Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 22

< 21 August	23 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MIR (Chile) members assassinated by the Pinochet regime

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is fairly evenly divided between keep and delete (although the delete comments slightly outweigh the keep), and there has been a lot said by those who feel that the lists should be kept. However, the arguments used tend to the Other stuff exists or engages in political debate which we have found from experience to be against Wikipedia's principles, and to be quite disruptive. The arguments for deleting the lists did cite a long standing policy: WP:NOT. These lists also fail WP:NLIST. If, as DGG says, our guidelines and policies change to allowing lists of non-notable names, then these articles can be recreated at that time. SilkTork *^YES! 20:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of MIR (Chile) members assassinated by the Pinochet regime

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

Indiscriminate list, if one was to be created it should contain only notable kidnappings. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very sad, but WP:NOT a memorial. We didn't keep articles on every 9/11 victim either. DS (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Although I applaud the effort, one of the core principles of WP:NOT is that Wikipedia is not a memorial, and these list violate that core principle. Harsh as it may seem, it's one of the best rules on Wikipedia, a rain that falls upon the rich and the poor alike. There is nothing wrong with putting in a link to lists of names, but one cannot create such lists. Otherwise, we would have attempts to list all of the people who died on 9/11, or at Pearl Harbor, Auschwitz, Hiroshima, the Trail of Tears, etc., or who were killed under the regimes of Pinochet, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. Mandsford (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Mandsford sums up the reasons well. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford rationaleUpon satisfactory explanation and rationale by the article’s creator moving to keep. . Likeminas (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepLikeminas (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the majority rationale is easily proven false:

"Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site

Wikipedia is not a social network like MySpace or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not:

Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however.
File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.
Dating services. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to pursue relationships or sexual encounters. User pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual orientation are unacceptable. However, you very well may make new friendships as you go about improving the encyclopedia.
Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Note that this policy does not apply outside of the main article space. Whilst using user space to create a memorial is generally not acceptable, limited exemption applies to the user space of established Wikipedians who have died. At a minimum it is expected that they were regular contributors, and that more than one tenured Wikipedian will have used the deceased user's page (or an appropriate sub-page) to add comments in the event, and after verification of, their death.

If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even if it is just a single page, there are many free and commercial sites that provide wiki hosting. You can also install wiki software on your server. See the Wiki Science wikibook for information on doing this. Scratchpad Wiki Labs also allows personal wikis. See also Wikipedia:Alternative outlets." - WP:NOT

The above is a wag of the finger at would-be bloggers, lonely hearts, bereaved seeking a eulogy for the departed, etc. To cite it as a reason for the deletion of a historical record of an event that defines an entire country's history is a grievous error. Anarchangel (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but deleting the article is not the equivalent of deleting the historical record. The list is drawn from a verifiable memorial to members of MIR who were killed by the Pinochet regime [1], and such sources will continue to exist. The procedure is to provide such links within an article, rather than to attempt to list the names of all the victims (as an aside, although there were more than 3,000 people killed under the Pinochet regime, I don't know how many of them would be on a list of MIR members. Needless to say, people have strong feelings about the victims of murder, and outrage against the perpetrators (who, invariably, get away with it). When people compile such lists, the emotions become even stronger, since there is a determination to make sure that nobody is forgotten. Wikipedia has policies that seem callous, perhaps even cold-hearted, when it comes to discouraging point-of-view writing, or discouraging long lists of persons who have died, but it's a hard choice that has to be made in order to maintain an online encyclopedia. Otherwise, we would have countless projects devoted to making sure that names "will never be forgotten" -- the very definition of a memorial. Mandsford (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so come up with a better rationale, then. Abusing WP:NOT to get a just result is still abuse. Anarchangel (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want another rationale, I would cite WP:IINFO - this level of detail does not have an encyclopedic purpose. The information is readily available on sites like www.memoriaviva.com/desaparecidos and www.memoriaviva.com/ejecutados, which can be linked to. Do we devalue 9/11 or the Srebrenica massacre or the Rwanda genocide by not listing every victim? But I actually think WP:NOTMEMORIAL does apply here and its scope need not be limited as you say - note the word "others" in the definition. JohnCD (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain 'this level of detail does not have an encyclopedic purpose' If I understand you correctly, I am very surprised to see depth of information being used as a reason to delete, it is a grotesque twisting of an excellent rationale for keeping information.

Linked where, exactly?

Assuming for the sake of argument that a memorial to the victims of a massacre falls under memorial, it remains to be seen how this bland assertion of names, dates, and places of origin would be a memorial, or violate the essential spirit of the rule. I do not see such evidence. This data of names and places is only a memorial in people's minds, I think, and just as we am not allowed to tell them how to think, by being NPOV, they are not allowed to tell us to remove facts from WP because they are concerned about what and how other people will think about them. I am also not buying the WP:OTHERSTUFF about the Pentagon and WTC attacks either; why exactly is there not a record of which people were killed, what companies they were employees of, what part of the building they worked in, what they died of, to verify other reports and clarify issues, for investigators to research the events... I am just spitballing here, the basic premise of including useful information is the key. Anarchangel (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's a current discussion (started last week) going on about the interpretation of this policy [2] regarding the subject, under the heading "Requested clarification of meaning of Not:Memorial". I apologize for not bringing it to your attention sooner. Some of the comments I've made here, I've made there as well. Worth looking at, and worth adding to as well. Mandsford (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. This is not a "historical record". It falls squarely in the realm of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for the reasons A, B, C, D, E, F, I elaborate upon in the comments below.Moshe-paz (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(A) Firstly, there are already such lists in both the Spanish and English wikipedia project:

For example:

These lists did not provide much information on the cases nor where they referenced to sources - the list placed in the English project has information in Spanish that hasn’t even been translated. In accordance with Wikipedia policy I attempted to improve these lists, firstly by providing an introduction to the one concerning the MIR victims, to subdivide the cases already listed in the project, using a better navigational format and had commenced to add sources to them from which individual biographical articles could be written of them. In many case I provided multiple sources pointing to the level of notability of the individual cases.

(B) NOT A MEMROIAL: The term memorial is very ambiguous it means “a reminder of some event or incident.” In essence anything having to do with the memory of history could be deemed a memorial.

Albeit, this list of cases are related to a historically period commencing on 9/11, 1973 to the present; many cases have formed part of numerous criminal complaints and judicial actions and hitherto many remain unresolved, some are pending in the tribunals of justice and some are likely to be reactivated as Chile further reforms legislation left by the Pinochet dictatorship. This is not a reminder of an event because many cases involve individuals who are still legally victims of “secuestro permanente.” Because their cases have not been fully resolved and their relatives are still campaigning to bring the perpetrators of the atrocities to justice. These people are often seen in demonstrations with their relatives photographs and images which have almost become part of Chile’s national conscious.

There is a fundamental difference between the millions of people exterminated by Stalin and Hitler and the thousands of victims of the Pinochet regime. Whilst Stalin and Hitler applied the strategy of exterminating whole demographic groups or populations under their rule to halt the processes of history, Pinochet opted to exterminate, in a surgical fashion, individuals deemed most likely to prevent the consolidation of his regime. The principle criteria applied by the Pinochet regime in exterminating an opponent was the opponent’s grade of notability in his respective community or field of expertise - this was done to create the biggest social impact and maintain a climate of terror upon the broadest layers of people possible.

In essence most of the workers, peasants, actors, editors, cinematographers, physicians, political leaders, student leaders, scientists, foreign nationals, writers, listed where highly notable people.

(C) NOTABILITY OF CASES INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY: Most of these cases were initially documented and archived semi-clandestinely by the Roman Catholic Church organisation Vicariate of Solidarity, the work of the Vicariate was legally recognized in the Rettig Report which was officially released in Chile by President Patricio Aylwin in 1991. Further study and investigation was articulated and compiled in the Valech report. Most of these cases have been documented by various media: in film/documentaries, in newspapers around the world, in published books, and in numerous human rights journals. They have been presented in many prominent websites including the website of the United States Institute of Peace (at one stage these cases were available in USIP in html they are now archived in this website as PDF files which makes it hard to retrieve individual cases), in Memoriaviva.com, in Centro de Estudios Miguel Enriquez (CEME) and the website ecomemoria.com is also working on presenting biographies on the cases.

Whilst Pinochet was under house arrest in London some of these cases were heard before the parliaments in Europe – cases involving foreign nationals, they have also been the subject of judicial actions and law suits that have been extensively covered by the media.

According to John Dinges the victims of the Pinochet regime constitute probably the only case in history in which almost every individual case of human rights abuse that was reported to human rights organisation were meticulously and painstakingly documented and archived.

(D) CASES EXPOSE ROLE OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA IN THE PINOCHET REGIME: The Operation colombo or the case of the 119 (sp. Caso de los 119) included in this list has become a major unresolved social scandal exposing the role the mainstream media played under the Pinochet regime in covering up some of the worst atrocities committed by the dictator. The mainstream media principally the newspaper el Mercurio (one of the oldest, most important and prestigious newspaper published in the Spanish language – owned by the Chilean oligarch, Agustín Edwards Eastman) - published a cover up of the extrajudicial killing of up to 119 people in the torture centre of Pinochet in Chile – by presenting them as killings that had occurred in foreign countries. (100 of the 119 were MIR members) The newspaper’s director and editors used doctored photographs and fabricated information provide by Pinochet secret police DINA to present its readership and audience with a campaign of misinformation that the 119 had been killed by their own “communist” organisations outside Chile. [3]

(E) CASES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH ADVANCEMENTS IN THE APPLICATION OF HUMANITARIAN AND INTERNATIONAL LAW IN RELATION TO HUMAN RIGHTS: These case led to the application of the judicial thesis of secuestro permanente (permanent kidnapping/abduction) conceived and upheld by the Chilean Judge Juan Guzmán Tapia. This was the outcome of the laborious attempt by the Chilean judge to inactivate the Ley de amnistía (1978) (Chile’s Amnesty Act of 1978) that Pinochet established to prevent perpetrators of the worst crimes in his regime from facing prosecution. By redefining the legal status of victims of forced disappearance to that of victims of permanent kidnapping the Chile’s Amnesty Act 1978 was revoked in light of numerous cases involving MIR victims (and others) of the Pinochet regime. Since such crimes had not been officially “committed” but were in essence “ongoing” by the fact that the victims remains had not officially been found and their relatives were still campaigning to know their whereabouts, many members of Pinochet secret police – previously protected by the Amnesty Law - were put on trial and convicted. In English wikipedia there is not even an article on “Secuestro permanente” [4] a judicial tool that will see future heads of state who subject their political opponents to forced disappearances encounter major obstacle in enacting Amnesty laws to protect people who carry out this specific form of crime.

These cases also lead to improvements in how judicial systems treat charges of human rights violations and the application of international law by reigniting the debate concerning crimes against humanity unheard since the Nuremberg trials. These cases where also part of Baltazar Garzón initial charges of genocide against Pinochet that indirectly culminated in creating the legal precedent that lifted the diplomatic immunity granted to former heads of state that had historically protected them from being prosecuted for crimes against humanity. The Australian QC Geoffrey Robertson has written extensively on the Pinochet case and the historical significance of this precedent.

