthermore, the references all relate to said eclipse and not the supposed subject. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:49, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Issues with verifiability, neutrality, tone and other inappropriate content are resolvable problems that have no bearing on a topic's suitability for inclusion. The threshold for inclusion in the encyclopaedia is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and there is consensus here that this topic has reached that. Skomorokh 14:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Infrastructure

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

This neologism is not notable, there are serious verifiability issues, little in the way of neutral point of view and it has read like an advert ever since it was created *from an IBM patent and trademark* (per edit logs). With sections like "Need for a holistic approach" and "Benefits of having a dynamic infrastructure" and no discussion whatsoever (beyond a pronouncement from User:Kbrhouse - a SPA created for the purpose of editing this article) it is clear that Wikipedia is being abused as a soapbox. Most problematic though is this edit which removed my dated prod *and* forward-dated two article issues templates (confusing & cleanup) while adding a raft of problematic text. CloudComputing (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that other companies may have been counting on overturning the IBM trademark since googling "Dynamic Infrastructure" -IBM returns 68,500 hits. I assume that terminating the cancelation proceeding for the trademark on 24 August 2009 means that the term is now completely in the hands of IBM. However, the term may still be notable in its own right and deserves some discussion. See WP:PRODUCT. It seems that many vendors are now using the term "Infrastructure 2.0". Perhaps that's a better name for a cleaned up version of the article that might have a section specifically on Dynamic Infrastructure. While I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, you are throwing a lot of stones at User:Kbrhouse when you seem to have your own SPA issues. Since IBM is pushing Dynamic Infrastructure as part of their Cloud Computing solution, there's a chance that you work for a direct competitor of IBM in this field. If so, it would be a conflict of interest that I think you should disclose when proposing to delete an article related to IBM. Disclaimer: I have never worked for IBM or any Cloud Computing vendor. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And while I appreciate your right to an opinion you are wrong with your accusations and perhaps should try assuming good faith. Discussing an IBM trademark in a generic context makes the article even more problematic and if it is to remain then it should at least explain the trademark situation. CloudComputing (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the trademark issue. We should first decide if we want to keep the article under this name, merge it into another IBM product article, or rework it into an article on Infrastructure 2.0. I need to look into it a bit deeper before making a recommendation. UncleDouggie (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've looked into it. I think the current article should be moved to Infrastructure 2.0 with a redirect from Next generation data center to it. Both names are already referenced in the first sentence of the article. There are currently no redlinks to either topic. The new Dynamic Infrastructure should redirect to a new section of the moved article that presents the history of the terms, including IBM's trademark on Dynamic Infrastructure. I do note that Google shows close to 20M hits for Next generation data center and just over 100K for Infrastructure 2.0. However, it seems to me that any subject containing the words "Next generation" is doomed to have a very short shelf-life in the IT world. With IBM enforcing it's trademark on Dynamic Infrastructure, it's more likely that others will jump on the Infrastructure 2.0 band wagon. I propose that we close this AfD, open a move proposal to Infrastructure 2.0, and then cleanup the article to meet WP standards. Worst-case, the text that you object to could be removed and the article returned much to it's original more NPOV state. We would then still have at least a stub that others can expand on for this important topic as well as an edit history. Given the importance of Infrastructure 2.0/Next generation data center to Cloud Computing, I'm interested to hear your take on this. Can you see two such articles compliment each other, or do you prefer to delete this article outright and bury Infrastructure 2.0 in Cloud Computing somewhere? UncleDouggie (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit sharp of IBM! I agree that redirects to Infrastructure 2.0 might be best if they have any success enforcing the patent. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — there seem to be plenty of references and external links, not just IBM, establishing notability. The tone of the article should be improved, but that does not mean it should be deleted. I have improved the references and done a little bit if tidying. More is needed! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Its the way all the big boys are heading, Im not aware of any serious enterprise class org that isnt at least investigating these models. Granted its not the most notable topic but then recent technologies that arent user facing rarely are, there's enough coverage in the IT press to pass our standards. Fairly inexperienced staff still sometimes move to a position when they'll be working with servers, so theres likely a great many readers that might find the article useful. Im only voting a weak keep as while its well above the typical standard we see from a new user, it will admittedly be challenging to clarify the articles scope and would take a long time to bring up to the quality of say the excellent cloud computing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Von Dusen

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

Person with no evidence of notability. Google finds little about him outside MySpace. Nice doggy (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not assert notability; google (web, book, scholar, and news) searches turn up no reliable sources to establish notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
del per nom. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like he never really broke into the "major leagues" and a myspace page is not really good supporting documentation. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete A journeyman indy wrestler with no claim to notability. Plenty of wrestlers have been in jail and been fired from companies for having a big mouth. Get Dumb 02:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep

I'm taking the unusual action of closing this AfD early, and I feel it's only fair to those who have contributed that I explain my reasoning for doing so. I see a very solid consensus on this page for the retention of the pages backed up by very solid arguments, and I can envisage absolutely no way that the consensus is going to change so severely to result in the pages being deleted in the near future, given the very strong consensus to keep these articles that has developed now there are one of two ways things could go, if this AfD was allowed to run the full term, consensus would remain unchanged from the very strong keep we have at the moment, or some further good quality delete comments would come in, and at best, there would be a no consensus closure, either way, there is no way that this AfD is ever going to result in the deletion of the articles listed below.

That alone would not normally be enough for an early closure, but given the growing bad blood between the nominator and participants, and the potential this AfD has to become a massive time sink, generating more heat than light, I think it's in the best interests for all involved to close this AfD now, before people become upset and more accusations start flying.

I trust this explanation is sufficient, if not, please don't hesitate to contact me. Nick (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norton Canes services

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services

Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination)

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

These pages are about rest areas on a highway system in the United Kingdom, they amount to nothing more than stubs of nearly useless information. There are millions of rest areas in the world's highway systems and these are no more notable then any other. There already exists a general article about these service centers (Motorway service area) and a listing of them all (List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom), these two pages contain virtually all the relevent information each individual page contains. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository and virtually all of this information comes from [98] or the individual commerical companies websites that run these facilities. Examples of other rest areas pages that do not create pages for each idividual site is Illinois Tollway oasis and the general Rest area page. These pages do not meet notability requirements in my opinion. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the following articles as well, under the same rationale:

Note: I am aware this is a significant request that encompass many pages and possibly some templates that need deleted/edited as well. But I do feel these pages strongly do not meet inclusion criteria and should be deleted, the existing general pages/list linked above is more than sufficient with some additional expanding/editing to cover all the information that ALL these pages contain in an easier to read and accessible form. When you break information like this out into 50 pages that contain very little information that all could be quickly and concisely added to a page like List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom it makes the information less useful and harder to obtain. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note there was a past AfD in 2006 for these pages, thus the 2nd nomination in the title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 1

Comment, I was just at the Thomas Edison service area on the New Jersey Turnpike, and I have to say that the thought occurred to me that somebody would make a Wikipedia article on it, and that I should make sure it redirected to the main article or a list. These highway oases need to be treated in context, since they cannot even be accessed without being on the hghway/tollway involved. Abductive (reasoning) 06:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not true of UK Motorway services. They can all be accessed from local non-motorway roads. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most to a list per motorway (e.g. Motorway service areas on the M5) but those with significant history and/or cultural impact (e.g. Watford Gap services) should definitely have a stand-alone article (and a summary on the per-Motorway page with a {{Main article}} link). Basically I think that if the encyclopaedic information can be summed up in one paragraph or less the article should be merged, if it can't then a standalone article is appropriate (I don't consider a list of food/retail outlets to be encyclopaedic in this context). I've only looked at a couple of the articles so far, but Sedgemoor services and Taunton Dene services should be merged, Watford Gap services should be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lancaster (Forton) and Watford Gap - Lancaster is of particular interest given the unusual 'control tower' visible from the carriageway (which I believe is a listed building), and Watford Gap was the first services to open in the UK. I agree most of the others are unimportant stubs. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I have failed to locate the individual deletion debates for each article, and as the only notification was through use of edit summaries for general communication instead of talk pages, I contend that this debate may be irrelevant, see: User_talk:Raeky#AfD_Motorway__service_stations, and that any consensus reached by it may possibly not be representative of any or all of the articles discussed here.--Kudpung (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for warning me on my talk page, but I have followed proper procedure for this. These pages have been discussed to be deleted before here which is pretty clearly linked above. Thanks for your concern that I did something wrong but I haven't. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no prior deletions recorded at that URL. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most per Thryduulf. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most to a list of per-motorway services, with possibility to split out particularly notable ones if there is more content than a couple of paragraphs.