The importance of the MIR case among other cases related to the Pinochet regime which consist (-ed) of several thousand people rests on the fact that it has had a more profound impact on humanitarian and international law than the Nuremberg trials established to prosecute the Nazis for exterminating millions of human beings. Wherefore, mention the millions of anonymous victims of Stalin that have had absolutely no impact whatsoever on the judicial management of human affairs or the conduct of states.

I am sure editor Likeminas (who took part in deleting a previous article I contributed to the project) who is majoring in the field of international law would be more familiar with this material than I.

(F) A COUNTERPRODUCTIVE POLITICAL AND CULTURAL BIAS: To delete the List of MIR (Chile) members assassinated by the Pinochet regime and not lists such as:

list that escape my understanding and probably that of 95% of the people on the beautiful planet we share:

Lends the project to a cultural and political bias.

Finally, given that the original basis on which this list was nominated for deletion is not very well founded or consistent due to the fact that there were already such lists in the project both in the Spanish and the English one - the “consideration for deletion” tag should ideally be removed.

Furthermore the following comment introduced in the introduction of the article for deletion page “Indiscriminate list, if one was to be created it should contain only notable kidnappings” by editor Backslash/forwardslash is also not very well founded as I have explained in my comments above most of the people on the list were/are victims of “secuestro permanente” the most notable form of kidnapping, the rest were victims of notable political extrajudicial killings or assassinations.

If those who believe the list should still be removed want to delete it he/she/they should ideally nominate it again for deletion but on a different basis for another specific reason – that can be specifically challenged.

I emphasize the word ideally because in this project miscarriages of policy seems to be a major weak point of this collaborative encyclopaedia. ______Regards____, Moshe-paz (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on your point (A) - the list Missing prisoners of Chile was only introduced in the last few days, is no more appropriate than these ones, and its presence cannot be used as an argument for keeping these. The Spanish Wikipedia has its own standards and again, what is allowed there is not a useful argument here. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was asked to comment. By our current standards, until we change them, this violates NOT MEMORIAL. Whether or not we should change them is another matter. There's a discussion at the WT:NOT page. If the guidelines on this change, this can be reconstructed if it meets whatever rules we then have. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, defending the policy is key for some - and perhaps that is better in the long term or so to speak. Thanks for your comments anyway - honestly I didn't expect this list to last. But then again nor do I expect an editor from Baghdad named Mohamed to nominate the "List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006 List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006" and successfully get it removed from the project on the basis of policy. Regards_Moshe-paz (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Moshepaz proved a point theres a list of US coalition forces killed in iraq unsourced which hasnt been nominated for the deletion bin. Why is one specifically about revolutionary left movement victims of pinochet selected for deletion. No one answered this point made. policy policy is not applied evenly by admins most are of the right who don't know nothing. Moshepaz made a point of bias i've been noticing this for a very long time which is why i hardly contribute to wikipedia. Chilevic (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the political overtones implied by Chilevic provide another powerful reason why none of these lists should be allowed - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If we allow them, we will soon have competitive lists of dead Northern Ireland Catholics/Protestants, Armenians/Azeris, Palestinians/Israelis, Hutus/Tutsis, Serbs/Bosnians/Kosovans... JohnCD (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.C. Bruce

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W.C. Bruce

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

A perfectly decent professor of the normal kind, but not notable. Doesn't satisfy any of the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article makes it appear that he has published many books, but they all appear to be through Home Tree Media, the company whose web page one reaches when clicking on the personal web page link from Bruce's university web site, and are so obscure that Google Books doesn't even know about them. As the nominator states, there is no other obvious evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabe Medd

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ChildofMidnight; the father doesn't have an article. I would have merged otherwise. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Medd

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

Subject of article does not meet notability standards Syrupface (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Clubmarx (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Could be in the future, but not notable right now. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 00:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's some coverage but not enough for an independent article. I would trim it down to a few sentences and merge and redirect to his father's article. No reason to omit note of him altogether when an appropriate merge target exists. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxann Latimer

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roxann Latimer

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

Not notable. There are no ghits for the two awards listed in the article: "African Writers Novel of the Year" and "Black Mystery Writers Excellence Award." Also, the article creator's name is very similar to one of the sources listed, possible COI. Clubmarx (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be self published. I don't this author meets our notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - novels published through PublishAmerica, a self-publishing facility. No evidence of significant reviews. Unable to confirm any of the awards. -- Whpq (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources of notability, as far as I can see, would be the two awards -- I'm very familiar with crime fiction awards from many countries, have never heard of either and can find no evidence that either exists (I tried a number of different ways of expressing search terms about black mystery writers awards). Self-published novels, of course, don't attract notability in and of themselves. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamblerz

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tan | 39 17:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gamblerz

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

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

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

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

DELETE. This is not a notable "b-boy crew", as demonstrated by the peculiar lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What efforts did you make to find such coverage before bringing this to AFD? Did you for example do a search on Google News? The coverage there suggests they are one of the world's top groups of their kind.--Michig (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #2 - KEEP. They are certainly one of the most well-known BBoy crews in the world. Doing a simple youtube search on "Gambler Crew" or "Gamblerz" will yield at least a 1000 or so videos, which is a lot considering videos typically come from other people typically with only performances/battles by said crew, as well as commercials the crew and members have been featured on. Here are some videos of them in commercials: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. This crew is certainly one of the most well known crews in the BBoy world, if not the most. Here's another video link, to them performing at the Seoul Drama Awards 2006: [13]. They also were one of the five crews the documentary Planet BBoy focused on.SniXSniPe (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)— SniXSniPe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Youtube is not relevant here. Nor is it an acceptable source for an encyclopedia especially this one. JBsupreme (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #4 - KEEP. The whole point of youtube was demonstrating their popularity as a BBoy crew. Listed were the commercials members of the crew have been featured in, as well as performing in Korea for special events. What unknown crew has starred in many commercials like this?. Tell me as well, why should there be wiki pages on "Jabbawockeez" or "SoReal Cru" and other crews who have simply been featured on a TV Show? Gamblerz have competed around the world in MAJOR events (Battle of the Year, [Red Bull BC One]], The Notorious IBE, R16 Korea, ETC, and WON vs crews hailing from other countries. If you want sources, why don't you simply go to the BOTY wiki and take a look or do a quick google search on gambler crew? I don't think any random crew would perform at the Seoul Drama Awards or Asia Song Festival. Here's some quick finds: KBS, Interesting article on the Korean BBoys in particular. I highly recommend reading the second article if you think these guys are a bunch of nobodies. Last but not least, the OLD GAMBLER CREW is starring in the movie Hype Nations. Yeah, not so much a noteworthy crew when almost every BBoy has heard of you and your starring in your own movie.--SniXSniPe (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)— SniXSniPe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep or if you prefer, KEEP. See Benson Lee (director), B-Boy Planet, Mondo Paradiso, 2007 & Terence Teh's article "Top Lockers", URB #155 (Sept/Oct 2008).

Lee's film itself generates a lot of good source material, as with Kerry Howley's "'Our Flag Is Hip Hop': Planet B-Boy and the globalization of an American art form" in Reason, July 2008.

"Three years ago in Braunshweig, Germany, a celebrated South Korean dance crew gave what may be the most bizarre show in the history of hip hop. Moving to a heady mix of Daft Punk, Walter Murphy, and Richard Strauss, the 10-man troupe re-enacted 60 years of Korean history through the American art form of break dancing.

Splitting into halves on either side of the floor in preparation for battle, the crew windmilled around on the palms of their hands and the soles of their feet, jumping backward onto their forearms and springing forward in synchronized slow motion. After six minutes of hyper-athletic, acrobatic frenzy, the crew met center stage and resumed dancing in perfect unison--a united peninsula at last.

The dancers, who call themselves the Gamblerz, were defending their title as the 2004 world champions of break dancing. That competition, called the Battle of the Year, is explored at length in Benson Lee's documentary Planet B-Boy. It's only in retrospect that the Gamblerz' show comes to seem extraordinary; in the context of the film, no one bothers to comment on the fact that young Korean men are performing an idealized future history of Asian geopolitics through a dance form invented by urban blacks in the South Bronx of the 1970s. And doing it in Germany."

I haven't looked at specialist b-boy publications, Korean-language media, or indeed Michig's google news results, but there is clearly sufficient coverage of this Korean crew who have won numerous awards and competitions through ~three generations of young dancers. 89.100.145.57 (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed a large portion of the article that was just a very long list of the nicknames of all the crew members. The article certainly asserts notability, and how hard can it be to find some sources for all these silly awards? I think the original nomination may have been an understandable reaction to how much the page originally looked like a vanity site. Surfer83 (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why would you remove the nicknames/competitions they have won-competed in? I can understand removing the letter and other portions but... Anyways, I figured a segment listing the crew's members and their names (BBoy names) would be important in an article about the crew no? Though I understand that it did look sloppy. This isn't a knack at you, but pretty much many editors overall--- why are people so quick to delete instead of edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.82.50 (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - There appear to be enough reliable sources to confirm notability, but the article needs to reflect this. There is a lot of trivial and non-reliable stuff out there about this group; some editors need to take the time to distill the information if they want this article to stay around. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Although this article is weak, if you do a search on any of the major search engines you can see just how notable the Gamblerz are. I happen to be familiar with them and know that (1) they are one of the most famous b-boy crews in the world, (2) they either win or appear at all the major international b-boy championships every year, and (3) they've been featured in a couple b-boy documentaries. Aside from my own knowledge, I just did a quick search on Bing.com and I found a great source right here. Easy as that. As stated earlier it's better to edit than to simply delete. At the moment it's a stub; most wikipedia articles start out like this. Give it time to grow. Gbern3 (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safe Environment Fund

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Environment Fund

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

No reliable sources cited. Search in google books draws a blank [14] , google news finds a single tangential mention in a newspaper article from 1980. [15]. Nothing in google scholar. [16] JN 466 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have rewritten the article from scratch to address the problems mentioned by Jayen466. I agree that the previous version was unsatisfactory (it seems to have been based primarily on a single person's account from a personal web page) but the revised version avoids this problem, using multiple reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most excellent job by ChrisO (talk · contribs) on expanding the article utilizing multiple WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rewritten article utilizes reliable sources and asserts notability. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dentist chair

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nominator agreed to redirect page. Ikip (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dentist chair

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

Unsourced article providing very little information that could easily be included in Chair or another appropiate article if needed ^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:this was the revision before I edited--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to dentist, keep sparce history. Ikip (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordinary spaceman

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary spaceman

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

Non-notable, self-published, book lacking GHits and GNEWS. Fails WP:BK. PROD removed by author. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Clubmarx (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a self-published e-book through lulu that literally came out days ago. No coverage whatsoever. See this Google search. -- Whpq (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources cited, fails WP:BK at this time. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable book by a non-notable author. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryan Tennis Tournament

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After a quick search, I couldn't find anything to prove that this has notability even in the local area. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cryan Tennis Tournament