Strong keep all. Motorway service stations in the UK don't equate to rest stops in the US. British service stations are both a rarity (AFAIK this AFD lists every service station in the entire country), and major economic centres in their own right, and in the British context, where construction alongside the motorway network is incredibly tightly controlled (every one of these required a specific Act of Parliament to build), there's no such thing as an "insignificant service station". There are fewer motorway service stations in Britain than there are train stations on London's Northern line alone, and we – rightly – cover every railway station; the smallest of these service stations serves more users than all but the busiest railway stations, and every service station is a major institution (and often the largest employer) in their community. That some of the articles are unsourced and stubby is a red herring; every single one of these will have been the subject of lengthy proposals, discussions, planning applications, legal disputes over siting, architectural competitions, formal (often Royal) openings etc – all of which will have been the subject of significant press coverage at every stage. The nominator has included the {{findsources}} for Norton Canes as part of this nomination, but I see no evidence that they've actually checked them; Norton Canes, for instance, is uniquely the only British service station to be built on a toll road, the site of the head offices of RoadChef, the site of a museum of neolithic artifacts found during the construction of the motorway, the venue for a unique (and failed) experiment in providing fine dining in the motorway context... – iridescent 11:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rarity or not, they're not notable. Also, if you didn't know, true service stations accessible only from the highway, is RARE in the united states (Because MOST are illegal). But you don't see individual pages for each one. The two existing pages, the main page and listing page is ENOUGH, but individual pages for EVERY SINGLE service center is overkill for this. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST Jeni ^(talk) 15:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOTREPOSITORY — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:IDIOCRACY --Malleus Fatuorum 16:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All the nominator has made an invalid comparison between US rest areas and UK service stations, they are completely different. We don't have articles on rest areas in the UK, such as Todhills rest area on the M6. Not only that but he has blatently obviously failed to look at individual articles such as Strensham services and Watford Gap services both of which have been expanded beyond stub status (Strensham is a Good Article). Stubs aren't bad, they just haven't been expanded yet. As such this is an invalid nomination as it fails WP:BEFORE. Jeni ^(talk) 12:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out, they are exactly like US highway oases, which are not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 17:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEFORE isn't a valid excuse to keep, the discussion was in 2006. My argument is multi-fold, that they themselves individually are not notable, that there exists sufficient pages already that overview them 1 2 and that having MANY idividual pages for this makes the information harder to access. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But its a valid excuse to render this nomination invalid and disruptive, as you have not followed nomination guidelines, at all! Jeni ^(talk) 15:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not approprate to list each page as an AfD, see Wikipedia:BEFORE#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion, so how have I not followed guidelines? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please refer to the comment by the closing admin at the last AfD, which I have already quoted, below. And read WP:BEFOREAndy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have blatantly failed to check for sources on each article to try to establish notability yourself, I suspect you didn't look at many of them other than to add an AfD tag. You didn't notify the creators of the articles about this discussion. Jeni ^(talk) 16:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all per Iridescent; whose key points were made the last time these were bulk-nominated for deletion by someone confusing these major UK features with minor US rest-rooms. Note that, when the last bulk-AfD ended, the closing admin said "If anybody has a beef with particular stations, I suggest single noms to sort those out.". If only we could salt a keep. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP policies and procedures in 2006 is not the same as today, plus these pages have had YEARS to adapt and become more than stubs, plus now there exists well created pages like Motorway service area and List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom to handle this information. The BULK of these pages (if not all) can be easily merged into those two pages. It makes the information easier to obtain for the reader and removes a ton of stubs in one step. Unless an individual service center can beyond any doubt meet notability requirements beyond that it just exists then it shouldn't have it's own page. We don't create pages for every shopping mall or other large-employment commercial establishments that are "rare" for an area. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Policies may have changed (though I doubt those relevant here have changed significantly), but the prior debates contain explanations of notability which you have clearly either overlooked or ignored; and there is no time-limit on the life of a stub. Your shopping mall argument is a red herring, and of no significance. You have nominated many articles with clearly- and already- established notability, some of which you have subsequently dismissed "a mention in a song by some guy"). The Motorway service area article was created in June 2005, so is no more relevant now than in prior debates. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all per Iridescent and Jeni. As has been said there has been an incorrect comparions to US rest areas and UK service stations. UK service stations are major places. They are constantly refered to a major landmarks on the Travelnews etc. Who hasn't heard about Clacket Lane services for instance? The fact the M25 only has three service areas shows how rare there are. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 12:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Since the nominator tagged all these articles for deletion and made some sweeping statements about notability, I feel comfortable making equally generalised statements in response. Motorway service stations are not that common, so the argument that Wikipedia might run out of paper if we include them seems flawed. Here's a list of them. It may seem a lot, but when you realise that there isare only ~~one~~ on the 60-mile long M3 motorway it becomes apparent that they are important as "fast roads with few junctions needed 24-hour services at regular intervals". They are landmarks in their own right, for example this article uses the phrase "on the M5 near Sedgemoor services" because service stations are well-know. In the UK, motorway services are privatised, allowing businesses to invest in the site. I can't find any stats on visitor numbers, but they're enough to sustain several franchises (take a look at this link which I picked at random). There's plenty of information that could be included in articles about motorway services if you just think about it that a list would be poorly suited to handle. Opening date, construction, impact on the local economy, opinions of the locals etc. I don't think the sources have even been examined add this one which took me 30 seconds to find to the ones Iridescent provided.
Also, nominating a couple of Good Articles was a silly idea as they have clearly established notability, which sort of undermines the general statements in the nomination. Nev1 (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific article do you think even REMOTELY qualifies for a Good Articles?! I can nominate ANYTHING for ANYTHING, doesn't make it a GA or Notable. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand the term "Good Article". Go and read WP:GA?, then you might understand why nominating a GA for not being notable is ludicrous. Anything can be nominated for anything, but that doesn't guarantee it will succeed, as will be demonstrated when the GAs you've nominated are kept for being notable. Nev1 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just double checked, not a single page listed that I can see is listed as a Good Article. Again which one that I nominated is a Good Article? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By making general statements about the notability of motorway services, you are implicitly including all of them, despite not having listed the likes of Strensham services. Articles such as that demonstrate what can be found about motorway services. Nev1 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, aruguably Watford Gap could be the next GA, with some in line sourcing and expansion. Jeni ^(talk) 16:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say some of these (very few I suspect) MIGHT meet notability requirements, and sure I didn't nominate EVERY single one, although more probably should be added to this list. Just because one or two are notable does NOT mean all 50+ of them need individual pages. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The M3? Fleet and Winchester!! Yes there's two on the M3. But as you said there are still very few. I used the example there's only three on the M25. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 13:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed, the point still stands, although I must learn to count :-) Nev1 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It took me about 10 minutes to find and add some information from a reliable source, and there is plenty more out there. These articles have great possibilities, and their existence serves to encourage development of wikipedia. Strensham and others show what can be done. Independent notability is established; I see no reason to merge, let alone delete. I hope that they can all develop in the future. Chzz ► 13:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment If we had articles on rest areas, we'd have articles such as Bangor rest area (A5), Todhills rest area (M6), Oldbury rest area (M5/A419), Tiverton rest area (M5), Markfield rest area (M1). But we don't, and thank god we don't, there would be hundreds! The nominator has a massive misunderstanding about the difference between service areas and rest areas, and on this basis I suggest he withdraws the nomination. Jeni ^(talk) 13:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your misunderstanding of what wikipedia is and is not isn't grounds that these should be kept. You admit yourself that "thank god" we don't have a page for every single one. What makes a "service area" notable in the UK and not anywhere else in the world? Should we add thousands of service area pages for every one in the world? They're not notable because they are rare in the UK. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Iridescent's comments, which I strongly agree with. Also, batch nominations should rarely be used unless the articles are nearly identical, as it's impossible to thoroughly review 50 or so pages in one sitting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats why AfD's are many days before they close, gives you plenty of time. Plus MOST of these pages are one or two lines with an infobox, easy to read. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (all) - as per Nev1's comments, particularly concerning the Good Articles, and especially as as over half the nominated articles have already survived a AfD with 'keep'. Any suggestions in the comments above that this AfD may have been instigated with a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy, rules, or AfD procedure, also receive my support, and as per my earlier comment, I suggest this AfD should be closed as invalid. --Kudpung (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (all) on the basis of WP is NOT a travel guide. However, I agree that these discussions may need to be handled individually. In particular, I am not finding that these articles meet the notability criteria of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, but that must be discussed indivually.
For instance, the article on Norton Canes services uses a reference to a BBC article. BBC is definitely a reliable and independent source. The article is about the subject (the service area), although I suspect the article is much more than a regurgitation of a company press release. There is another source given for this service area that says how many jobs are created by its existence--THIS is the type of encyclopedic data that is needed (in my mind) to make this article more than a "travel guide" entry. (However, these do not add up to significant coverage to me.) But these types of merits must be discussed for each individual article.
Many of the articles in the list have no references at all, merely external links to travel guides that list and rate services. These should be deleted as there is no encyclopedic merit to these articles.
I suggest merging into the article about the road or moving the articles to WikiTravel.- ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that information on "how many jobs are created by its existence" for each of the services is unavailable, or simply that because it's not in the article that it should be deleted? Nev1 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So your vote is suggesting that Watford Gap services and Strensham services should also be deleted? Thats what is generally accepted when you say delete all. Obviously you haven't taken the time to look at the articles up for nomination, a big mistake at AfD, and is as disruptive as the nomination. Jeni ^(talk) 15:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a VOTE, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point, you're quibbling over terminology? You've not addressed what Jeni said. Nev1 (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have above — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep all per Iridescent/Jeni's arguments. :-) Majorly talk 15:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Iridescent and Jeni expressed it very well. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per keep arguments above, and notably because single AfD nominations of groups of articles of massively variable quality and notability is wholly unacceptable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They're all the same, one has a mention in a song by some guy and the other has some interesting landmark near it. Hardly sets them worlds apart from the others. It's perfectly acceptable to group AfD's of EXTREMELY similar pages into one single discussion about them. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, Roy Harper's song is wholly about Watford Gap service station. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all - Comparing Motorway services in the UK to rest stops in the US is like comparing a B&B to the Savoy Hotel. These are all large multi million pound a year operations, very rare, and over an entire motorway you may only get two services each 80 to 100 miles apart. They are a huge part of British culture and even have had their own TV series. Each service area employs hundreds of people, full commercial services, full fuel servicing and some even have mechanical services and provide parking for thousands of vehicles. Most act as an enroute base of operations for breakdown services. In fact if Iridesent's comment that they all required acts of parliament to individually create (and that is referencable) then notability is especially established there and then. Canterbury Tail talk 15:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And these are different from the service centers across the world how? And it establishes notablity beyond these pages Motorway service area and List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom to justify their own individual page? I don't think so. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The differences have already been explained, both by Iridescent, above, and in prior AfD debates, which you are supposed to have read. What you think, in ignorance of these facts, is immaterial. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have read them all, but I didn't see anything valid, basically it boils down too "they're rare in the UK thus justifying individual pages," or that proper procedure wasn't followed. I still don't see anything that establishes the need for individual pages that can't be covered by Motorway service area and List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom. For a commercial center like this to be qualified for it's own wikipedia page there needs to be significant news coverage OF IT. Passing references to it in news as ___location doesn't really count. It's common practice that specific roadmarks/locations are used as a indicator of ___location on highways that doesn't make that ___location notable in wikipedia standards. Could it be mentioned and should it on the main roadway's article, sure. But to create individual pages for every roadmark on a roadway isn't. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It has been pointed out to you many times now that these are not mere "roadmarks", they are significant commercial centres and significant local employers. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So do Shopping malls but do we create a page for every single one in the world? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec) Actually we seem to for most Jeni ^(talk) 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        depends on how significant they are to their local communities. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (ec) Actually we seem to for most Jeni ^(talk) 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Using the word "most" is pretty bold, I challenge you to show that MOST of the worlds shopping malls have pages here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please point to the apparently recently-introduced Wikipeida policy requiring each article to be the subject of "significant news coverage". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Doubt it's new, but here you go for the guideline at WP:N: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That's no, then; so your assertion that "For a commercial center like this to be qualified for it's own wikipedia page there needs to be significant news coverage OF IT." was bogus. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Quite sure you don't understand wikipedia policy in terms of notability, but thanks for your comments. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Given that and your other recent comments, you're sailing very close to the wind with WP:AGF and [{WP:NPA]]. And it wasn't me who said that "For a commercial center like this to be qualified for it's own wikipedia page there needs to be significant news coverage OF IT." Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No but your constantly baiting and attempting to derail the topic and ignoring presented counter claims against your statements. WP Notability policy clearly states it needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to justify its OWN page. There is no evidence the vast majority of these service centers meet that. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody is disputing WP:N and the only person who has misrepresented it is you. Pointing out such misrepresentation is not "baiting" and is not "attempting to derail the topic" and suggesting otherwise is the very behaviour about which I have just cautioned you. You have included in this AfD articles with clearly cited notability. Why is that? I have ignored none of the points you have put to me; but if you think otherwise, please feel free to point them out and I shall adress them now. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many also have large motels on site as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 2

Comment We need to keep in mind Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing here, and a need to avoid things like particularlly offensive comments like that one by Jeni on her talk page directed at me. Although I didn't intentionally go out and notify every editor of the pages (which is not required to do), and I do welcome open discussion on the topic and think the main editors should be notified. And Jeni ~~didn't~~ did correctly notify all the previous participants regardless of their opinion to participate in this article. But if your opinion of me is a typical American thus unqualified to decide on notability of things in the UK, then this argument is moot in your opinion. Only UK editors apparently are capable of launching AfD discussions on the merits of UK locations?~! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks to me that Jeni made a perfectly accurate observation, as you are repeatedly making more and more evident. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I let the participants in the previous AfD know about this debate, regardless of vote or activity (unless there was a note on their talk page to not leave a message). Nothing wrong with that at all, it falls under letting interested parties know about a discussion, which is perfectly acceptable under WP:CANVASS, I guess that's another page you haven't read. Jeni ^(talk) 16:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say it was inappropriate to notify them, I said it probably should of been done and you was correct to do so, thank you. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ooops, on rereading what I posted, I made a typo. I typically do that when typing fast, sorry. I ment that you DID properly notify them. Corrected my mistake. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way were the messages "mass posting, biased, partisan, secret"? And if you find it offensive that someone thinks you know nothing about motorway services... so what? I know nothing about silent movies and if someone said that about me I couldn't care less. Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say that it had occurred, I just said that it appears that it could. From the previous AfD it appears to be mostly hamstrung by "as per" votes and very little substance. This isn't a vote. Valid arguments must be presented on both sides. I'd rather this not2 be a "omg an american is deleting UK pages, ATTACK" and every editor in the UK Roads Project comes here with "as per" votes. I believe my arguments on that they individually are not notable enough for their own pages is sound. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'Comment - All as per means is that the arguments have already been made and they don't see the need to reiterate the exact same thing again. Canterbury Tail talk 17:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:LEADER — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - FWIW, I haven't notified the UK Roads wikiproject, as that's as good as inactive, so I notified the next appropriate wikiproject, being WP:UKGEO. And if you didn't try to apply the American logic on rest areas, a completely separate thing, then this AfD may have more of a valid reasoning! I have no issue with Americans making nominations/commments, but I do have a problem with them making uninformed comments without doing any appropriate research into the subject, and trying to approach the issue as if it was a US rest area. Jeni ^(talk) 17:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because I linked Illinois Tollway oasis as an example I applied the "american argument"? Plus I find it hard to believe you bothered to look on my user page to discover my nationality because it actually matters for this discussion? How does where I am located on the earth reflect on my credibility as a wikipedia editor?! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually I deduced that from your spelling and the phrases you use. I'm not saying it is reflecting your credibility. The credibility is affected because you have failed to adequately research the subject before making the nomination, that would apply to anyone of any nationality. Jeni ^(talk) 17:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Absolutely. You say on your own userpage that you're American; you clearly have no knowledge of the subject, since you're continually equating the "gas-station and a McDonalds" US-style rest areas with the de facto small towns and hubs of the local community that constitute British service areas, despite repeatedly having the difference pointed out to you. (If you're still doubting the whole "each one required its own Parliamentary approval" thing, here's the authorisation for Norton Canes.) Seriously, quit flogging the dead horse; your constant repetition of the mantra that a US truckstop is equivalent to a European MSA because they have similar sounding names is like comparing my house to Joseph Priestley House because they're both houses built in the 1790s. – iride scent 17:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I did NOT state that because we don't have these in the United States that they must be deleted. Your either reading something completely different than I am or something worse. I've clearly kept stating this on a global reference. Because they're big shopping areas does not make them notable in their own right. There needs to be reliable sources to back up their notability for them to sustain their own individual pages. I don't understand your "since you're continually equating the 'gas-station and a McDonalds' US-style rest areas" where have I compared them to standard REST AREAS on US Highways. The page Rest area is all-encompassing from small bathroom break areas to full blown "de facto small towns" since it links directly to the UK service areas pages. Again what does me being an American have to do with this discussion?! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "Where have I compared them to standard REST AREAS on US Highways"? That would be in the first line of this nomination ("There are millions of rest areas in the world's highway systems and these are no more notable then any other"). As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, you have clearly not carried out the most basic WP:BEFORE work here, since the sources clearly exist. Seriously, stop it; you're heading rapidly towards the line that separates "good faith misunderstanding" from "disruptive refusal to admit you made a mistake". – iride scent 17:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Rest area is an proper term for these, see Rest area. Because I don't see your side of the argument and disagree with you I'm approaching bad-faith disruptive behavior?! Good thing you're not an admin. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with Iridescent, sources have been provided. Care to make personal comments about me too? Nev1 (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        No, Rest area is not the proper term, see Motorway service area. Rest area is the proper term for rest areas (obviously), such as Todhills rest area etc. Once again you are trying to apply American logic! Jeni ^(talk) 17:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        See: Rest_area#United_Kingdom Although your country generally draws a distinction between the two phrases, wikipedia lumps them together globally as rest areas. If you actually attempted to read the lead paragraph on Rest area it is a valid term to describe these. Plus your local distinction isn't really relevant if I used the term "Rest area" to describe these or not, this is about the notability of them to justify individual pages for each one. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Rest area#United Kingdom. You might want to actually read the articles you're citing. – iride scent 17:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You mean like this, "Other names include rest and service area (RSA), service station, resto, service plaza, and service center, service centre, and motorway services (or just "services" in the UK)." in the lead paragraph? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm thinking probably "The term "rest area" is not generally used in the United Kingdom" is worth reading. So wikipedia lumps them together. So what. Wikipedia's not a reliable source. Nev1 (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        (don't know why you changed the date of my comment to the 25th?!), but it's use is irrelevant even here. The AfD isn't about if they're classified as "rest area" on WP or elsewhere or how I used the term it's about their notability. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Once again, motorway service stations on British motorways are not just rest areas. They are major features of the road system and their establishment and operation is covered by Act of Parliament. These places are not just truck stops! As the Illinois Tollway oasis article states, these kinds of developments are rare in the United States (and just because nobody has created articles on individual oases doesn't mean they shouldn't, so this is in no way a precedent). In a fair amount of travel in Europe, I have found only one or two service areas that even come close to the size and facilities of a British motorway service station. And no policy says that articles should be deleted just because they are currently stubs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Show us some reliable sources on them. Abductive (reasoning) 17:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - On what? British motorway service stations? Look at the articles. Stubs? Proof of existence is all that's needed for a stub. Look at a map! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're incorrect, proof of existence is NOT all that is needed for a page on wikipedia. You exist (I assume your not a computer program but a real person), but do you AS A PERSON need a wikipedia page and meet notability requirements? No. Existence isn't enough to proof notability. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't say it was and I've never argued that it was. I was merely attempting to answer Abductive's rather ambiguous post about sources. If an article had multiple sources it wouldn't be a stub! -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't mean to offend I was simply commenting on your above statement "Proof of existence is all that's needed for a stub. Look at a map!" If what you said there wasn't what you meant then I'm glad we cleared that up. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets not argue over a few service stations now, personally, I would Keep the articles per past points, but now i'm expecting some lecture about policies from one of those who wants them deleted.Cybie 17:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep all and please can we have it made official policy that UK motorway service areas are notable. Blaisdon Halt probably handled fewer travellers in a month than a service station handles in a day. Why does the notability of Blaisdon Halt go unquestioned while we have to fight repeatedly re service stations? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument. Likewise I'd consider A LOT of these railway station pages to not meet the same notability requirements to justify their own page. But we'll tackle those another day, shall we? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that upon the outcome of this AfD, we can get it added to the common outcomes page. Jeni ^(talk) 17:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention Blaisdon Halt is a pile of rubble now, I had to laugh at the link to the "Picture of the station today".Cyberdemon007 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thomas Edison Service Area, is that the pissanty little rest stop about 15-20 miles south of Newark International? If so I was there about three weeks ago (our driver had to call in for gas on the way to the airport), and I remember thinking it seemed small. Much smaller than any of the MSAs in the UK by a large margin. If it is the same place I'm remembering. Had enough space to park about 50 trucks, and maybe 80-100 cars. I think it had a petrol station, Sun Oil or some such and a Burger King. Canterbury Tail talk 17:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit conflict - Sorry, mis-remembering, it was on the way from the airport the day before. Canterbury Tail talk 18:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is relevant to this discussion how? Plus it definitely sounds like you're being very negative here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's relevant if that is the basis that if you are using to compare with the UK MSAs then it's the wrong basis for comparison. Canterbury Tail talk 18:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't make any such comparison, and definitely not with this particular place. I'm stating that the vast bulk of these service centers do not meet basic notability requirements for their own page. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a rest stop, it is an oasis. Rest stops have toilets and vending machines. If something is important/notable it will have secondary sources testifying to that. Please provide some. Abductive (reasoning) 18:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I guess all we need to show notability of these once and for all is the Acts of Parliment. That would establish notability beyond a shadow of a doubt. Canterbury Tail talk 18:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there was an "Act of Parliament" to create it doesn't mean it meets wp:notability requirements. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you can get anymore reliable significant coverage than an Act of Parliment specifically for the topic, for any article. The government of a country passing an Act specifically to create something is most definitely notable. Canterbury Tail talk 18:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should expand, an Act of Parliament is notable for them as a whole, but NOT for each one individually to justify them having individual pages. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the significance here. An Act of Parliament didn't establish MSAs in general, a completely separate and individual Act of Parliament is made to establish each individual one. Canterbury Tail talk 18:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it was done as one act or individual acts is immaterial to the notability of the individual sites. It can be used to establish notability for them as a whole, needining an act to be made, but not for each one individually. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another reason why these articles should be kept is that there is a potential for them to expand to cover thousands of years of history. Todays major trunk routes in England still follow the routes build by the Romans, meaning that the area of the services has been in use for at least 2000 years and in some cases going back to neolithic. Before construction they would have had a full archaelogical study and excavation. For Wikipedia, that means there will be at least an archaelogical report to quote from. The petrol station itself may not be notable, but the land it was build on is notable. Putney Bridge (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTCRYSTAL — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant, however I'm not sure if there'll be much in the way of archaeological reports as PPG 16 was not introduced until 1990 and is guidance rather than law. It's good practice to consider the archaeology of an area before planning (ie: consulting the county archaeologist and asking if any investigation needs to be done) but not compulsory. Nev1 (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is WP:CRYSTAL irrelevant here, when Putney Bridge is making unverifiable speculation about how the site could of been used thousands of years ago. Unless theres real wp:reliable sources that shows that one of these sites is a real historically significant archeological site AND the government put a commercial service center OVER it then I can justify that that specific service center is notable. Otherwise it's WP:CRYSTAL. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's irrelevant because WP:CRYSTAL applies to "unverifiable speculation", ie: information that can't be verified. That's the meaning of "unverifiable". Archaeological reports are reliable sources. Nev1 (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Do they exist and show that these are actually significant historical archaeological sites that the government built a commercial shopping/rest area over anyway? If so I'd WELCOME the addition of that source to the relevant page(s) and gladly withdraw the AfD for those page(s), but if they don't exist it's WP:CRYSTAL and if they do exist and show no important archaeological site then they're not relevant for the notability of the site. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Talk about missing the point. Putney Bridge said there's the potential for there to be associated archaeology. If you actually read what I said instead of latching onto one insignificant detail you'd understand that I said there probably wasn't any archaeology associated with most MSAs. If there is any associated archaeology, it can be verified. Nev1 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The key word there is potential that's the keyword to justify WP:CRYSTAL as invalidating the argument. This clearly falls under WP:PROVEIT. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Potential to be added to the article, not potential to be found. I have seen the artefacts plus reports at local museums and some are on display at the services. If you want to see an immediate sample, this link [99] which is already mentioned above which refers to Norton Canes. Give me a couple of weeks and I will visit some local librarys for more facts.Putney Bridge (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Finding some old flit and a log that it's use can't be determined isn't hardly groundbreaking archeological discoveries. It's definitely not going to meet the criteria for an archaeological site to justify it's own page. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I whole-heartedly agree that the paucity of finds at Stafford services does not merit an article of its own, although a site doesn't have to be groundbreaking to be notable. However, I have added info on the archaeological investigation as it is relevant to the construction of the services. Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Archaeology is not just about finding buried treasure. The stratification and context of finds in relation to other finds and landscape features builds up a story of the area. The BBC report proves there are finds, the archaeological report will tell much more. Putney Bridge (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That was a good suggestion Putney Bridge, a search of the Bournmouth University database of archaeological reports produces about a dozens reports relating to rescue archaeology and MSAs. Only a summary of the reports is available online, but the information is worth including in the various articles. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Unless theres a substantive find beyond just an artifact, it does little to establish notability for the service center or area. And a substantive find will be referenced in secondary sources not just primary. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Archaeological finds are not the basis for claims of notability, as ought to have been abundantly clear from the discussion already. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If an archaeological find is not the basis for notability then why continue this thread? Only a substansitive archaeologically significant find would be notable and be backed up by easily obtainable secondary sources. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you a fool or just pretending to be one for a bet? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        We could continue this thread as it has lead to the improvement of the article at the centre of this AfD. That is what we're here for right? Archaeological finds are not the basis of notability, but are worth noting in the relevant articles. Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep United Kingdom motorway service stations are notable for a number of reasons, although it could be argued some are more notable than others but as the proposer has lumped them together then they all need to be kept. A number of them have architectural merit, most have a working population and a physical area higher then most hamlets and villages deemed to be notable by default. Some are important locally for their economic impact in rural areas. Clacket Lane has an ancient Roman road passing through it. The fact that most are stubs is not an argument for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is true then back each one up with references, I didn't lump sum them all, I didn't nominate EVERY page. Although I think you'd be hard-pressed to find one or two that do meet wp:notability requirements to justify their own page, they most definitely all do NOT meet those requirements individually. Single architectural distinctions or merits or even a unique selling point probably in it's own right doesn't meet wp:notability requirements and could definitely be added and expanded upon on the general pages Motorway service area and List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom. The ones I listed I don't believe meet basic notability requirements for their own page. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If these things are not actually classified as legal towns with postal codes, post offices, etc, then you can't compare them to hamlets and villages. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yet again, you're equating the US and the UK. "Postal codes and post offices" have no bearing on the status of anything; every street in Britain has a different postcode, and each service station will undoubtedly have its own postcode, while, rather famously, most small towns in Britain no longer have their own post office. (Incidentally, many MSAs do include a post office...) – iridescent 18:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again your missing the point and trying to bait this AfD into a US vs UK debate, cease and desist your bad-faith attempts to derail the topic. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You have claimed, once again quite incorrectly, that motorway service areas do not have postal codes, and post offices, which is blatantly untrue. It is you who is displaying bad faith here, along with a staggering level of ignorance and intransigence. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I stated that they're not towns, and can't be compared to towns is what I stated. Stated it in a way that may be silly when you know how the postal system in UK works and I don't, sure, but I stated they're not towns and can't be equated to towns. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So is your argument now that only towns deserve to have articles? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm clearly stating that towns are notable, and you can't compare a non-town to a town to bolster your claim the non-town is notable because of towns. To make the general assumption that I mean if something is not a town it can't have a page is clearly assuming bad-faith. These comments are quickly approaching personal attacks and unjustified for the AfD discussion. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Note the Clacket Lane for one has a post code (TN16 2ER), and Toddington LU5 6HR, and Leigh Delamare SN14 6LB, so they are recognised as significant by the Royal Mail. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Clacket Lane is notable in that is has a Kent Postcode but is actually in Surrey. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously the UK postal service assigns postal codes to almost anything. Just like in the US (ZIP+4). This isn't grounds for notability. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You do not know whereof you speak. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Personal attacks are not helpful to this discussion. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        In what way can that be considered a personal attack?? Nev1 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec) It is not a personal attack. The majority of UK postcode relate to a group of premises, not to a single premise. Thus your "obviously" comment is wrong. Thus you know not whereof you speak. That's the way it works with statements that are provably false. Your personal attack comment is nothing more than mid-slinging and unhelpful --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        To just out-of-hand dismiss the point of my comment as "you don't know what your talking about" is construed as a personal attack, at least to me. I'm saying that just because the postal service assigns a postal code to the area, site, road, building, which is common in most postal systems, is not grounds for notability and not even part of my original point that these places are not towns and can't gain notability by equating them to one. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So you do understand how the UK postal system works after all? Can't seem to make your mind up. If you really knew what you were talking about then you would not have initiated this AfD. Your continual refutation of points like "it's not a town and so can't be equated to a town" is becoming tiresome and disruptive, and I would strongly urge you to withdraw this ill-conveived AfD. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