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

Non-notable tennis tournament, contested by non-notable people. I asked for opinions at Wikiproject Tennis before bringing this here, and there were two opinions that this is not a notable tournament. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy It's a well done article on an event that doesn't meet the notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that several of the editors appear to use the name "Cryan". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bin it! Destroy it! Burn it!... erm, delete? Not notable. Minor tournament, useless players. Alan16 (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turgut Doyurucu

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Props to Lambian's analysis. Also; reading Lambian's last statement and then looking down makes Cunard look like Canard. I found that amusing. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turgut Doyurucu

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

I denied a speedy but this fellow appears to be non-notable and there are no sources. Couldnt find anything immediately relevant in google and google news and books were a wash out Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made it into a stub and removed the "essay" tab. I have no opinion on the deletion, but if there's no source I guess there's no article. Surfer83 (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep for now~~ I think a Turkish editor should have a look and see if there are sources. There may be a spelling issue with the name as well as sometiems happens. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask what the policy basis for keeping this is CoM? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm satisfied with the investigations undertaken that we are unable to established notability, or even the existence, of this musician. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be established that there is a spelling mistake in the article name, since "Turgut Doyurucu" returns no non-Wikipedia Google results. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Turgut" is an existing Turkish given name and "Doyurucu" an existing Turkish surname, neither of which is very close to other existing names, so the lack of hits cannot be an issue of a simple spelling mistake. Amazon music gives no hits. Google searches of English pages on luthier+Turgut and luthier+Doyurucu also don't bring up anything. As it is, not only can we not establish notability from reliable sources, we also cannot establish this is not some lame hoax. If a musician has written over 100 songs, some of which have been performed by artists as notable as Zeki Müren, we should find some mention of his name somewhere, so this points to a hoax. I further also think this is a hoax for the following reasons. (a) The style of the original version of the article is much like other hoaxes I have seen, and it was likewise created in a complete and elaborate form out of the blue by a single-purpose account. (b) Turgut Doyurucu was claimed in the original version to have written the song "Akşam olur gizli" and donated it to Zeki Müren. Müren and other notable artists (e.g. Müslüm Gürses) have indeed performed a song by the name "Akşam olur gizli gizli ağlarım", but, according to the article Bir Sır Gibi in the Turkish Wikipedia and other sources, the music is by (Recep) Suat Sayın and the lyrics by Halil Soyuer. --Lambiam 20:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it is a hoax and not simply a puffed up vanity piece? "Hoax" is a strong word.Surfer83 (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sure" is also a strong word. What I can say with certainty is this: it looks like a hoax, swims like a hoax and quacks like a hoax. --Lambiam 17:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Felton

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 felt that the keep side had the point here. While this may be a borderline case, he has been covered; and, even if this isn't the first time a local athlete has been covered by local papers, he's still been the subject of coverage in his area. Local notability isn't the same as being a household name, but it's still notability. Props to User:Cunard for fixing up the article. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Felton

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

Fails WP:ATH and also fails WP:GNG due to lack of "signifcant coverage". Giants27 (c|s) 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep correct me if I am wrong, but there are a lot of sources in (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) news. Maybe a different person. Thank you nominator for taking the time to try to save this article first, as per WP:BEFORE I strongly respect that. Ikip (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those hits are about a chief police officer.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Using this Google News Archive search and this one, I was able to find a number of reliable sources about the subject. This article from the Toronto Star provides information about him being signed by the Buffalo Bills. Furthermore, this article from The Buffalo News and this article from The Buffalo News provide more coverage about him. There are also more reliable sources that cover his college years. This article from Log Cabin Democrat discusses Felton's sense of humor and his impact on the University of Arkansas football team. There is also this article from The Morning News/Razorback Central which discusses his freshman year at the University of Arkansas. The ample coverage in reliable sources means that Robert Felton passes WP:BIO and this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. User:Cunard's sources, particularly on his college career seem like they could make a V, NPOV, NOR article. I would like to see how it works in the article. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Thanks to User:Cunard for working on this article. It's clear that to me there are sufficient reliable sources for a stub article. I wish the sources had more information about his life and career but they are sufficient to source what is there and meet WP:N; one of the articles is completely about him. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above links. A starter at a BCS school will almost always have an abundance of "significant coverage" by reliable sources Corpx (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Just going to strike my comments in light of comments made by the guy who created the article Corpx (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Withdraw The links Cunard provided show notability.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC) I think I'll let this run.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears to be no use, but none of that coverage is substantial. He's really not notable enough, no matter how this vote turns how. Hell, I created the article and I know he's not notable enough. Especially since he hasn't been with a pro team this year and his professional career seems to be over before it started.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are the sources not substantial? Cunard (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough, he most likely wont ever play professionally.--Yankees10 01:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And sorry, but some of these articles just should not be enough to make someone notable. If Robert Felton signing with the Bills doesn't make him notable enough, then an article that listed Felton as a handful of Bills signings shouldn't either. Most of that coverage isn't focused on him, but rather the result of playing at an SEC school. Wikipedia has some serious notability issues if that's enough for inclusion.

I also think it's relevant that if I hadn't created the article in my haste to create them for every undrafted NFL rookie, no one ever would have because his professional career never even took off.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first three articles I cited provide enough coverage about Felton to pass WP:BIO. Yes, the articles were about his failure to get drafted, but that should not disqualify those sources. The last two articles I cited are significant coverage about Felton's college football career. One of those sources devotes an entire article about Felton's impact on his football team. I concur that Felton fails WP:ATHLETE, but that doesn't mean that this article should be deleted. WP:ATHLETE is a subset of WP:N, so if Felton passes WP:N, whether or not he passes WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant.
I expanded and sourced this article before Chris Nelson's delete vote, so G7 does not apply. Cunard (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually created the article before but it got speedied per A7. And you actually created in when the Raiders signed him...Plus those sources do qualify as "significant coverage" there are probably some more out there too.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to say is that if someone with Felton's life accomplishments is notable, Wikipedia needs higher standards.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Almost passes WP:ATH, but he didn't actually play at the fully professional level of his sport since he was only on the offseason/practive squad. There is enough non-trivial coverage of him in reliable sources out there to establish notability as a college player and his "membership" on a professional team. Although failing WP:ATH doesn't automatically make him non-notable I haven't seen any coverage that makes him stand out in any way, hence the delete. If he were to actually play professionally then he would warrant an article in my opinion. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are basing your delete vote mainly on Robert Felton not passing WP:ATHLETE. Why? Notability is not subjective. I agree with Uncle G (talk · contribs)'s essay at User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not subjective:

“

Wikipedia editors determine whether the world has judged a subject to be notable by applying the primary notability criterion. If someone independent of the subject has gone to the effort of creating and publishing a non-trivial published work about it, then that someone clearly deems the subject to be notable. Wikipedia editors determine whether a subject is notable not by considering whether they themselves think that it is notable. They determine whether a subject is notable by looking for the existence of non-trivial, independently sourced, published works on the subject.

”

The sources I have cited are clearly non-trivial, so there is no reason for deletion. Whether or not Felton is famous or "stands-out" should have no bearing on his notability. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, notability ≠ importance. Notability is a guideline to help measure whether there are, or are likely to be, sufficient sources to write a V, NPOV, NOR article. What's key here is that the article is able to meet policy WP:CSP. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm on the fence, in part as I know precious little about American football, okay, about any footie ball. Most pro athletes have high-profile careers if only because they were famous and after they retire from their sport they are a famous person doing some other job ala - "former pro footballer now sells insurance." This only gives a sentence for our purposes here but it's worth stating; many pro-athletes are a lot more visible than that. Cunard, or someone?, could you have a turn at sorting through the 160 or so news hits to see if any of these are for this Robert Felton? these 107 are listed as having no fee so might be a better place to start. If valid ones can be added to the article or at least listed here it may help folks see that there likely is or is not a WP:GNG threshold being met. -- Banjeboi 15:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented above notability is not subjective. It doesn't matter if Felton is "famous". What matters is that Felton has received coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. My "keep" vote above lists five in-depth reliable sources that prove Felton's notability. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the sources already presented and the likelyhood that more certainly exist i think this person passes GNG and the article thus can be fixed through regular editing and deletion is unneeded. -- Banjeboi 01:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up and expanded the article through regular editing. If there is any other important facts that I have failed to include, please post them on the talk page, so I can include them in the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I came across something else that might be relevant to this discussion. WP:MILL states that local newspapers covering college athletes, even though they are reliable sources, do not neccesarily help to determine the notability of a college athlete. "It has already been accepted that professional athletes, regardless of their accomplishments in their field, may have articles. But local newspapers also cover high school and college athletes. In every city and town, there are several high schools and colleges and papers that cover them. So inevitably, these athletes will receive coverage." Additionally WP:MILL "is not a policy, but may be consulted for assistance during and AfD discussion." The Toronto Star and Buffalo News articles certainly fall outside this. They, however, only commented on him because he was signed to the Bills. Whether this is or isn't enough for him to be notable seems like a very fine line to me - just like whether or not he is still a professional athlete because he was signed even though he didn't play a single actual game. Also my former statement about him not "standing out" was poor wording on my part. Notability is not subjective. I'm just still not totally convinced the he is (or perhaps isn't) notable. Narthring (talk • contribs) 01:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local newspapers do cover college athletes, but there is no reason to disqualify these sources because of this. Wikipedia is not made of paper, so we can have as many articles as we want, as long as they pass WP:BIO. Because there are a variety of nontrivial newspaper articles (some local, some non-local) about this athlete, I strongly believe that he passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratization of knowledge

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article isn't the greatest, but the term is in use, as sources below show. I believe that's enough for keeping now. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Democratization of knowledge

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

Is this a valid article? It strikes me as a coatrack for asserting how neat Wikipedia is, without actually asserting any notability in third party sources for either the term or the wider concept, as opposed to the use of the internet to generally 'democratize' anything.MickMacNee (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree. It reads like an essay. -- Taku (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of the issues discussed above can be fixed by rewritting the article, there are 96 news articles on this term. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Ikip (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This book says, "The democratization of knowledge is a phrase often used in articles promoting the virtues of electronic communications (1, 15, 30). However, in order to fulfill this promise..." (analysis and criticism follows for two paragraphs). Clearly, this concept is getting scholarly analysis, complete with footnotes. Therefore the article needs to incorporate this source, and others, so as to become less about and less pro-Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 04:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep a brief search shows many hits in google scholar: [17] and books: [18], and even some news hits: [19]. This is clearly a mainstream concept and much has been written about it in reliable sources: very solidly notable. People arguing to delete seem to be arguing about the current status of the page; if the page needs improvement then the page needs improvement. I see no question about notability here. Also, I added a source and comment connecting this topic to eBird; this issue has been discussed in the context of science, with eBird as an exapmle of it. Cazort (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - rescue and fix. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known and notable concept, here's a few books that may help. -- Banjeboi 10:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. -MBHiii (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this a valid nomination? It seems not, as there is no mention of the obvious alternatives to deletion nor any examination of the topic as performed by the other put-upon editors above. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Afd is not cleanup' is sometimes just a pointles cliche when there is nothing to even cleanup. On its current state, even after 'put upon' improvement, transwiki to Wiktionary is the only serious alternative to junking it and waiting for a decent copy, if that is even possible, to emerge. Creating an article is more than just dumping a random collection of citations of usage of a term together, giving it an OR lede, and calling it an article. MickMacNee (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just de-orphaned this article with 5 in-links; it was very easy to find natural and relevant places to link to this article. Cazort (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability has been established, has potential to be expanded. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - It's WP:Synth. None of those sources appear to actually reference the term. If it reads like an essay it's probably WP:Synth, and even after cleanup I don't see it being any difference. If someone can prove there's an actual academic use of this term I'd change my mind, but what it is now is questionable. Shadowjams (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Abductive's citation above which is from an academic source. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jag Kanchana Singh

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jag Kanchana Singh

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

Appears to be a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. An otherwise non-notable individual disappearing & the story making the news doesn't make that person notable. ThaddeusB (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article's creator had the following to say on the article's talk page:

Jag Kanchana Singh is well-known locally within Manchester and this is well-documented by Manchester Evening News, etc. There is an article for similar protester Frank Chu so I think this is a notable subject. Crookesmoor (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Sorry for the lady, but a local eccentric gone missing is not encyclopedia material. Google only comes up with Facebook and blogs. Favonian (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Nom. Lacks non-local coverage and substantial GHits and GNEWS. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Clubmarx (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. This unfortunate woman is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not just WP:NOTNEWS, but completely non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimic (Dungeons & Dragons)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mimic (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

No sources to establish notability outside fictional world. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it isn't notable. However, per WP:BEFORE, alternatives to deletion should be exhausted before a title is brought to AfD. In this case, a logical alternative is a redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Also, the title is a plausible search term (imagining a user who has seen the naming patterns for articles on such fictional creatures and extrapolated upon it), and plausible search terms should not be redlinks. Therefore I believe the correct outcome for this AfD would be redirect.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or possible redirect. Mimics are one of D&D's iconic monsters, and they have been copied by many video games and other sources since then. Of course, I can't find any reliable sources that back up that that was what they were based on (although it is pretty obvious), so that comment really doesn't hold weight in a deletion discussion. I would like to comment that the Pathfinder book Dungeon Denizens Revisited contains six pages about mimics... the same mimics from the Dungeons & Dragons universe, explaining their role in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting. This is primarily an in-universe description, but it was published by a third-party Paizo Publishing. The mimic in that book is used under the Open Game License (a free license in a similar way to cc-by-sa-3.0, so the primary source [Wizards of the Coast] didn't have any input on the product). However, Paizo used to be a part of Wizards of the Coast before splitting off to work on their own. I'm not sure if all of that helps to establish notability or not, but I thought that six pages from an arguably third-party source, even if they are in-universe, might help. Regardless, if the article is not to be kept, then a redirect seems much more appropriate than deletion, as S. Marshall said. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Drilnoth, there aren't the references for an article on Mimics. Nor do I think there's a place for Chest- and box-like monsters in fantasy and video games, I'm afraid. Pathfinder is definitely a primary source. I think a straight "keep" is not a likely outcome. Sorry.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be surprised; I've seen "Keeps" on less notable subjects than this one. Although "no consensus" is likely enough in the case of a split. BOZ (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pathfinder is not a primary source. It is in-universe, but it was published without oversight from a primary source (read: Wizards of the Coast), under a free license to use content. Similarly, just because text is licensed cc-by-sa-3.0 doesn't make it a primary source in an article about the license. Paizo became a fully independent published in 2007; products from before then may be primary, as they were overseen by WotC, but after that they've been doing everything on their own. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect with history intact per Drilnoth, appears to be iconic monster in the D and D universe. Ikip (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Dungeons & Dragons page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep the article or at least the history for later merging. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - absolutely, for certain. Iconic D&D monster, as others have said, so much so that thay have been copied ad infinitum by other RPGs and computer games. I put a bunch of work into this one recently (used to look like this); I don't have any secondary sources to reference, but I did the best I could with the available primary sources. That said, if the pundulum swings towards this one not having an article, it would be better to redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters than delete. BOZ (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query Have you guys ever wondered why there are no independent sources for these monsters? Abductive (reasoning) 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to your query Because there doesn't need to be. If it involved a drunken famous person puking on a baby, it'd have hordes of coverage, because that is the sort of messed up crap the mainstream human population buys magazines and newspapers to read about. This is a nerd topic, and you can only read about it in its proper nerd media. That's just how these things are done. Dream Focus 05:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very nice article. It has references in a magazine, and thus meets the notability guidelines. The fact that the same company owns that magazine is not relevant, it something people pay to subscribe to. Just like articles in the major newspapers aren't invalid because the parent company owns what they are talking about. And why would any fictional topic of any type have notability outside its own fictional world? Someone earlier said something about real world importance. Is every actor notable for anything outside the fictional worlds of the movies they are in? Dream Focus 05:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I used to be a huge D&D player. My best friend in high school test-played proto-D&D with Gary Gygax in Lake Geneva back in 1976 when he was like 10 years old. But saying, "we nerds used to run the Wikipedia, you know" in the edit summary betrays the spirit of both D&D and Wikipedia; nerds are not supposed to be in the mainstream, and once Wikipedia became mainstream, the nerds should have bowed out, or joined the mainstream. I am comfortable knowing that Mimics and Drow and Beholders will live on in my soul, and don't care if some bytes of unsourced information are deleted from Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 05:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge or keep, it doesn't matter which, but retain the content somewhere. Personally, I'd rather merge because it offers the hope of a compromise, which is the only way we'll settle this. A new non-argument just above: "I will remember it, so we don't need it in the encyclopedia" The whole idea of writing, let alone encyclopedias , is to preserve information beyond individual memory. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, that wasn't an argument, it was a comment. My argument follows. Abductive (reasoning) 08:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, topic is not notable, since it has not a single independent, reliable source that even so much as mentions it. Retaining content in the history is an invalid reason for retaining articles. Abductive (reasoning) 08:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember, "non-notable" is never a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is having absolutely no independent, third party sources a valid reason for deletion? Abductive (reasoning) 20:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. It's a reason why the article is not notable. There's more than one way of dealing with a lack of notability; sourced content (even if the source is not independent) can be merged or redirected, particularly if the search term is plausible. Our policy on this is WP:PRESERVE.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." [[20]] Blackbirdz (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia should not have an article on it. What Wikipedia should have is a redirect, which is what I've been saying all along. But "redirect" is not the same as "delete".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect with history intact per Drilnoth. Mimics are so iconic they have spread to other fantasy media.--Robbstrd (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Per the presence of arguably independent content from Paizo. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JoshuaZ Hekerui (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to enlighten us on what Paizo is? Abductive (reasoning) 20:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The very short version is, Paizo is a former splinter group of Wizards of the Coast (the copyright holders for the Dungeons and Dragons name) which is now a separate commercial publisher who use Dungeons and Dragons content under an agreement called the Open Game Licence. Without getting into the details too much, they're a genuinely separate entity but also a primary source; their material emphatically does not consist of scholarly studies or critical reviews of the subject of the kind Wikipedia prefers.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps the content isn't of a type that Wikipedia prefers, but that doesn't make the source primary. The Open Game License is free in many similar ways to the text of Wikipedia. It isn't an "agreement" per se, but an irrevocable, royalty-free license under which Wizards of the Coast has no control over the content published under it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that's entirely true and yet somewhat misleading. Paizo's material on mimics is an in-universe description combined with a set of game statistics, and the difference between their listing and that of TSR/Wizards of the Coast would be virtually unintelligible to a non-enthusiast. It's equivalent to a comic book character shared between two comic book publishers, and I think it's truer to say Paizo is a second primary source in Wikipedian terms.
        I do agree that the outcome of this AfD should be some variant of "keep", ideally from my point of view a "redirect", but I'm anxious to ensure this assessment is made on the basis of a clear and accurate picture of the sources, which is why I'm challenging you on this.
        The Open Game Licence (or License, if you're American) would enable us to reproduce the in-game statistics, if Wikipedian policies allowed such a thing, but I think its resemblance to the text of Wikipedia doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. It is in essence a commercial agreement, explicitly (per Ryan Dancey) designed to drive sales, even though no money changes hands.
        I also want to say that "Paizo" as discussed here means effectively the same thing as "Pathfinder" mentioned earlier in the debate. We aren't talking about an additional, separate source when bringing up Paizo.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        That is a fair assessment. My argument is that Pathfinder is a secondary source but as being in-universe it may not itself be enough to fully establish notability, unlike reviews and other more clearly reliable sources. So can we agree that it is technically a third-party source, but does not directly help to establish notability because it is in-universe? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yup, that's true and we can agree.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec) Paizo Publishing; see my "keep" comment at the top of the page for details. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, topic is just not notable, the sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability. Blackbirdz (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrangling between A Nobody and Blackbirdz hatted. Take it to dispute resolution folks, this is an AfD.

- - "A Nobody" is incorrect; he has linked to an opinion essay which does not say what he claims it says. It suggests that one should not simply say "just not notable" without further clarification; I have given further clarification of the type the essay specifically suggests. Further, it is just an opinion essay, not a law. Even if it said what "A Nobody" seems to wish it said, it is not something which is going to "invalidate" another users comment. Given these two things, "A Nobody"'s comment seems unnecessarily rude. Blackbirdz (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - However, your having poor reading comprehension would be a perfectly valid reason for your non-sequitur link to an opinion essay that recommends using comments like mine. Blackbirdz (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I strongly urge you to focus on subjects for which you have actual knowledge and can make informed opinions. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think what you meant to say was "I'm sorry I said your comment was invalid. I have no authority to make such judgements and I can see how that comes across as condescending and unintelligent. I was wrong to link to an essay that does not say what I claimed it said, and I regret this error. I'll try to read people's essays more carefully in the future and not be so dismissive of other people's comments. I hope you can please forgive my stupidity. Thanks! Sincerely, etc." Blackbirdz (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Your post above is a literal, word for word copy and paste of "The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability" found at WP:JNN. While that text is a suggestion, the authors of that page most likely do not intend their suggestion to simply be copied and paste, but rather a recommendation with the hopes that we can discuss specific sources apropos to the discussion at hand. Please be considerate to your fellow editors and provide topic specific arguments. And no, I will not be bullied by incivility and personal attacks. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So, what you're saying is that you linked to an essay that says my comment is valid while saying my comment was not valid. OK, that was dumb. Blackbirdz (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Simply copying and pasting text is not really all that helpful. Please consider the specific subject under discussion and what new can be added to the individual discussions at hand. What specific sources have you checked for and where? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I was hoping we could discuss this topic civillly. I have no interest in needlessly escalating anything with anyone. I strongly encourage you to refrain from calling opponents "stupid dick" or making baseless "trolling" accusations. You and I have commented in a grand total of three AfDs In all three, you commented in them, including in one for an article I created, some time after my initial comment in those discussions. Please discuss content and arguments, not editors and not read into good faith efforts to engage in discussions. Good night. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for your, at long last, "final reply" Blackbirdz (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N and the fact that Paizo is definately a WP:RS now that they are independant from WotC. --Lithorien (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above, Paizo cannot be used to establish notability. It is still a primary source.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think consensus was that it is a secondary source, but does not help establish notability because it is in-universe. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well... that was what you and I agreed, yes. In an AfD with this number of participants, I think we need more than two editors who share the same view before we can call it a consensus!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; sorry, I meant "consensus" as in "agreement", which isn't the correct use of the therm. :/ –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Paizo source, does it post-date the alleged independence day back in 2007? I still think that since it is commercially tied to the topic, it isn't a good source. What does it say? Does it analyze the Mimic? Abductive (reasoning) 03:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it'll certainly be post-2007. Yes, the source is commercially tied to the topic. As I said earlier, it consists of an in-universe description and a set of game statistics and tables, not a scholarly or critical analysis.