Are we actually getting anywhere here? Since my last vist, this page has exploded into a huge mess with Raeky seemingly arguing their point for each and every single thing anyone else writes, and people throwing the same things about. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a "progress" section after just a few hours on day one? AfD's are 5 days. There still hasn't been presented any evidence that these sites meet notability requirements justifying their own wikipedia page. Lots of arguments, and lots of attempts at derailing and borderline personal attacks. Apparently a few of the editors here have very personally strong opinions of these service centers. But luckily a couple passionate editors about these centers isn't grounds for inclusion in wikipedia. Progress so far in the first 3.5 hours since it was an AfD is silly to even ask for. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've arrived at consensus. It now only remains for Racky to have the good grace to acknowledge it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus here after 3.5 hours! AfD's run 5 days minimum. This clearly doesn't meet WP:SNOW. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's running about 16 keep, 3 merge and 2 delete. Those numbers may increase, but the obvious pattern will be maintained. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, numbers don't matter, substance of the arguments do. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen people think they've made substantially better arguments than you. One person agrees with your arguments. What part of that pattern can you not see? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly they're not all backed up by wikipedia policy in these matters. There has yet to be one that shows wp:notability for the individual pages for the MAJORITY of these service centers. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If even you concede that notability is cogently being argued for even a minority of the subjects of the articles, then your group AfD MUST fail, else notable articles will be swept aside as a baby with the bathwater. And meanwhile you are not the best judge of whether notability in general has successfully been argued, given your anti- POV. As I say, the majority of those who have debated find differently than you. Eventually you'll have to accept that other people have legitimate views that differ from your. Do the decent thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me one of my nominated pages that clearly pass wp:notability guidelines and I'll gladly remove it from the AfD. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of them probably, but certainly Knutsford services. I think in any event that you confuse the absence of a claim of notability with the absence of notability. I suggest that if you are set on AfDing every single motorway service area in the UK that you do so one at a time, as they are by no means all the same. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your belief that they all probably meet criteria is not sufficient. There is nothing in Knutsford services to assert notability and to do all these individually one at a time would take MONTHS of an effort. This is far more efficient to bulk group virtually identical pages (in terms of reason for AfD) together in one AfD. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that your effort would fail, as I could very easily add properly sourced material to prove notability even to a diehard deletionist like you. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And unsurprisingly, you have immediately attacked my point. I was bringing up the point that people are starting to just insult each other which is never going to get anywhere. Talking of "borderline personal attacks", I apologise for being so "silly"! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to derail the topic by personal attacks isn't something that is going to be used to close this AfD. We need to not degrade ourselves that far. There is an attempt to push the AfD into that to get it closed I'm sure. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to derail this AfD; it's quite probably invalid, and even if it isn't, it's already becoming clear that there is no consensus to delete. Your actions have already been described, rightly, as disruptive and you have been asked to withdraw to prevent further disruption. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QED :-( Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the nominator refers to "Rest areas" and uses the US spelling "centers" clearly indicates that he has never used a UK motorway service area, and does not appreciate that UK Planning laws prevent their creation at the whim of operators. These are at least as notable as railway stations for which there are thousnads of WP articles. I call for Speedy close as keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw

You have been asked by at least three wikipedians to withdraw this AfD. That, in my experience, is unprecedented. Please reconsider your position. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, in every respect. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. – iride scent 20:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthed. This AfD is a complete waste of time. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not withdrawing the nomination as I feel there is substastiive merit to my assertion they do not meet notability requirements for individual pages as a majority with the exception of MAYBE one or two (that I did not AfD). But as a group the vast majority of them do not. If an admin feels my nominations are completely without merit he can close at his discretion. This clearly does not meet WP:SNOW or WP:KEEP. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:33, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author's request. Note that if an editor creates a page by mistake, they can request speedy deletion by placing {{db-author}} on the page without having to go to AfD. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Conference Players of the Year

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Conference Players of the Year

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

Speedy delete -- I created this page entirely by accident. I meant to make this the title of a category, not an article. This is a self-nominated AfD, so please get rid of this as soon as possible. Again, my mistake. Thanks. Jrcla2 ^talk 04:55, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Werner Erhard#Related organizations. Consensus of various suggestions, DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados Group

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

Article fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I searched in multiple databases and archival research sources - but was unable to find any reliable secondary sources independent of the article subject that significantly discuss the topic whatsoever. It appears the only sources that exist about it are either not-reliable, and/or not independent. Cirt (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - As one of a number of outfits with shifting names apt to change, merge to Werner Erhard#Related organizations or to (say) Organizations connected to Werner Erhard (a rich field for research...). -- Pedant17 (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no content sourced to reliable secondary sources independent of the article subject that could be a candidate for a merge. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the multiple non-independent sources (from various directions -- Michael Jensen/SSRN, Erhard, pop-culture web-sites on Erhard) witness to the existence of the Barbados Group and to its nature. And note the several papers (and references to papers) published by the Barbados Group in Google Scholar: see this search-result list. The emergence of yet another differently-named front for the ideas of W. Erhard may suffice for mention in a wider context in a more general article. Note furthermore that primary sources have their uses -- as the Wikipedia WP:PRIMARY policy says: "a primary source may be used [...] to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". And since we have to deal with popular culture here, the Wikipedia reliable-source comments on this area may apply : "Articles related to popular culture [...] due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; [...] When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included." -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough for a brief mention somewhere? Maybe. Enough such that all the questionably sourced material in this article all needs to be kept in some fashion and merged somewhere else, when it is non-notable? No. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Merge. ~~Nobody~~ Almost nobody outside the Barbados Group seems to have paid them the slightest bit of attention. Fences&Windows 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from (for example) David Warsh in his somewhat nuanced/skeptical Economic Principals analysis/backgrounder article on the Barbados Group and its members at http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/07.04.08.html (retrieved 2009-09-11) -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an opinion piece, and self-published at that. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, a reliable source! I did some searching around and didn't come across it myself. I think it does count as a reliable source as the author is enough of an expert on economics. Still, there's not enough attention being paid to them to warrant a separate article, it can be stubbed and merged to one of the Erhard articles. Fences&Windows 08:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notice about this debate has been given at talk pages of WP:PSYCH, WP:BUSNS, WP:WPP, WP:EDU, AND WP:ORGZ. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per barbados group and cirt.--Judo112 (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily redirected to List of villains in Static Shock#Other villains

Omnifarious

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

Part of the article is a definition, part describes a fictional character. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. None of the other similar fictional characters have their own page. The article has no sources. Clubmarx (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Static Shock. A non-notable character. Joe Chill (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Static Shock. No assertion of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:27, 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.

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

The result was delete. Skomorokh 04:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdpanther II

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

The primary editor has copied over an infobox from the Jagdpanther article and is adding nonsensical text. He's ignored requests for more information and has blanked the talk page regarding the requests once. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite since a Jagdpanther II is a Panther II based Jagdpanzer, or just redirect it to Jagdpanther... 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But there was never any concrete proposal for any such development using the Panther II chassis according to Spielberger's Panther book and Jentz's Jagdpanther book. So any such development seems to be purely post-war speculation and hence not notable. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax - a Google search doesn't return any meaningful results: [100]. Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears not to be based in fact. Buckshot06(prof) 03:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Google would appear to show that no such tank was created, and no (admittedly limited) cllection of armoured warfare books doesn't highlight any such vehicle either. Skinny87 (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The German language wiki lacks any mention of it. Tangurena (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of this article appear to have created other articles about German military equipment. Are they equally ficticious? Edward321 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have generally confined himself to only a couple of articles, most of which have been turned into redirects. The 15cm Nebelwerfer 41 article is on a legitimate weapon, but I'd need to check on the info box to see if the data is legit or not. Actually, what I need to do is to write the damn article. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:35, 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 delete. SNOW. Too many issues with this article to avoid deletion. Tone 22:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A million dollar paradox

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

Non-notable theory; all references found in Google are self-published. ... discospinster _talk 02:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If somehow this theory turns out to be notable, it ought to be merged into Solar eclipse as a second choice. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unpublished and based upon faulty logic. (The "position" of the Sun and Moon in the sky is affected by refraction in the exact same way that light is bent in the atmosphere.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook example of original research, and none of it is in the cited links. Zetawoof's refutation of the entire theory is also convincing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Fringe theory. Also the "million dollar" part not explained, so weird title.Borock (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally OR and non-notable. Also nonsense (the analysis assumes that the Sun rotates around the Earth), which wouldn't matter if there were multiple independent reliable sources, but there aren't any. --Lambiam 20:53, 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.