Casliber (below) introduces an important point. There will be "analysis" of the creature published—certainly in The Dragon magazine (but the said magazine was for most of its history a house publication of TSR, the former copyright holders of the Dungeons and Dragons name), and likely in White Dwarf (from the days when White Dwarf was independent, though it is not now). However, this is analysis along the lines of how much of a challenge it presents in game, versus what in-game rewards are received for defeating it, and will likely be from an entirely in-universe perspective.

In other words, it can be shown that mimics are covered in multiple publications, some quasi-independent and some fully commercially independent of the original publisher. What cannot be shown is any treatment of them that is not from an in-universe perspective.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have reverted an attempt to edit my post in this discussion and have warned the user on his talk page. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has been around for 30+ years. If I had the time, I am sure that some (i.e. at least two) magazine(s) with commentary on D&D would have mentioned it significantly but I don't, so I can't for the time being. Remember, the net is only the tip of the iceberg. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability has been established. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Notability has not been established, or would you like to cite some sources for that?— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge, well-known and clearly notable. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some capacity. While I have played Dungeons & Dragons (both physical games and video games), own a physical game somewhere if it has not been lost in the suffle, seen the movies, etc., for these discussions I tend to find Drilnoth and BOZ as the "experts" and am usual persuaded when they argue one way or the other. For my own source searching, I find it somewhat difficult. Please consider, for example, such results as this. But I assume good faith in my fellow editors' claims that they can improve this article and so wish to allow them further chance to do so. That Casliber is convinced at least two magazines cover the topic is persuasive enough for me. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found one magazine that did comment on the mimic, and added it to the article. I also trust Casliber's judgment insofaras where one exists, another is likely to follow. BOZ (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lithorien, BOZ, Calsiber. If there any print histories of roleplaying, they likely mention this as well. A few games that use mimic-like creatures, just to show how widespread the cliche is: NetHack, Dragon Warrior I-IV, Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, Fate, Tales of Symphonia, Golden Sun, and Kingdom of Loathing (list lifted from this page).Cerebellum (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mancer the musical

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mancer the musical

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

The creator contested the prod. All that I can find for this is the official site. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Nom. Absolutely no GNEWS and no GHits of substance. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete INsufficient notability to this point. But hopefully the young man's good efforts will lead to great things. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly typing in "Mancer the musical" with the quotes provides nothing but the official website on Google search. Perhaps it will be notable in time. At the moment it doesn't seem likely.

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abissa

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since sources are no longer an issue, although the article could do with expansion. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abissa

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

Unreferenced for nearly three years, fails WP:V Stifle (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News lists 102 pages 28 pages for "Abissa" "Grand Bassam", including the New York Times. Ikip (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Grand Bassam, Côte d'Ivoire, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Côte d'Ivoire page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep The New York Times article confirms notability. Dream Focus 01:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The New York Times article is very substantial. Other sources are likely to exist. An expansion and photographs would be good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources. There is a need to make a disambig page, as Abissa is the name of a lost city as well. Abductive (reasoning) 04:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuppers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cuppers

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

WP:NEO, does not belong on wikipedia. Perhaps on wiktionary? Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 20:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prod. --Sigma 7 (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable neologism. Joe Chill (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect: Actually not a neologism, but the term is described no less fully at Oxford "-er"#Other Oxonian forms, and has no need of its own article. ∙ AJCham talk 22:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really "fully" I should say. If editors think this content worth preserving a merge is the only way to do it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: I've added some actual content to the page, which I think should now justify its notability. WikiWebbie (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted since the scope of the article has been expanded would like to see further discussion as this invalidates the initial delete votes and there isn't comment after the changes to justify a keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is sufficient material in the article to demonstrate its meaning and use, although the introduction could explain the term better (e.g. making it clear between whom the competitions are held). Johnhousefriday (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete/Keep - My original vote was cast after my changes, but after the relisting I have to revalidate it. WikiWebbie (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 5,000 + news hits maybe not the same word, but that means this can simply be expanded to other meanings. Ikip (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added in the names of the two colleges in the news search, and while some results are just from the college newspapers, I see others referring to them by this term as well. [21] Only 200 news results, not 5000, when you make sure to search for "Cuppers" AND "Oxford" OR "Cambridge" Dream Focus 03:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage of what the article is about. Quoting news hits, without discussion of any of the results does not tell us anything. The only results from DreamFocus that are relevent to this article are ones from The Oxford Student, which is not a reliable independent source. If this can be shown to have received significant coverage in reliable sources then I will of course change my vote. Quantpole (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous reliable sources for this and I had not the slightest difficulty citing ones such as The History of the University of Oxford and The encyclopaedia of Oxford. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have a different interpretation of what 'Significant coverage' means. The best source, in 'The History of the University fo Oxford' (p202), is literally one sentence. The reference you have given from that source on page 214, is just mere mention of the word. The encylopedia of Oxford ref is similarly just mentions of the name. Please explain to me how these sources meet WP:GNG. Quantpole (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are not tangential mentions but explain the nature of Cuppers and give examples of the sports and winners. There are hundreds of other sources which provide yet more information and so the notability guideline is well satisfied. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence does not significant coverage make. Quantpole (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The OED cites references from over a hundred years ago so the nomination's suggestion that this is a neologism is mistaken. See Oxford "-er" for more details. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can a hundred year old word really still be a neologism? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the article is well referenced and the term widely used at Oxford and Cambridge. I have added appropriate categories. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this term is both long-established and still in active use: search of Cherwell for "Cuppers" returns 30+ articles by different contributors over the past 18 months. Though Cherwell is only a student newspaper, it is arguably a reliable source for slang in this case. - Pointillist (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turks and Caicos Islands dialect

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eastmain's source is sufficient to conclude the matter.

Please note that this is a non-admin closure. I do not believe the close is contentious in any way, but if you disagree, you may revert it for a sysop to close instead, or else bring the matter to DRV, as you please.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Turks and Caicos Islands dialect

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

Unreferenced and arbitrary stub list of originally researched phrases, spelt using a custom phonetic transcription. From the ten words included it appears to largely describe the Barbados accent. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this article clearly needs work, I wouldn't support its wholesale Deletion. This is, after all, the sort of thing an encyclopedia is supposed to be about (as opposed to a compendium of pop culture). It needs Sourcing ASAP, and the 9,050 Google hits I got for "Turks and Caicos Islands dialect" should help someone find that info. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is a dialect that is the official language of these islands, so it should be inherently notable. It certainly needs a lot of work, but that's no reason for deletion. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Real and verifiable linguistic dialect ~~that is the official language of a British Overseas Territory.~~ youngamerican (wtf?) 14:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The major problem here is that the article does not establish that there acutally is a distinct dialect for the islands in question. That can only be done by reference to reliable sources that discuss the topic. Do such sources exist? If not, then we should Delete. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. To the editors above who say that Turks and Caicos Islands dialect is the official language of the territory, do you have a source for that? According to our Turks and Caicos Islands article, as well as the CIA World Factbook, the official language there is English. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete - Current article is just fluff. Delete if no serious sourced content is added in the next few days, but No Prejudice to the article being recreated as a properly sourced article in the future. - BilCat (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is but without prejudice to a sourced article being written about the dialect. Currently just a random list of words.-- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is potentially notable, but notability has not been established and a few minutes search among likely sites didn't turn up anything. If someone does manage to find something of substance, they should first expand language section of T&C. If people manage to find enough reliably sourced material to make that section too large, then a separate article should be created.--SPhilbrick T 19:36, 22 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 20:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's an article in a scholarly book on the topic. See this book. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC) See also this search for more about Turks and Caicos English in the context of other Eastern Caribbean Englishes. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, and I have been to TCI, they speak perfectly normal English there Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC) I didn't see the source when I voted. That's seriously impressive. Grateful if a passing admin can now close this as keep. There can be no doubt about notabiluty or existance now. I can't do it myself because I already participated in the debate. Good work Eastmain. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Directories Limited

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Directories Limited

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

fails WP:COMPANY noq (talk) 18:20, 9 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 22:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no gnews hits. Clubmarx (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skitzo Metal

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

The result was Keep. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skitzo (band)

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

Non-notable band, my speedy delete was removed despite there being no claims of notability. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on the speedy -- to avoid A7 there only need to be claims of importance, and multiple releases on multiple labels are usually seen to be a good faith claim of importance. The band may well not be notable, but that's a different issue.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Google News turns up a few sources like this, all from the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat. The band seems to be more notable for throwing up than anything else. By the way, is this a recreation of Skitzo (band)? Shubinator (talk) 23:48, 9 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 22:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Shubinator. I also found this entry in Google Books, which shows that there was a documentary about this band. There is enough coverage to allow Skitzo Metal to pass WP:N. Cunard (talk) 20:13, 22 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 - A great example of an article which needs to be improved not deleted! Francium12 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, so I have cleaned up, expanded, and referenced the article. Cunard (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with a plate of chocolate chip cookies for Cunard for the cleanup and sourcing. (But please don't imitate the band after you eat them...)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I could gain wiki-fame and attract large crowds of editors streaming onto my contributions to watch me barf up the contents of my ramblings, I would definitely imitate this band. I would have scores of minions who would correct my every mistake. They would prevent me from getting indef-blocked for violating WP:BLP; no more insulting a professor who is an infant. Too bad ... :P Cunard (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azay Mokhnatov

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 AF Group. — Jake Wartenberg 20:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azay Mokhnatov

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

Non-notable businessman, fails WP:BIO. I have been unable to locate any reliable sources about him. Cunard (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also WP:NOTINHERITED. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 19:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to AF Group which appears to be notable based on a google news search. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AF Group. No need to merge the three facts in the article: his date of birth, he is an entrepreneur, and he is a businessman. Location (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cunard. Lida Vorig (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniela E Schreier

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 20:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela E Schreier