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

The result was delete. Skomorokh 02:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Alexander (filmmaker)

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

non notable person with limited third party reliable resources to attest to his notability. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment the 'references' provided are weak, irrelevant, and mostly blogs. the ones that might be considered third party, reliable sources are not directly about the person, but about a movie he did. there is simply not widespread or independent coverage of the article's subject. the creator of the article has been creating these unnecessary articles of non notable people because these people are somehow related to the original article this person created, which was deleted twice. now he's trying to slide the non-notable/deleted person's name into other articles. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The film in this article does not seem that notable either. Clubmarx (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete though leaning towards delete - I took a look at the existing references list for reliable sources that show evidence of notability. There was one national coverage RS which is a review of the movie and one regional coverage RS which is also a review of the movie. There is no RS coverage of Tim Alexander among the article's references.

~~"Tired Black Man Movie Blog" Reviews and other Information~~ Movie's own blog. It looks like this is controlled by Tim Alexander presumably it can be used as a WP:SELF source of information about Tim Alexander and his movie.
"A Male Answer to Waiting to Exhale" NPR Weekend All Things Considered, 2007. Movie review on national media. The subject of this AfD, Tim Alexander, is not covered in this review though he's quoted twice. The same NPR journalist who did this review also has this snippet/article about the movie.
~~"Official "Diary Of A Tired Black Man" Movie Website"~~ Movie's own web site. This is ok as a WP:SELF source of information.
~~"A Diary Worth Keeping"~~ Blogged review.
~~"Black Entertainment USA"~~ Blogged review.
"KansasCity.com Movie review in regional paper by the paper's professional movie critic.^[101] The subject of this AfD, Tim Alexander, has trivial coverage in this review though he mentioned several times in relation to making the movie and is quoted once. The part where he gets covered is the sentence "Alexander — a fashion photographer who has never made a film before."
~~"All Movie Portal Review"~~ Blogged review.
~~"DVD Talk Review"~~ Blogged review.
~~"Chud"~~ Blogged review.
~~"Kam Williams Review"~~ Personal web sites / blog.
~~http://www.averagebro.com/2009/02/averagebro-goes-to-movies-diary-of.html~~ Blog.

This is not a delete yet as I don't have time at the moment to go through the Google news and other sources to see if there is other RS coverage that could push at least the movie into notability. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from comment to delete as I only found one RS coverage that could establish notability for Tim Alexander.

No hits in Google Books nor Scholar. Google News finds:
May 18, 2006 The web site is down at the moment but it's in the Google cache. The article is from the Washington Informer which appears to be a regional WP:RS newspaper. The article's author appears to be a regular correspondant.^[102] This would be a great WP:N item except that this is an interview rather than an article about the subject. The article's author did not cover the subject himself enough to make this "significant coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail."
Jun 10, 1990 Possible trivial mention.
Aug 4, 2007 on AP and reprinted widely - Trivial mention of both the subject and his movie.
Feb 16, 2007 - Trivial mention of both subject and movie.
Sep 18, 2008 Blog review of movie. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, but local coverage does not confer notability. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 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 no consensus. Skomorokh 02:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaguluhan Music Festival

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

Non-notable musical event. User234 (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The music festival has 3 articles at Pulp Magazine and will be releasing a home video and its logo is copyrighted in the Philippines—Preceding unsigned comment added by Megr1124 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The music festival has been established since 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megr1124 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even if it existed since 2004, it may not have enough notability to merit extensive coverage. I wasn't able (yet) to verify the references mentioned in Pulp magazine, and then again I'm also unable to verify this from other sources. --- Tito Pao (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beyond the Friendster and Facebook profiles, this event is not extensively covered by notable media sources (broadsheets, for instance). Starczamora (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the music festival doesn't need mainstream or extensive media support such as notable media sources that you usually prefer, it has a cult following in the music scene. now if you're not convinced with that why don't you talk to the editor in-cheif of Pulp Magazine for you to find out the impact of the music festival.
It also has been copyrighted by the Intellectual Property office in the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.72.227 (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kaguluhan Music Festival need not be mainstream it is an underground music event that is widely known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.72.227 (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't blame you for not knowing the music festival, maybe you need to research more than just your usual resources. just because it isn't in the mainstream sources it is not well-known.(talk)

If it's really "widely known" then it may already be considered as having entered the mainstream...how can something be mainstream be not widely known at least, in this context, in the Philippines (if not the world)? And under the Philippines, virtually anything copyrightable can be copyrighted (except for those that should be patented or trade-/service-marked), which includes (but not limited to) musical works, sculptures, speeches...well, even love letters can be copyrighted. That doesn't make them automatically notable. You may want to read up on Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable sources to guide you. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The music festival is an "Underground" music event that has a "cult" following in the region of Cavite. A cult-following means it has a strong fan base that need not have the mainstream support because let's face it, mainstream doesn't give a damn at the underground music scene. Now if you're not contended with that kindly contact Pulp Magazine's Editor-in-chief to prove the notability of the music event. We're not putting an article at wikipedia that isn't factual but really it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.72.227 (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could provide you a copy of the three articles courtesy from Pulp Magazine via email for your perusal with regards to the notability of the Kaguluhan music festival and it's entities. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Not everything that is factual is automatically eligible to be included on Wikipedia. Nobody contests the facts that, say, the President of the Philippines has guards, but that doesn't mean that all the guards are eligible to have their own Wikipedia article. Nobody also disputes that people were born and die, but that doesn't mean that everyone who has a birthday or who died can have their own Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's guidelines on notability limits the number of articles that may be included in order for Wikipedia to attain a certain standard for articles. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So even an article from Pulp magazine doesn't meet your standards and notability? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Isn't a magazine considered a reliable source for information other than the usual broadsheets? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Usually, yes. But since this article cites just one magazine, we need other sources to verify the information on the article. This is to eliminate the chances of any possible conflict of interest between the subject of the article and those who created or who add content to the articles. Other than Pulp magazine, blogs and message boards, I was unable to find any other third-party reference. (And no, don't give me another blog, it's not allowed either.)
One more thing: Pulp magazine may be a notable magazine (although as of today it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article), but that doesn't mean that everything that gets mentioned on it automatically becomes notable as well. Hindi namamana ang notability, it's not passed on to the magazine's content topics. The notability of a Wikipedia topic is independent of its source material's notability. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting that the music event needs other articles to get the notable exposure it needs? well then, since the 6th event is going to take place this November 7th, we might as well put an article on a newspaper for your info, though the article isn't as big as you expect like other mainstream concerts in the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megr1124 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is best to read WP:NOTE, Wikipedia's guideline on notability, especially the section "General notability guideline". It should clarify many of the concerns aired above. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 08:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far the only notable reference that we have is our yearly articles from Pulp Magazine. Now if this is what wikipedia's criteria is, then feel free to cast your nomination to delete my 2 articles with regards to the Kaguluhan Music Festival. I couldn't care less anymore, Mainstream media support doesn't care less about the Philippine underground music scene anyways. Besides the music festival's article had a good run since 2007. Megr1124 (talk

~~Weak keep~~ The fact that the music festival is covered in Pulp (whether or not it is a passing or dominant mention is one that I still cannot answer) is a possible indication of its notability, and is something that we should not discount simply because the article creator cannot provide the articles in question. A brief Google search (which apparently was not present in the entire course of this AfD) says that this event has some 7,300 hits. However, what strikes at me more is the reason for why the nominator nominated this article in the first place, as I remain unconvinced by the simple explanation "non-notable musical event", which to me smacks of systemic bias, when there are mentions in a major music magazine. If it really was that unnotable, then I wonder why this article has been here for so long. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After much contemplation, I change my vote to keep. To the closing admin: I am under the suspicion that the "delete" vote by the article's creator may have been done under pressure by the original delete votes above, prior to this keep vote. Please take that into consideration when closing this AfD. Thanks! --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 02:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The fact that this music festival has been covered by Pulp magazine multiple times over sa few years seems to imply that this festival is notable to some degree. I wish there were other more mainstream coverage elsewhere and not just in Pulp, but I see no problem with this article on the festival being retained just as long as the sources are not too primary. --seav (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To user Seave, Unfortunately the media and or mainstream support couldn't care less about the Independent Pinoy Rock and Metal underground music scene because of too much red tape and bureaucracy, It is also the first time that the music festival's notability is questioned due to lack of other secondary sources when the article has existed since 2007 and merited countless hits on the web. Because of what has transpired, the producers and organizers myself included are planning to release a promo article on the newspaper with regards to the 6th installment and its initial concert film which will be released direct to home video for a limited supply only from its independent label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megr1124 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute...you're implying that you and the organizers of this music festival know each other and are actually planning to release promo articles for newspapers? --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to meet the producers and event organizers because of this matter. I've been telling them so much about you with regards to the credibility of Kaguluhan music festival as a music event. They were very upset that the article of the concert film was gone and didn't get to browse it first hand, thanks to you and now this. I actually suggested the idea with them to put up a press release to some newspapers for "your" opinion's sake, Pulp advised however that Kaguluhan's growing popularity is based from an emerging word of mouth from its notable musicians/bands who have previously performed in the festival along with the magazine's support, and contesting it here with you and Wikipedia is just merely a waste of time based from their experiences. You once previously claimed that wikipedia only obtains information from secondary and third party sources, but this I ask: "where do you get the sources of the subject being discussed?" from it's original sources right? so on the contrary; "Notability can also be inherited." Wikipedia cannot promote I am aware of that, but we can however document the subject's progress. Now, whatever transpires in the fate of the notability of Kaguluhan Music Festival and its related articles, the organizers however are very thankful that the festival's recognition in the local underground music scene has already been noticed even in the web (despite that you and Wikipedia strongly deny it) since this article has existed from 2007 meriting with 7,300 hits and still counting. Though I will continue as possible in documenting the music festival's history timeline even if this article still has yet to be resolved. As for my suggestions with the organizers, It's still their decision not mine. So don't ever implicate me of any Conflict of Interest or me influencing them what to do with regards to the subject being questioned here, but they do however commend what I've contributed. --- Megr1124 (talk) 19:14, 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. Skomorokh 02:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T-loop deletion factor

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

Neither notable or verifiable. A term used in a single publication in the "Journal of anti-aging" about the journal a "journal" that strains the definition of this word. Zero hits in PubMed, one hit (this "paper") in Google Scholar. The other references in the article do not use this term and unsurprisingly do not relate to this "research". Tim Vickers (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete merge into aging or other related article. Shyamal (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what exactly? What part of this article do you think is verifiable and notable? Tim

Vickers (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I did not see your note on it not being verifiable. I saw the references cited on the article and I imagined it had something to do with the molecular biology of ageing. (surprised that we have no such article, and Evolution of ageing does not seem to have well vetted content)Shyamal (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't stated that it failed WP:V (I added that after your comment), just discussed the sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange that the journal and the author seem to have the same e-mail address, as if the author is also the publisher. The journal is too new to find indicators of trustworthiness like listing in selective services like medline or journal citation reports. Narayanese (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO if nothing else. And the nominator's else is accurate, if understated. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As as a non-notable, un-verifiable neologism. (The author of the paper is not the Vladimir Stoyanov on whom we currently have an article, but the revision history of that page might be of interest to the idle curious). Qwfp (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC) (…as might that of telomere and ageing) --Qwfp (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content issues aside (and there are many), the entry is solely based on an article which appeared in a journal of very dubious provenance. All relevant links (e.g., to the Editorial Board) seem to be broken, and it gives an email contact that smacks of a hoax account (zzz_www_ooo@yahoo.co.uk). Also, this purported source was the only article in it. Malljaja (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that the the journal that provides the only source is reliable, and signs pointing toward the opposite. Narayanese (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete.

Dear Wiki members. My name is Vladimir Stoyanov and I have just come back from Cambridge, where in the SENS 4 anti aging annual conference I was giving one of the talks exactly on this novel t-loop deletion factor. The links to the abstract and the talk in Cambridge are included in the actual article. Regarding to the new 2009 online FREE journal of anti aging: you are correct appears that there were some broken links, but this is now fixed. Note however that this is not a commercial journal, which is gathering force on the bases of this year SENS4 conference, where telomere direct targeting was discussed in some more details. Thus please if you have any question regarding the validity of the paper itself, then please contact the editorial board and/or any expert on telomeres. Note however that as a new journal there is still gathering of new papers, which is in a working progress and takes time, especially when a free service is targeted. Regarding the PubMed search: clearly you are not aware, which is ok, but PubMed is an additional submission procedure, which takes upto2 years after the paper has been published, whereas the t-loop deletion factor has been just published. My wish was to keep wikipedia up to date, as I and all members of this conference in Cambridge do believe this paper to be in a great help in understanding aging and focus on the anti aging approach. Thus can you please avoid deletion tags without consulting first. I will put the text back as it was expecting if there are any future questions to address the editor board directly, which is as you have quoted zzz_www_ooo@yahoo.co.uk, which was referred to my used Malljaja (see above) as "smacks of a hoax account", which clearly makes no sense and it is highly unprofessional to use such language. Note that this is an absolutely normal email account using professional speed and configuration for emailing, which is clearly preferable compare to the university email services, which programs are highly simplified and time consuming, which clearly is a knowledge known to the user Mallajaja, which was never contacting this email (as I have checked now with the editorial board).

Why nobody read Volume 12, Supplement 1 ISSN 1549-1684 of the Journal of Rejuvenation Research, which have many Editors: Aubrey de Grey; Michael West, VIlhelm Bohr, Rudolph Tanzi, Gregory Stock and many others world leaders in aging. Thus why don't you just apologise and stop being extremely rood, as you are not suppose to tell me what to do and where to publish! Also just because I am the chief editor, do not mean that I am biased, nor that I have revised my own paper. Why don't you see the many advantages of this new journal, which focus on helping the very particular target of anti aging? Moreover who are you to speculate how many computers there are for a single IP address, and what have this to do with your mission "to promote knowledge". Appears to me that you have forgotten what are you here for. Thus perhaps it is a good idea for you to read the wiki idea and contribute. Note that none of you have any knowledge of anti aging and telomeres, thus you are better use the professional work for the professionals, instead of embarrassing the image of wikipedia. It is pity, as even a bachelor degree BSc (as you) will see the original making sense mechanism, as long as it have a look at the paper. Thus all of you: "how about you actually read the paper?". Further to that I should say that you should be the last people to be even considering to be deleting my contributions, as if you actually read them you will see that I have made only additions to our current knowledge, so that the telomere science community can take advantage of as much info regarding telomeres as possible. Note that PubMed use is most importantly not up to date source, and it is surely not enough for a telomere maintenance ideas, as Maria Blasco is the one managing to induce telomerase in somatic cells, but her problem is that cancer levels also increase in her cells. Thus it is my approach which is the ONLY one who target directly telomere maintenance. Thus I allow for people to look at what helped me to find the telomere maintenance gene, as I wish for more people to work independently on targeting directly this telomere shortening problem. Now if you don't mind I have work to do, so it will be of great help for everyone, if you put back my additions, as I will not do that for you! I had enough of your childish attitude.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.113.227 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 September 2009

Unfortunately, we have no way of verifying your credentials, so your opinions must be backed by reliable sources. Equally you have no way of verifying that I have a PhD in biochemistry, know quite a lot already about telomeres and the end-replication problem, and did in fact read your paper. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete: 08.09.2009 2.46am. Clearly there are many sources of references for this novel t-loop deletion factor. It was also published in the Journal of Rejuvenation Research see page 52. There are more abstracts published by Stoyanov V at this page, which will help you resolve the notable and verifiable sources. Note also that the actual paper is very good and actually really important in the anti aging research.

Aaabbbzzz (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC) — Aaabbbzzz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. We don't have Wikipedia articles about single scientific articles, especially articles that are published in unheard of journals that have only published a single article, especially if the author is Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Vladimir, seriously, that's an untenable conflict of interest. If you want to be taken seriously as an academic you will forget about this "journal" and submit to established journals that conduct independent peer review. PubMed indexing is standard for biomedical journals, and it takes nothing like two years to arrange; it's pretty routine and should be in place before a journal launches. You might be thinking of Medline indexing. Fences&Windows 03:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the so many good reasons listed above. Wikipedia is not a way to publish research that can't seem to get into any real journals.Fuzbaby (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I pointed out at the AfD for Will Vladimir Stoyanov, the IP that Stoyanov is using here is the same IP that is web hosting much of the referencing content. Look at the direct link to the "Journal of Anti-Aging" in that article. It's an individual trying to use WP to publish original thought. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonnotable original research; self promotion. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aaabbbzzz (talk) and Hendentry (talk) who created Will Vladimir Stoyanov appears to be the same. Dy yol (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suhotra Svami

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

Non notable. Ism schism (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a prominent religious leader in ISKCON (The Hare Krishna Movement). He was a member of the Governing Body Commission, a sannyasi and an initiating guru. That makes him notable enough to be on Wikipedia.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote the article. Every statement is supported by RS now.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is still about a non-notable subject. In addition, the sources do little to add to the subject's notability. Article still deserves a delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suhotra Swami was a member of the Governing Body Commission, a sannyasi, and an initiating guru. I've made some research and found out that presently there're only 22 individuals in ISKCON who occupy those leadership posts at the same time. There are 26 or 27 more who are only sannyasis ang gurus. I think that any individual from this group potentially deserves an article on Wiki. I already gave my arguments on AfD debates on other ISKCON senior leaders. In previous AfD debates several editors presented and supported similar view.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a leader of a medium-sized part of a major religion. I've looked through the references in the article and, from the ones that have anything visible through Google Books this one looks like the clincher: a book published by what must be just about the most fundamentalist Catholic university in the world, so would not be expected in any way to try to promote the reputation of a Hindu. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 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. Skomorokh 02:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BVV Trade Fairs Brno Co.

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

falls foul of WP:SPAM as something that is essentially an advert masquerading as an article. Ironholds (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems notable. Needs clean up work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At this point in time is reads like an advert. Most of the material relates to events which may in fact be notable, but notability is not inherited. I don't see this passing WP:CORP. Maybe the best is to delete and allow recreation of a sourced article that meets WP:N, WP:CORP and WP:RS. I'll also add that the only linked site for information is not accessible to all browsers making it difficult to meet WP:V for many editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 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 00:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:12, 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, Malinaccier (talk) 02:01, 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.

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Ed Fever (film)

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

Non-notable pornographic film, article consists only of brief plot summary, short cast list, and unsupported claim taken from user comment at IMDB. No assertion of WP:NOTABILITY, no sources, no indication of any independent 3d party coverage, therefore failing the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Film's cast included many notable porn stars, some of whom were doing mainstream work at the same time. Article helps avoid reader confusion by disambiguating Co-Ed Fever (TV series). Added some citations since nomination. Jokestress (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing provided by Jokestress. Well done. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, the sourcing that's been added doesn't demonstrate notability. Aside from a now-deleted link to a retailer site, the citations to the "almanac" and the encyclopedias fail under the applicable notability guideline, WP:NOTFILM, which states that sources like "listings in comprehensive film guides" are not sources satisfying the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Mentions and trivial coverage in books of trivia and books of lists don't change that. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources would....but this film doesn't have that. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Meets at least three criteria per WP:NOTFILM

It was shot on 35 mm film and the film had a national theatrical release (see one-sheet).
The film was given a commercial re-release (it has had several re-releases since its film debut, including VHS and at least 2 DVD releases). See re-release 1, re-release 2, re-release 3)
The film features significant involvement (i.e. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. For instance, controversial figure Paul Barresi appeared in the film as his first straight-market porno following involvement in gay-market modeling and film.

I am happy to provide sourcing in print and online biographies for notable figures who appear in the film. Jokestress (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jokestress. Passes WP:NOTFILM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosox5555 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Jokestress's comments regarding WP:NOTFILM don't hold water. Neither being shot on 35mm film nor having a theatrical release is listed as a NOTFILM criterion (and neither is even mentioned in the article, to say nothing of being reliably sourced, if that matters here). The links Jokestress provides have nothing to do with a commercial rerelease of the film -- which in NOTFILM refers to theatrical releases, not DVD releases. (The criterion wouldn't make sense if it applied to DVD releases, it would say that the longer it takes a film to appear on DVD, the more notable the film is.) And the third claim isn't supported by reliable sources -- that may be what it says in Barresi's article, but when you check the cited source, the information it's cited for isn't there! The overall GNG problem remains -- the only sources found so that discuss this are the sort characterized as "trivial" by the guideline, not supporting notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For an adult film to have a national run at that time was unusual, especially one shot on 35. Most were shot on 16, and some on 8. This was among the last wave of nationally-released narrative pornographic works prior to the straight-to-video market explosion. The multiple re-releases certainly qualify under WP:NOTFILM, which says nothing about theatrical re-release. See General principles, criterion 2, item 3. Furthermore, the adult film industry distribution model changed radically in the five years following the film's original theatrical run. Grindhouse theaters closed across the country as the market moved to video sales and rentals. The fact that this film had three re-releases and is still sold online meets WP:NOTFILM criteria. This featured an ensemble cast of very well-known actors and was made by XRCO Hall of Fame producer Harold Lime and AVN Hall of Fame director Gary Graver. I still believe this article is most helpful for general readers to disambiguate the short-lived TV series of the same name and release date. Jokestress (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the relevant claims you make are reliably sourced information. (Nor is the Harold Lime claim). And your "rerelease" argument is absolute nonsense; it amounts to saying that any film made more than five years before DVDs were available is inherently notable if was later released on DVD. That's flat-out ridiculous. Rather than arguing based on your ideas about what makes a porn film important, please provide what's required by the general notability guideline: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Delete. Doesn't pass NOTFILM for me per Wolfowitz's arguments. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NOTFILM. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not prove with independent reliable sources that it meets WP:NOTFILM. Algébrico (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2000 MTV Movie Awards. Cirt (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and the Matrix

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

Non-notable comedy short. Suggest merge annd redirect to 2000 MTV Movie Awards on which it was origially shown. magnius (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect 14 news hits you can redirect without a AFD. Ikip (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree that it's "non-notable", but my reasons are subjective. (In case you're interested, I feel it merges "Sex and the City" and "The Matrix" seamlessly, with high production values and in-character cameos -- it's the best of the shorts I've seen on the MTV Movie Awards.) My real problem is that I don't know how to defend my opinion that something is or is not notable. What would it take to convince you? What would be a "notable" comedy short? ShawnVW (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Notability: one that has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". See the page for details. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not notable by itself. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:44, 30 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 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:51, 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) 05:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primal Athletes

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

Neologism, violates WP:NFT. There are no reliable sources for this term. Addition of a redlinked athlete smacks of an attempt at an end run around WP:ATHLETE. Also looks like advertising. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unsourced neologism and yes, advertising just make a delete a certainty Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:23, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and reads like nonsense. Ebonyskye (talk) 00:41, 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.