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

I removed a speedy tag, but I don't think anything here is actually notable,. The book is in only 4 US libraries, and does not seem to have any actual reviews. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mentioned on MSNBC and USA Today Very well referenced article. Flagged for {{rescue}}. Ikip (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Being mentioned in articles hardly meets notability criteria. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Ikip (Yes, I know that he !voted keep). Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sources located by other editors in good faith and the clean up and improvements done to the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two notable newspapers believer the doctor notable enough to question and quote. The first one has plenty of coverage, her saying what's on her mind, and the second just quotes her briefly as an expert on the subject of genetic bullies. Dream Focus 18:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Real world" notability does not equal Wikipedia notability. I also do not believe that being quoted in an article is the same as being "the subject of published secondary source material." ttonyb1 (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Way too early, perhaps later... --Crusio (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have seen the comments below and maintain my delete vote per Dori and Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:GNG. Further sourcing is available per Dallas News, USA Weekend, CBS News, MSNBC, CBS News. That her opinion is sought and she is interviewed and spoken of in reliable sources meets inclusion criteria. If that's not enough to meet WP:GNG, Dr. Schreier is

featured in Mansfield News Journal, Mansfield (OH), September 2001
featured in Impact Weekly, Dayton Magazine, September Edition 2001
featured in the News Journal "Stepping Out", Wilmington (OH), September 2001
featured in Call & Post Newspaper, Columbus (OH), September 2001
featured in The Vindicator, Youngstown (OH), October edition 2001
she was live on CBS Radio and 96.1 WJYE-FM, Buffalo in an interview with CBS public affairs, October 18th, 2001
she was live on "The Morning Show" (Lite Rock Wake Up Call) on WLRQ - 99.3 FM, Melbourne, Florida, hosted by Dave and Mindy, November 12th, 2001
she was live on The Irreverent News Show on WNCJ 1360 AM, Philadelphia's Renaissance Radio, hosted by Brian Greenberg, November 15th, 2001
she was live on The Kevin Schenk Show on WSYR, Buffalo, NY, hosted by Kevin Schenk, December 26th, 2001
she was live on The Morning News Watch - K-News Radio WNUU, Las Vegas, hosted by Andy Viera, December 31st, 2001
she was live on The Morning Show on WGVU, Grand Rapids, MI,hosted by Fred Martino, January 2nd, 2001
she was live on The Pete Summer Show on WLAD, Danbury, CT, hosted by Pete Summer, January 4th, 2002
she discussed "How to Downsize Your Life" on Monk and Kelly in the Morning on KSRC, Kansas City, KS, hosted by Jonathan Monk and Diana Kelly, January 10th, 2002
she was on on "Reach for the Stars" hosted by Lee Schwartz on 1360AM WNJC, Philadelphia, PA, January 12th, 2002
she was on the "Bright Moment" radio show hosted by Ed Smith on WRPR, 90.3 FM, Mahwah, NJ, April 9th, 2002
etc., etc., etc. In my humble opinion, it's enough... and there's more. Ikip is correct. She meets guideline. With respects to DGG, the one book does not do it, but all the rest seems to. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It appears all the "appearances" and listed "publications" are from the subject's own website. I looked at a couple and was unable to find independent support.
According to the Doctor's website, it appears most of the publication references are very minor.
I also do not believe that being quoted in an article is the same as being "the subject of published secondary source material."
Popularity does not equal notability. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant, independent sources about her. Epbr123 (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just spent a bunch of time researching her and trying to clean up the article. This one's deletable, as (so far as I can tell), almost nothing has been written about her. All that stuff above is just her as a media talking head who's willing to give juicy quotes diagnosing people she's never met (possibly against the APA code of ethics, but that's another issue entirely). There's simply no information from reliable sources with which to write an article. And btw, it's not one book, it's two—but they're both self-published, which imo counts as zero. And that's not to mention that this article was written by its subject. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:PROF, and also fails WP:BIO/GNG, is not the subject of extensive coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails everything. Those arguing keep are misinterpreting the guideline; "coverage" in sources is incidental, she is not the subject. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. No significant, independent sources thus fails WP:GNG.Location (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a talking head may be an indication towards notability, but doesn't demonstrate it. Quantpole (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability every way I look at it. And listing local radio appearences doesn't really make her look more notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quality Videos of ISAF Afghanistan Operations with Embedded Reporters - Listed by Member Country

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Videos of ISAF Afghanistan Operations with Embedded Reporters - Listed by Member Country

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

This article has been created solely as a list of external links to videos, contrary to WP:NOTLINK. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this site! I believe that Cordless Larry is interpreting the WP:NOTLINK policy in a very draconian manner. Also, I do not believe this site should be deleted because it contains useful content that is not available anywhere else (on or off the internet.) I believe Wikipedia should be careful about deleting valuable content. Also, I do not believe the site I created violates the WP:NOTLINK policy. The site is not "solely" a list of external links. It contains many references to other Wikipedia sites. See discussion below.

Below is the text from WP:NOTLINK: "Wikipedia is not a ... repository of links ... Policy shortcuts: WP:NOTLINK ... Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files.[2] Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines. ..."

The site I created is NOT a "Mere collections of external links". In addition to containing external links the site references many related Wikipedia sites. This interrelation of the external links along with the Wikipedia content create product that is very useful and unique. This type of site could not be created without being part of Wikipedia. If a decision is made to delete my site then I believe that the WP:NOTLINK policy is being too narrowly interpreted and I would like to know the procedure for changing the WP:NOTLINK policy to make it more pragmatic and reasonable.

Cordless Larry has suggested that I add a single link to the ISAF YouTube channel to the International Security Assistance Force article. The ISAF YouTube channel is extremely disorganized, chaotic, and confusing/difficult to navigate. I do not see any value in linking to a site like that. There should be a way in Wikipedia to organize external sites with additional Wikipedia content. A Wikipedia site like this would not interfere with any other Wikipedia sites and other sites could efficiently reference it with a single link. The site I created contains the many Wikipedia references that allow for deeper exploration of the topics of different countries, geographic locations, flags, dates, etc. This interrelation of the external links along with the Wikipedia content create product that is very useful and unique. This type of site could not be created without being part of Wikipedia. I would be interested in an additional suggestions from you on how to adapt the Wikipedia site I have created. I look forward to hearing your response. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userify. It's not much different from bibliographies that many users maintain. Has no place in main space - wikipedia is not a directory of so-called "quality" (who says?) videos. User:NVO (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmmm i can understand why this article was put up for AFD, in its current format it seems to go against the guidelines . Saying that i do think its pretty useful information and clearly the editor responsible is willing to put in work to make the article acceptable. This is just a suggestion and i dont know if it would make things any better or any less likely to be deleted but perhaps a slightly different title and format could be chosen.

For example something like List of ISAF operations with embedded reporters. It could then list each operation (perhaps with a little explanation) and link the video as a source. There are countless articles / lists on wikipedia less useful and notable with noone prepared to do any work on them. Id hate to see a useful article get deleted. Dont know what others think BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such a list would be notable. The links would be better placed at International Security Assistance Force. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Below are a list of the eighteen (18) Wikipedia internal links that are currently in this site. I believe this is a large number of references for a site that was first created today. I am hoping that this site is not deleted so I have the opportunity to add many more Wikipedia references. I have noticed that many of the locations in this site do not even have a Wikipedia page to link to. I am hoping that in the future these additional geographical locations have Wikipedia pages. To some extent Wikipedia can be tepid. Quality videos from multiple sources energize and give more depth and meaning to Wikipedia.

1. International Security Assistance Force

2. NATO

3. Afghanistan

4. United Nations Security Council

5. Estonia

6. United Kingdom

7. France

8. Afghan National Army

9. United States

10. Germany

11. Kunduz

12. Provincial Reconstruction Team

13. United States Marine Corps

14. Special Operations Forces

15. United States Navy

16. Operation Khanjar

17. Helmand Province

18. Musa Qala

Mfstelmach (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article may have a number of links to other Wikipedia articles, but its subject is external videos. These are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BritishWatcher, Thank you for your comments. I would be more than willing to change the title to what you suggest or something similar ... List of ISAF operations with embedded reporters. I would also be happy to make any reasonable changes to the content to make it more compliant with Wikipedia policy. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cordless Larry, Please explain why you feel the list described by BritishWatcher would not be notable. This topic is extremely timely and contains information that is important to many countries in the world. I disagree that the links would be better placed at International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) site. Putting too many links on the ISAF site might unbalance that site. This way only one link on the ISAF would be needed to link to the hypothetical site named: "List of ISAF operations with embedded reporters". This collection of links was very difficult for me to find, document and cross-reference in Wikipedia. I get the impression from you that you feel this list is trival and any 6 year old could create in a few seconds. Most of the videos on the internet are very low quality and are not made by professional news reporters. To me it seems that these quality videos are like gems to be preserved. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because, in order to meet the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability, the topic of the article needs to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This has nothing to do with preserving the videos since they are hosted on YouTube in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NVO, Please say more about the "bibliographies" that you mentioned. Are you talking about a private bibliographies that users keep on the own computer or a bibliography on a Wikipedia page. Also, you seem to feel that it is difficult to determine "quality". I suggest that videos made by any professional news reporter be considered a quality video. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NVO is suggesting userfication, which would involve moving the article content to your Wikipedia namespace, such as the page User:Mfstelmach. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NVO and Cordless Larry, I do not believe that moving this site to my userspace is a good solution. It trivializes the material and keeps others from editing, improving, and correcting the material. I believe this site belongs in the Wikipedia main space. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cordless Larry, You and I really disagree about guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability. Just because a video is hosted on YouTube doesn't mean it can be found reliably, repeatable (and unedited) tomorrow, next week or a year from now. If YouTube is your main concern then I believe many or all of video references that are produced by multiple professional news reporters are available from multiple sources other than YouTube. Getting back to guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability. Let me go through them one a time:

1. "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content."

- Professional news reports address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.
- This seems clear enough.

2. "Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability."

- All forms of media are acceptable so external video links as well as internal Wikipedia links are both considered to be reliable. 
- Having muliple professional news reporters that are at least one step removed provide reliable secondary sources.

3. "Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability ... Multiple sources are generally preferred."

- Multiple professional news reporters seem to me to be one of the most objective secondary sources that exist.

4. "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject..."

- Again multiple professional news reporters seem to me to be one of the most independent of sources that exist.

5. "Notability requires verifiable evidence it is not enough to simply assert that a topic is notable without substantiating that claim."

- The site in question contains numerous internal links to Wikipedia. 
- If we assume that all of these links are notable then the site that references them is also likely to be notable. 
- In addition, it seems reasonable to assume that reports from professional news reporters have been verified.

6. "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline..."

- The site in question has coverage from multiple reliable sources including different countries armed forces, new reporters,
- international organizations, etc. 
- This seems to be sufficient coverage.

If my above understanding of Wikipedia:Notability is wrong then please explain what I am missing. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now confused about what you are arguing is notable. Are you arguing that the operations are notable or that the videos are? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am arguing that the SITE is notable and the site includes the operations, the videos, the internal wikipedia links, the external links and the Gestalt synergy of the combined result. The whole exceeds the sum of the parts. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What site? Do you mean the article? The point is that every Wikipedia article needs a subject, and that subject needs to be notable. At the moment, the article's subject is a collection of videos, which are not notable according to the criteria used to judge this. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article's subject is "ISAF operations with embedded professional reporters." I believe this is a very important and notable subject. It is the presence of the embedded reporters that give the article strong notability. I am willing to rename the article if that would help. Also, I agree that the article could be improved with less emphasis on the videos produced by the reporters and put more emphasis be put on the ISAF operations with embedded professional reporters. Perhaps a good title is "ISAF operations with embedded professional reporters." I am open to other titles or other revisions to improve the article. I don't believe it is reasonable to "userfy" or delete this article. Right now the article is just in its infancy. It is easy to throw rocks at something that was just created less than 1 day ago. I believe this article could evolve in something very useful; if given a chance. I am really surprised that you don't see value in the article. I am wondering ... Have you viewed any of the videos in full? They are only a few minutes long. Please take a few minutes and view a few of the videos in full from several different countries. It is quite interesting to see how different countries conduct military operations. Perhaps you might change your mind after seeing the rich content that the professional reporters add. If the article is not going to be deleted I would I would like to write a more detailed summary of the video and relate that summary to more Wikipedia links. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as it stands the topic of the article is "Quality Videos of ISAF Afghanistan Operations with Embedded Reporters - Listed by Member Country". If you were to change that to "ISAF operations with embedded professional reporters" (and move the article accordingly) then you might be able to make the case that the topic is notable. I don't think that the videos alone would establish the notability of such an article though because they are not independent since they are published by NATO. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cordless Larry, I agree! This article really does need a name change to "ISAF operations with embedded professional reporters" (or something similar.) I plan to do this. Also, it is a problem that most of the references are from NATO and more non-video references are needed. However, I believe at least one of the videos is currently from a non-NATO source. I completely agree that many more videos are needed from non-NATO sources. If this article is not deleted then I plan to add other references from non-NATO sources. I am hoping that this resolves this issue so I can move forward and clean up this article. I appreciate your feedback and I learned a lot about Wikipedia:Notability policy and WP:NOTLINK policy in the process of this discussion. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that my comments were helpful. I really don't think that any of the videos can be used to establish notability though since they come from the same embedded reporters who are part of the topic of the article. You'd need to find properly independent coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cordless Larry, I agree that other media references (video and non-video) are needed to establish notability for this article. I believe I have found a fairly large number of independent media references. I would like to get your advice. Should I try to improve the article or should I create new article with an improved name. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do is probably to prepare a replacement article in your userspace (for example, at User:Mfstelmach/ISAF operations with embedded professional reporters). Then, when you're happy with it, you can move it to the main encyclopedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cordless Larry, Per your advice, I have created the following page in my userspace - "User:Mfstelmach/ISAF Afghanistan and related operations with embedded professional reporters." Let me know if you have any suggestions to improve this title. I will let you know when I feel the new article is ready to move to the main encyclopedia to get any feedback from you. I am hoping to get this new article finished quickly. And in the meantime, I would like my current article to not be deleted until my new article is ready. How does that approach sound to you. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine other than the request to delay potential deletion. I'm not sure whether that is possible. The deletion discussion will probably continue per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cordless Larry, I agree that the deletion discussion will probably continue per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If I can get my new article finished quickly enough then the deletion of the current article will become a moot point. Thanks again for the help and advice. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy then delete. The subject of the article (i.e. the videos) is not notable. Location (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Location, I appreciate your feedback. However, please provide a more detailed response that explains your position so I can respond. Also, please respond and let me know if you have viewed a few of the videos in full from several different countries. I am concerned that you may be judging the videos without even watching them. Remember Wikipedia:Notability guidelines ... "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media." Is there a bias against the media of videos? Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really don't see why this even needs to be userfy'd. The video linkspam is not notable and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Other then that, I second what Larry said.Tavix | Talk 02:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tavix, I appreciate your feedback. However, please provide a more detailed response that explains your position so I can respond. I have the same concern as with user=Location (above). Please respond and let me know if you have viewed a few of the videos in full from several different countries. I am concerned that you may be judging the videos without even watching them. Remember Wikipedia:Notability guidelines ... "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media." Is there a bias against the media of videos? Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mfstelmach, the point is that the videos are the subject of the article. They cannot be used to establish their own notability. That requires an independent source. To save space here, I'm going to try to explain this further on your user talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notion of collecting these links is better handled by setting up a YouTube account, and using it to compile the list. YouTube allows that, with commentary. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Abductive (reasoning) 04:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - article creator has usified it to User:Mfstelmach/ISAF Afghanistan and related operations with embedded professional reporters‎. See discussion above. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a textbook example of an article which fails WP:NOTLINK. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is explicitly a repository of links. No amount of renaming attempts changes this. The test is to remove all the external links. Do we still have a viable article after that? No. -- Whpq (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary link farm. Any decent links can easily be factored into other appropriate articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing more than a link farm. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Garzon

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelle Garzon

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

Fails WP:ENT. Article is more like a minor news item. Subject has no real notability yet. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 17:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy Very young model who does not yet meet notability criteria. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe will be notable someday. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun City Rays

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Senior Professional Baseball Association. — Jake Wartenberg 20:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sun City Rays

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

I deprodded the article -- there's enough question to its notability that it doesn't qualify for prod. I am neutral on the deletion, but I've listed it here out of courtesy to the prod. Reason for prod:

All info already exists at Senior Professional Baseball Association! No refs, notability not demonstrated Shadowjams (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not shown for team that only existed for a year. Can be merged to league article. Reywas92 ^Talk 19:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect 25 news references good enough for me. Why not simply redirect the page instead of putting it up for deletion? Ikip (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I did but I was reverted. Reywas92 ^Talk 15:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator reverted the redirect.[22] Ikip (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Senior Professional Baseball Association. Location (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Like I said I'm neutral. I think there's a WP:SNOW for a redirect--I'd have no problem with that. Shadowjams (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Senior Professional Baseball Association. Team only existed for 1 season. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian J Simpson

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whpq's comment seems to describe the general consensus well. NW (Talk) 22:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian J Simpson

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

The subject of biographical article is non-notable. I have been trying to clean this article up for a few months after I suspected it was being created and maintained by the article's subject. Yesterday it was tagged for a number of issues, including conflict of interest and references. The primary editor then added references, however all of them seem unreliable. 1 is IMDb, where he is listed as an uncredited actor for Episode I, 2 and 3 are the actor's blog and then his blog account's profile, 4 is some sort of online resume service, 5 is a message board post, 6 is some sort of music site that I can't make heads or tails of and 7 is the actor's Facebook fanpage. Plus the entire article seems to read like a resume. --Torsodog^Talk 17:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable actor. IMdB is OK for cast and credits as these are supplied by professional guilds. This is his IMdB credits. I agree that most of the references are iffy. It would be good to find his agent's page for instance. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, (changed vote) on re reading the notability guidelines for entertainers I would say that this subject fails against those as has not played significant roles. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question his IMDB credits are relatively voluminous, but look carefully - they are almost all for uncredited bit parts, stand-ins, body doubles, and such. The only way stuff like that even GETS on IMDB is if the dude or his agent ads them. Not sure if I agree that he is "clearly" anything but a young actor trying to make it in LA. Surfer83 (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I agree about the Hollywood credits, but he has a fair few credits on British TV