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

The result was delete as there is clear consensus that this topic has not passed the threshold of notability. Please feel free to request undeletion if the content can be used fruitfully in other articles. Skomorokh 02:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives

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

non notable ranking method. It springs from a single academic journal article, which isn't enough for inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's noted in Pairwise comparison, maybe a redirect to that article? --Abc518 (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect per Abc518. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No longer in the article --Abc518 (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 12 non-Wikipedia Google hits. A redirect of this long term given the complete absence of interest in this system would be inappropriate. I have removed its mention in Pairwise comparison per WP:UNDUE. Abductive (reasoning) 06:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback on the article I wrote ... But I can assure you that this method, which I co-invented, is, although relatively new, a bona fide approach to multi-criteria decision analysis. As such it belongs in a list of such methods at the article "multi-criteria decision analysis", and it needs to be explained (presumably in a linked article). The reference in the article is to an important peer-reviewed journal in the area (in the field of Operations Research). If you are in doubt, have a look at the article. If you cannot easily obtain a full copy, I am happy to email you a PDf. Paulwizard (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Note "co-invented" and "relatively new"; there is a single journal article on the matter. Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines require multiple independent, reliable, sources giving significant coverage. One reliable source giving significant coverage is not enough, particularly when that journal article is not at all independent of the method's "creator".

Sure, I wrote the article referred to, but the journal in which it appears is independently and blind peer refereed (by experts in the field of multi-criteria decision analysis and the journal's editors). The article was only published (online) last week (after over 2 years spent in the reviewing and editing process). Please note the name of the journal too: Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (equivalent to the title of the article at which I added the new method described in the article being discussed here.) Paulwizard (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make a difference - the journal article was written by you, who hardly counts as a third party. You're missing the main point; explain how your new method passes WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically: Has this method been commented on in at least 2 sources by people who were not involved in its creation? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Abductive. --Robin (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking third-party sources at this time; could be recreated later once some independent analysis appears. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:14, 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 no consensus. no consensus after 20 days of discussion on WP:PORNBIO and WP:N. JForget 00:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gina LaMarca

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this deserves a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to follow up the opinion on wether the recent removal of Penthouse Pets from WP:PORNBIO extends to Pet of the Year. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She seems to satisfy the fifth prong of PORNBIO with several mainstream appearances if you believe her.[103] AVN profiles are sometimes unreliable because they mirror wikipedia for some of the profiles but this profile is not one of them. I know I've seen her in some of those roles back in the 90s. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I also believe being Penthouse Pet of the Year is a notable award. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Roles like "hooker" and "seductress" don't really look all that notable. Nor does appearing in Penthouse proprietary videos. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 25 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 00:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:46, 30 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 00:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorta related, but why is Playboy Playmate still on PORNBIO is Penthouse Pet was removed? Penthouse is just as well known and notable as Playboy, and Penthouse Pet is their version of the Playboy Playmate. It really should be either both are included or neither are. Keep as being Penthouse Pet of the Year makes her notable. TJ Spyke 03:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Pet of the Year is notable award, plus several mainstream appearances. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Penthouse Pet of the Year is notable. There is also other work to add to notability. --Stormbay (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not present independent reliable secondary sources (IAFD and AVN, IMDb are not reliable per WP:BIO). Algébrico (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced her PotM in 1993 and PotY 1995 status from the Penthouse website itself. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. listed for 14 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brac Systems

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

Article may not pass WP:ORG. "Significant coverage" is debatable. Coverage is mainly a few trade magazine articles, some minor feature articles which all parrot the same marketing/advertising info, and an appearance on a local television show. Seems to be simply advertising for a small company. Not clear cut enough for a prod, so nominating through a consensus process. Crockspot (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note by nom - Many of the ghits for Brac Systems actually refer to two other organizations, Base Realignment and Closure Systems, and Budget Rent A Car Systems. - Crockspot (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:40, 30 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) 00:35, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thing-Thing

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

This game's claim to fame is the "ATi CrossFire People's Choice Award", and a citation to a press release is provided. However, no reliable, independent sources appear to be available and therefore fails basic verification policy - and by extension fails the general notability guideline. The award, which itself has not attracted coverage beyond press releases, it not strong enough to support a article on a whole game series. Marasmusine (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, no sources. - Crockspot (talk) 20:14, 29 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) 00:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't even find a reference to the actual award; it seems to have been a one-time sponsorship by ATI for some fringe website's awards (not an award from ATI itself), and aside from the press release the website no longer even hosts info about the awards. As far as I'm concerned, it was nothing more than a marketing/publicity gimmick and does not lend any notability to the subject. Therefore, with no other claim to notability, the article should be deleted. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a single about.com review for one of the games, and a small one at that, there's no notability demonstrated in the article and none apparent from a search. Someone another 22:17, 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) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian dub

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

Contested prod. Music genre with no assertion of notability. No indication of any established band represented. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 08:12, 31 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) 00:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references, and nothing to be found on Google either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:32, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bizsensors

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

Third-party contested speedy. Small company, no third-party references. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:39, 30 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) 00:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No mentions on Google News (only one mismatch) makes this company unheard of. The website appears to be registered to a person in West Bengal, India but the website itself has no real corporate information such as company registration number. Consequently all we can see of this company is a website with no supporting sources as to its trading status so it may well just be a hangover from a failed speculative stab at marketing.—Ash (talk) 07:56, 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. Cirt (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Faberge

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

While she may be notable or, more specifically, a notable person, it isn't clear to me from the article, since it isn't established in the first place that a company's internal division for researching the company's background is notable at large or that, by extension, being one of that internal division's founding members makes one notable. I am particularly moved to have deletion considered because of the creation comment, "Entry reinserted at the request of Sarah Fabergé", which implies that this is a vanity piece rather than an objective article about a notable person. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion; it isn't a place to post your resume. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, no evidence of third-party, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. If the company is notable, and ancestors of this person are notable, that does not mean this person is automatically notable. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:34, 30 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) 00:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per WP:A7. No assertion of notability, not to mention sources. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:13, 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.

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zubairu Dalhatu Malami

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

fails WP:BIO simply being a staff member of a politician doesn't grant automatic notability. yes it can be verified [104] nothing in gnews [105]. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:10, 30 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) 00:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slight consensus towards deleting. Article doesn't have any strong refs nor have they been provided. In other words, it appears to be notable for a single event only. Thus, deleting with no prejudice against creation if/when reliable sources are found. tedder (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer TakeBack Campaign

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

Non-notable recycling initiative. No sources support notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gotta look for them, to find them. Inept nomination; 'power user' does not mean horsepower, but finesse. Incident found with "What links here": Yahoo Search for "Computer+TakeBack+Campaign+plane+banner" and sources for the incident that I added to the article. Anarchangel (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A single publicity stunt does not create a notable organization.—Kww(talk) 12:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No actual evidence that what they did was important in the recycling movement. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a stub, needing significant updating, expansion and citations, but should not be deleted. The Computer TakeBack Campaign (now the Electronics TakeBack Coalition) is a critically important electronics recycling initiative involving organizations and individuals across North America and having significant impacts on both private sector behavior & public policy. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:38, 30 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) 00:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. For some reason this debate was not transcluded on the log for the 15th of August and has remained open since then. Since it can use a little more participation, I have relisted it. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wood (environmental campaigner) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of notability, although rather low. Plenty of extra ref can be found. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to be cited frequently in the media regarding electronics recycling. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If DGG has satisfied himself that the article should be deleted, that is good enough for me. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Of the article's two sources, the second doesn't even mention the group. And while the stunt may have gotten two sentences in an article about Jobs (and btw: an article by the Associated Press is not the same as a press release), that doesn't mean that Apple's actions before and after the stunt can be said to be related. If there's anything sourced and encyclopedic here, move it to Ted Smith (environmentalist). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The AFD was closed by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) who deleted the article at 06:21UTC, September 9, 2009. I am just adding the closing templates and removing subsequent comments. Abecedare (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Third Sikh Holocaust 1984

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

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}}.

A blatant and clear-cut case of POV pushing. The term "Third Sikh Holocaust" gets only 1,600 hits on Google (the first few of which are YouTube videos) and absolutely zero hits on Google Scholar. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no previous good version to which to revert, this is hopelessly in violation of WP:NPOV. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 01:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Initially I considered whether an article rename would suffice, but reading through the article, it is clear that it is a irremediable piece of soapboxing. Other articles created by the same user Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk · contribs)

also need to be scrutinized to see if there is anything worth retaining. (read for example footnote 52 in Harbhajan Singh Yogi) Abecedare (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has also created Wadda Ghalughara and Chhotaa Ghallooghaaraa which roughly translate as "Big holocaust/massacre" "Small holocaust/massacre". Gizza^Discuss ^© 08:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I noticed and examined the other two articles, and Google turned up some scholarship on the first two "Sikh holocausts" (which are only called such by partisan sources). A merge into a new article such as Sikh persecution in the 18th century or something along those lines will likely be the end result. We're attempting to rectify the neutrality and title issues separately from this article since those two have the possibility of becoming viable articles whereas this one is irredeemable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of POV pushing with no reliable source verifiability. Not one hit on gbooks or gscholar (unlikely given the scope of religious studies and ethnic studies at major universities). The only gnews link is a partisan source. Also part of this set of articles was this AfD that resulted in a delete, but one that had similar amount of reference padding to Harbhajan Singh Yogi and had overlapping editors. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopelessly PoV, (as probably are most articles with the title holocaust). Though there does need to be an NPOV article on the many allegations of unprovoked killings of Sikhs during this period. Imc (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely an essay/opinion piece in tone and style. Priyanath ^talk 16:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Delete. If this is already covered elsewhere, then I see no reason to keep this article. I would agree that this article is indeed "hopelessly PoV" when it would require a major rewrite to have a more neutral tone and when it seems likely that people would be offended by the idea of a rewrite. NPOV can be done-- the articles on The Holocaust and the Final Solution have done rather well in keeping an encyclopedic tone on an emotionally-charged subject -- but those are the collective work of many editors. Mandsford (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Note The existence of other articles is not really relevant in a deletion discussion per WP:OTHERCRAPTeamQuaternion (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is highly POV. The matter is already covered in more neutral articles such as 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Operation Blue Star and Punjab insurgency. utcursch | talk 18:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I forgot I was reading an encyclopedia whilst reading this. It seemed more like Sikh propaganda. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 22:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - clearly POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am picking this article as my keeper of the day. I noticed that it has plenty of sources, well over 100, and I am not exactly sure what makes it so point of view. It may well have a few lines within it that are point of view, but there is no reason that these problems could not in theory be fixed. Point of view problems are considered a rather poor reason for deleting an article. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfDThe topic of the article is certainly notable and verifiable. I am not Sikh or Indian, so I don't really have a dog in the fight here as far as the political agenda. Deletion seems to be a very coercive way of dealing with content and an author, when discussion and rewriting seem to be more of the answer, I am going to check the discussion page, to see if these issues have even been discussed. Seems like this should have been done before the article was nominated.TeamQuaternion (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Utcursch mentions, there are already NPOV articles on exactly the same topic. Sentences like freedom-loving Sikhs offered up a disproportionate sacrifice to liberate their country from the shackles of colonial rule. and inspiring sacrifices of the Sikhs make me wonder whether TeamQuaternion (above) actually read the page. You don't need to even be familiar with Wiki's policies to realise that the tone and agenda pushed by these POV forks have no place here. Gizza^Discuss ^© 08:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I already fixed the text you are talking about in one spot, if it is stated elsewhere I can fix that one as well. Even more glaring is that the Sikh figures of casualties (40,000 to 60,000) are stated as being fact, now that has been changed to Sikh sources claim... Body counts offered by the Indian government are now the only places were there are point of view problems, because last time I checked these body count statistics were listed as undisputed facts. BTW just about every problem in the article can be fixed by simply inserting Sikh's claim into the mix, because when this is done, the whole article becomes completely verifiable because I have looked into it, and just about everything in the article is consistently given in Sikh accounts. It is a very accurate reflection of the Sikh point of view, its problem being that it states these points of view as indisputable facts. Some of the wording can be changed to a more neutral tone as well, but if point of fact the Sikhs did have a disperportionate casualty rate in that conflict so the article in that respect is factually correct. Thanks for pointing out that problem, but the thing is that I am not really sure we have made a good faith effort to discuss with the author and try and fix all the point of view problems with the article. For this reason alone the nomination should fail as it is in clear violation of WP:BEFORETeamQuaternion (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or userfy very, very well sourced. It can be reworked and rewritten into a decent article. Ikip (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rewrite -- This is a substantial and well-sourced article, but with a POV title and perhaps some POV content . The primary subject is an internal conflict between the Sikh community and the Indian government. It is clearly written from a Sikh POV, but I see no evidence of a holocaust in the sense applied to the Jewish holocasut in WWII. The first pertion deals with pre-1984 Sikh grievances: I am not clear as to their relevance. The long paragraphs on the principal participants do not belong: the WP method of dealing with the need for these is to provide a short paragraph with a "main" template linking to the bio-article on the person. I do not know whether there is another articles on the subject to merge this with. If there is not, it should be given a series of tags, indicating the problems with it. It is a great pity when a substantial article such as this is deleted when what it needs is pruning, converting to NPOV, and generally sorting out. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that First Sikh Holocaust and Second Sikh Holocaust are now redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, rewrite and merge with 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Operation Blue Star and Punjab insurgency: "Third Sikh Holocaust" may be an OR. Other OR too: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) is vaguely analogous to the attack in Amritsar. Heavy one-sided POV. Inappropriate tone, like personal POV essay:"The situation has changed some since the terrible days of Indira Gandhi. A Sikh is now Prime Minister of India and Sikh culture and commentary is readily available worldwide on the internet. But Punjab remains without a capital, many farmers without adequate water, and India remains a country of great hope, great challenges and great illusions.As the motto of the Indian republic says, Satyameva Jayate – “Truth Alone Shall Triumph”." BUT BENEATH THE POV, LAY BURIED SOME WELL-REFERENCED FACTS. Khushwant Singh for eg. is a very notable author. " Oxford University Press", University of Pennsylvania Press are noatble publishers. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I already voted to keep), some people in this discussion may have a big advantage over me, because before I looked at this ADF proposal I did not know anything about this history. Ghallooghaaraa is the Sikh word for Holocaust, or so the article claims. ~~This should be verified by checking with a Sikh English dictionary, but the factual nature of the article is not really being challenged.~~ The author has verified this with a citation to a Sikh English dictionary, giving the exact page number where it is stated that Ghallooghaaraa is literally translated as holocaust. It would seem to me that the Sikh name for the event is an appropriate title, for an in depth coverage of these events from a Sikh point of view. The article documents with well over 160 sources and growing the verifiable and notable point of view of the Sikh community on the history of these events. There is really nothing wrong with an in depth article on a point of view, especially a notable one, as long as it says that it is from the Sikh point of view. As I see it, if the so called neutral articles mentioned don't provide some degree of coverage to the Sikh point of view, and link to this article, then the real problem is with the neutrality of these articles and not with this article on the Sikh point of view. A problem with merging the entire article with 160 citations into a main article with only 26 citations, including all the facts documented in the sources would be that then the main neutral article would become out of balance containing many more cited sources that support the Sikh point of view.TeamQuaternion (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you will have to read through all of the 160 citations first, and ensure that they are not being quoted or referred to selectively or out of context. Best of luck. Imc (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete while i sympathize with anyone who would like to rescue poorly written articles, and i have attempted to rescue some myself, i really cannot imagine this article passing deletion review with a "hey, why not just clean up". i believe in eventualism, but i also think articles need to stand as they are, maybe poorly sourced, maybe incomplete, but overall encyclopedic. this is so poorly written and pov, it needs to go. whoever wants to rescue it, please, just copy it to your sandbox and rewrite, and then recreate under a different name. i admit the references look good, but that may be all thats salvageable. the world can wait for this to be rewritten.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NoteAs per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD a point of view problem is an extremely poor reason to place an ADF tag on an article and a much better approach is to improve the article. I have fixed a few of the more glaring style errors in the article and plan of fixing a few more, so since many of the WP:NPOV problems have been fixed, maybe the key issue is that this article is very verifiable as per guidline WP:V with 160 citations and also very notable as per WP:N, seems like nobody has disputed these facts, and since this is not a vote this ADF should be rejected.TeamQuaternion(talk) 00:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would agree with you. Even an article as slanted as this one can usually be redeemed with enough elbow grease. But that is not the case here. The events this article describes are already covered in our articles about the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Operation Blue Star and the Punjab insurgency, thus rendering a rewrite unnecessarily redundant.
Most importantly, the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" is a shock term intended to conjure images of Nazi concentration camps and fascist crackdowns. When we use the word "Holocaust" to name the events in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, or when we use the term "genocide" to name the events in Rwanda in 1993-1994, we do so not as a rallying cry against racism or crimes against humanity but because that's what they are called by neutral and unbiased scholars and historians. Even neo-Nazis call the Holocaust "the Holocaust". As near as I can tell, the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" is not used by any scholar, not even in one of the 130+ citations provided by the article's author.
The only usages other than this article where I have found the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" come from Sikh websites railing against the crimes this article describes. That is hardly a neutral basis for such a complex topic. As such, we should move the salvageable content into the three articles I linked earlier and delete the remaining POV-filled detritus. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note OK just a guess here, but my guess is that some of my older Jewish relatives would find this stuff extremely offensive, and think it was trivializing the holocaust. Also I am sure that Hindu people are not happy about being compared to Nazis? By the same token check out this link"

http://sikhtoons.com/HailIndia.html

My point being that an article on the Sikh point of view about the events of 1984 should not be stated as fact, but it should exist, because the fact that elements within the Sikh community use rhetoric like this is a verifiable fact. What is debated in an ADF is the topic of an article. I agree that it should be mentioned that this is an emotionally charged term used by only members on one side of the account.TeamQuaternion (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also WP:POVFORK, WP:FRINGE. The only reference for the term "Third Holocaust" (ref 1) is a dictionary that says Ghalooghara translates to Holocaust or a few other words. The article clearly fails reliable source verifiability for its core. While there are some RS refs included, they aren't germane to the title, rather they contribute to a synthesis, putting forward this fringe theory. That Wikipedia is not a soapbox is another policy vio. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork of 1984 anti-Sikh riots, also lacks RS. SBC-YPR (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-point of view fork issue {{User wikipedia/WikiDragon}} Deleting an article based on it having a point of view problems is one of the worst arguments for deletion I can think of. Probably the very worst example of an WP:OTHERCRAP argument is to try and justify deleting an article based on a claim that it is a point of view fork. This topic is notable WP:N and verifiable WP:V it has over 160 references some of them from very reputable and non-partisan sources. That is not really nice of you to call the Sikhs that don't agree with Indian main stream media a fringe group, but even if they are, they are certainly a notable fringe group. Basically a point of view fork argument is that since some allegedly non-bias other article does not provide sufficient coverage of a subject, then an in depth coverage of the same topic needs to be deleted. Nonsense, lets stick to the issue and forget about WP:OTHERCRAP, better yet, since you have now awakened a sleeping dragon, I am headed right over to the article you claim is so unbias, and add in all the references that people suggest should be merged into that article, and place a link to the main article on the point of view expressed by some Sikhs. The sad thing is that this will mean that over 160 references are going to probably start to toggle in and out of that article. At least that will thwart your plan to get this content out of wikipedia edit history, unless people next advocating that article as well. Anyway, everybody please try and calm down and have a nice day. I believe that many of you are men of good faith who just disagree with the point of view of some of the Sikhs, but I don't think it is reasonable to exclude it. The other good news, is that all of the named point of view problems with the article have now been fixed. Making a sweeping claim about an article having a point of view fork problem is a fallacy under WP:JUSTAPOLICY in this case because it really does not apply when two articles are bias, and also fails by WP:ONLYESSAY. Also I think in an argument we need to say if we are Sikh Hindu or other. I have been clicking and visiting a lot of user pages, and there are many Hindus or at least Indian nationals. Me I am mostly Irish and German with some Jewish relatives as well. I have nothing personally against either Hindus or Sikhs and did not know anything about this issue until I clicked into it because I monitor articles for deletion.TeamQuaternion (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You would be better off understanding Wikipedia policies including those on reliable sources before you go on arguing about the 160 references. The fact that the only reliable sources in those 160 don't support the concept of a holocaust is the main point here. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 03:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - commentUser:SpacemanSpiff I notice you are a native Hindi speaker, nothing wrong with that, but people should name their partisanship in these types of heated discussions. The notable fact is what the Sikhs are claiming something. You make a great point, that their point of view is disputed. I agree that this fact should be included in the article. However the fact that they are making these claims is a little harder to dispute, my own research verifies that they are making these claimsWP:IKNOWIT/WP:JUSTAand that stating something I know to be a fact is not relevant and not really appropriate here, because they are a result of my recent inquiry into the subject. My lack of understanding of guides is not really relevant per WP:ADHOM, but thank you for the advice.TeamQuaternion (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rescope to discussion of the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" in the apparently unlikely event that there is sufficient material - there seems no need for the content of this article to focus on the events of 1984, since we have extensive (and hopefully rather better) coverage of that elsewhere. Discussion of the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" itself also belongs in those other articles. However, if that discussion of the term becomes too extensive, then this article ___location would be (possibly minus the "1984") the wisest choice for a sub-article on the term to be branched out. The current situations appears to me to be an unacceptable POV-fork. TheGrappler (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a POV version of another well written and more neutral article:[1984 anti-Sikh riots]. --Deepak D'Souza 03:33, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Living Legend (Amanda Lear album)

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

Mid-price compilation released by non notable european label (Mint Records). Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Kekkomereq2 (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:53, 30 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, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:08, 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.

[1] ttp://new.umusic.com/News.aspx?NewsId=787

[2] ttp://blog.tunecore.com/2009/02/tunecore-announces-new-sales-awards.html

[3] see bottom of http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-09-2009/0005057255&EDATE=

[1]

[2]

[3]