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Has only had minor roles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Revert I don't really mind if you think this needs deleting, but I don't, and it'd be a shame for it to go for the wrong reasons. Firstly, I'm not the subject of the article, but I am a big fan. There is no conflict of interests, as I'm sure most celebrity articles are maintained by people who like the person. Also I didn't create the article so I guess I'm not the only one who thinks he's of interest. The page has been live for over 2 years with no concern - so I am sorry if my over-zealous additions have taken the article the wrong way - I'd be happy to have it reverted to the version prior to last week. As for TorsoDog's understandable questions of how notable he/the sources are, 1) IMDb lists a number of CREDITS on TOP British TV shows (I guess you don't live in the UK or you'd likely have seen him) - yes the Star Wars one does say 'uncredited', but hey he was in Star Wars - more on that in a moment. 2) You haven't read far enough - this isn't a link to the actor's blog, it's a link to a crucial comment from Leland Chee, keeper of the Holocron continuity database at Lucasfilm Ltd. who confirms that the actor was in Episode I, did play a NAMED character (Lt. Gavyn Sykes/Bravo 6), and that his character was a KEY one in the movie, and allowed Anakin to save the day. This is big stuff, despite the small comment. Clicking through to Mr Chee's profile on that very same StarWars.com official Lucasfilm site will assure you of his stature. So there is no question this actor was a big part of the Star Wars universe, despite presumed contractual reasons he - like many - found it hard to get a full credit (he is credited under SECOND UNIT in fact). 4) Is the UK's equivalent to IMDb and I'm pretty sure each credit must be approved before being permitted on, it's not an online resume service. 5) Is not just a forum post, it's a citation source - this is what wikipedia asks for - it is the Content Developer for Lucas Online confirming he was Darth Vader's double. 6) His official sites only serve to confirm these official sources. This actor has a lot of fans, I know as I've gone to meet him at 2 conventions in Canada and San Diego Comic Con, where those shows must've hired him to sign autographs all weekend long. Finally, I know it's another wiki, but take a look at all the photos of him and his computer game version at http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Gavyn_Sykes then consider he really is too minor for Wikipedia. He's been in a major movie, as a named character, and 2 LucasArts video games. How many less famous celebs are there on wikipedia than that - 1,000s? I'd start there. I'd guess what's happened here is the sources were hard to verify unless you knew what you were looking at, but as a huge Star Wars fan I do know that and I know that the guy who allowed Anakin to win the day, and went on to double for him, is worthy of an entry. Furthermore he is linked to from other Wikipedia articles, such as the list of Star Wars characters, so if you delete this page, you'll make those links go red... then someone will create a new page for him... and, well what's the point? As for his music and writing achievements, I don't know as much about that side, but I did buy the Andy Abraham album mentioned, on iTunes, and yes Simpson did write it (Andy is a big name here in the UK and represented us on Eurovision seen by 600 million people). If despite all that you feel it needs deleting, then I guess you guys know better what us visitors, readers, users, and supporters of Wikipedia like to be able to research here! :) I'd therefore suggest reverting it to the version a week ago. Best of luck and thx for listening. --WikUWerHere (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article was created by User:Ewik, your former account that you abandoned after your run in with Wiki mods during your creation of the Gavyn Sykes article (that was also deleted). So yes, you did actually write it. Anyways, if you can't find ANY verifiable, reliable sources for the actor, then there is a good chance he is non-notable. Also, the character Simpson portrays in Episode I may be named, but he is UNCREDITED for the role in the film. So people stop calling the character "key", as he is not at all key to the film's plot in any way. And your argument that other actors with pages are less famous is incredibly poor. Wikipedia is a large, ever-evolving project, and those pages may also be deleted in the future. And if this page is deleted, red links linking to it can be changed. That is the beauty of wikipedia. --Torsodog^Talk 17:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're right I did used to go by Ewik - but when I checked the earliest version of the page in question (as I honestly can't remember if I started it from following a red link), it appeared to have been created by User:90.213.229.245 - my bad for not realising to click 'Earlier' entries. You are however wrong when you say his character "is not at all key to the film's plot in any way". At the end of Star Wars I, Anakin cannot destroy the ship as the ship's shields are impenetrable. Lt. Sykes, Simpson's character, is the pilot who destroys the shields, which allows Anakin to be victorious, and in turn be taken on by OB1, and in turn Sidious, and in turn, turn to the dark side. If Sykes hadn't destroyed the shields, Anakin would unlikely have turned to Vader. This is my legitimate argument as to why this actor and his character are both notable. That, and his other achievements, British TV CREDITS on shows watched by 20 million people, songwriting for Simon Cowell's artistes, and popularity with international movie autograph hunters like myself. I hope a sensible decision will be made here, on an article that has been happily living on Wikipedia for 2 years and has been happily added to by countless different individuals, none of whom ever objected to it until you.--WikUWerHere (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that about the Sykes character is well and good, but when there is no reliable source that asserts that he is actually notable, then there is really no proof that what you are saying is true. I don't remember hearing anything like that in the film. Secondly, the actor is UNCREDITED in the film. That seems to indicate that he and the role is not all that notable, and if that is this actor's major claim to fame, well... --Torsodog^Talk 19:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Might I suggest that WikUWerHere reads the WP:Notability guidelines, especially the guidelines for entertainers. At first i was impressed by the IMdB credits but then as stated above most of them are as stand ins or uncredited parts. None of the roles, including six appearances in a soap and two in Judge John Deed were significant roles. The citations to Start Wars blogs, fan sites, facebook are not citations to WP:RS. Spotlight (ref 4) is a casting directory anyone who has either trained professionally or had a paid acting job can join for about £180 per year, so it is in effect a self published source. The claims of TV shows watched by 20 million viewers are I am sorry to say pure fantasy. When examined closely Christian J Simpson clearly fails the guidelines, as no reliable sources can be found to support his notability, which is why I changed my position to delete. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Eastenders wasn't watched by 20 million viewers? It was, it's the highest rated show in the UK, and he is CREDITED in it, and other similarly high rated shows. But like I said, if you feel this article hurts wikipedia, take it down. All I can do is provide the requested reliable sources I just found with a bit of Googling (use Ctrl+F): His episode on the Sci-Fi Channel: http://www.locatetv.com/tv/star-wars--unsung-heroes/season-1/328647 | His appearance schedule at San Diego Comic Con, the biggest movie show in the world: http://www.comic-con.org/cci2008/cci_autographs.php | Memorabilia exhibition in the UK, mentioned on top Star Wars news site: http://www.theforce.net/latestnews/story/Memorabilia_Show_Coming_to_NEC_Birmingham_In_The_UK_106828.asp | German interview after he appeared at the Episode III premiere in Germany: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZje_xhTLU | Canadian convention where he guest stars alongside Chewbacca: http://www.scifiontherock.com/archive/guests.html | Charity show where he guest stars alongside many Star Wars legends: http://www.exewing.co.uk/events/swd10/index.htm | Representation by same agency as many Star Wars big names inc. Lando Calrissian: http://lukoagency.free.fr/pages/News/News.htm | Clip from Spooks: Code 9 which he appeared in on BBC Three: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6apf0iMLrOo | Lightsabre.co.uk interview (frame): http://www.lightsabre.co.uk/Interviews/christiansimpsoninterview.htm | TV Interview alongside Jake Lloyd (Anakin in Ep1): http://www.mefeedia.com/tags/anakin_skywalker | Lucasfim Jedi Con show in Germany mention: http://www.starwarsaficionado.com/page/page/5797539.htm | 3rd party sites: http://starwarsprequelappreciationsociety.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/more-tales-from-the-set-of-rots/ | Convention appearance alongside David Prowse (Darth Vader): http://www.starwarsselect.com/conventions_archives.html | DragonCon show mention: http://the-lazy-dragon.livejournal.com ... there are dozens more but if that doesn't count as 'reliable sources' then I don't know what does. You must do what you feel is right, of course. --WikUWerHere (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to his reliable sources above, I have edited the page in question to add these where relevant. One final point - I'm a big fan and as he's obviously on the way up, it would seem silly to delete the page, only for it to have to be created again from scratch when he does something even more notable. Will leave it with you.--WikUWerHere (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not in the business of predicting someone's future success or notability. Also, nothing is "obvious". It may be obvious to you, as you seem unusually close to this person in someway, and therefore do not seem to be approaching the subject with a neutral point of view. --Torsodog^Talk 15:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for reliable sources. I gave you reliable sources. They speak for themselves, regardless of if you think someone's biggest fan is biased. Since I gave what you wanted, everyone has gone quiet. That's the equivalent of a jury giving their verdict before the evidence has been presented, then the barrister stating the true case to empty juror seats. Not sure that's the ethical way forward is it? The sources are there, they are notable and reliable, and they say he's notable too. He was in one of the biggest grossing films in history, as a named character, UK TV shows watched by up to 20 million people, and is shown on the biggest sci-fi show in the world's website as an autograph guest. If that's not notable, what is? In hope of a common sense response.--WikUWerHere (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many of the sources you provided are not reliable. You simply stating that they are reliable does not make them so. And because more people haven't comment since you have responded, that does NOT indicate that this has been unfairly judged. Please do not misconstrue that. And yes, he has appeared in the things you have listed, but as incredibly minor characters. Many other people have appeared in those shows and movies that do not have wiki pages. --Torsodog^Talk 16:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube links posted as supposed references by WikUWerHere were gross violations of Wikipedia policy on such links to copyrighted material and they have been removed. Kindly stop digging. Your efforts to prove some sort of notability merely result in your own embarrasment. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you're a friendly bunch. If "many of the sources are not reliable", that means some of them ARE reliable - again, you asked for some reliable sources, you got some reliable sources. Why ask for them if you get some and it counts for nothing? Saying "Many other people have appeared in those shows and movies that do not have wiki pages" is a weak argument, I am sure their fans will create their pages too - conversely when I argued that many LESSER actors DO have pages here, you criticised me. Double standards do not help this. I believe for any actor to have had even small parts in numerous incredibly high profile productions makes him 'notable'. I'm going to leave it there as I can't go on trying to push my logic.--WikUWerHere (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being unfriendly, just honest. Yes, some of your sources are reliable, but those do not establish notability. Yes, he was in The Phantom Menace... yet uncredited as a named seemingly glorified extra. The few reliable sources you have provided establish that he was in the movie, but do not provide any more evidence that he is notable for the role. As for other actor's with pages, you are right, they really have no bearing on this argument. Some minor actor articles are created, some aren't. Of those, some are deleted some aren't. It is just the nature of a large wiki project. --Torsodog^Talk 18:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable: Thank you for your kind reply above, Torsodog. Referring to the notability requirements, I argue he is notable, for the following reasons:

Requirement: "Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced ... television shows ... or other productions." As evidenced already, he played main and CREDITED characters in a number of UK TV shows. One contributor agreed with this above. His character, likeness, and I believe voice, were also used as the LEAD role in the Star Wars: Battle for Naboo video game, also featuring in Star Wars: Galaxies - a lead role in a Lucasfilm video game surely falls under 'significant roles' in 'other productions'. He appears to meet this criteria.

Regarding to Battle for Naboo, Simpson does not own the character, so it is not "his character". Secondly, the character is never seen, so his likeness is definitely not used for that game. Lastly, Matt Walters is CREDITED for all the voice work for Sykes. (I could make a case that he has more of a claim to the character than Simpson.) Simpson has no association with this production at all. Also, you have yet to provide any reliable source that links him to Star Wars: Galaxies. As of right now, he has no association with that production either. --Torsodog^Talk 19:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requirement: "Has a large fan base..." Okay we've seen his fan page which has 250 fans listed. We've also seen evidence of major movie conventions where he was a star autograph signing guest. I am a fan myself. Surely we have to conclude from him being on the San Diego Comic Con website that he has a large fan base, unless the world's biggest movie convention is in the habit of flying 'unknowns' out to appear for some odd reason. They know something you don't?

I'm sorry, but we can't assume or conclude anything. And 250 fans on a facebook page doesn't seem to indicated a "large fan base"... --Torsodog^Talk 19:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requirement: "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." As a songwriter with released material for one of Simon Cowell's artistes, and an actor in numerous shows, and a writer, I am of the opinion that qualifies as 'prolific', not just to "a field of entertainment", but to THREE. He seems to over-qualify, from that perspective. He was also the sole subject of the Sci-Fi Channel's Star Wars documentary 'Unsung Heroes', as evidenced above.
Requirement: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." His song 'Stay For Life' was on the album by Simon Cowell's Andy Abraham, which charted in the UK.
Requirement: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." Even I didn't know this but his own song was apparently a top 20 finalist winner in Unisong 2005 sponsored by Sony http://www.unisong.com/Winners.aspx (use Ctrl+F 'CJ Simpson') and www.euromantix.com

This does not seem to qualify as a "major music competition". It seems incredibly minor. Plus Simpson did not win 1st, 2nd, 3rd OR 4th place in this competition. He is simply listed as a finalist. --Torsodog^Talk 19:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requirement: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show..." His co-written song 'Stay For Life' was featured in the TV hit show Bones http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22stay+for+life%22+bones+andy+abraham&btnG=Search&meta=

I could go on but I'm bored now. Again, this was all quite easily found with some Googling - some of it surprised even me - the case seems to get stronger. I will be amazed if you disagree with Wikipedia's own guidelines just because you're too proud to back down after I found all the reliable sources you wanted, but stranger things have happened ;)--WikUWerHere (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prepare to be amazed. I still disagree. I know for a fact that you made up the credits for Simpson in the video games, and right now I don't have the time or energy to actually check your "facts" regarding his musical credits. Also, your ridiculous and condescending tone is unneeded. Try to be civil. Thanks. --Torsodog^Talk 19:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a minute, that's incredibly unfair to accuse me of being condescending and making things up - you and the others are the ones above who started being rude (saying I'm embarrassing myself etc.) and you are the one who is making things up there - I said above in black & white for all to see "His character, likeness, and I believe voice, were also used as the LEAD role in the Star Wars: Battle for Naboo video game". Where have I made up credits? 1) "His character" is a common term used for the part an actor plays. As Simpson was first to depict Sykes in the Star Wars movie, and you have a Lucasfilm source confirming that, then it is common to call Sykes 'his character'. 2) Simpson's likeness is used in the Galaxies game - you only need to look at all the screenshots from the movie and the game to see the likeness, oh and the fact it has the same character name! Kinda obvious. It's like saying the video game likeness of 007 isn't based on Daniel Craig's character because nobody can prove that it is - erm, just look at it. 3) I said "I believe voice", as in that was my belief - you sourced it better than I did, great, but don't accuse me of lying. The bottom line is Sykes is the lead character in the game - the whole game revolves around him - and Simpson first brought the character to life on screen in the biggest movie of 1999, as shown in the Wikia.com screenshots from the movie. I am sure we can agree on that, even if you don't agree that is a notable achievement. But when you add in the other achievements above that you don't dispute - and considering Wikipedia only requires ONE notable achievement - it just seems blatantly obvious to be that this article does no harm staying. You asked for sources, I provided sources, you then said SOME of them weren't good enough, but others were reliable enough. That sounded good. You then asked me to show he was notable, according to the requirements, which I have also done, but you say SOME of those points aren't valid, but others therefore might be. That sounds good too. Then you say that the valid ones - you don't have the time or energy to check. How can anyone ever win here? Are you ever wrong or do you ever back down? Could I politely request this be escalated to a senior admin for a decision please - it seems to be getting beyond ridiculous, almost as if you have some hidden agenda to stand your ground, whilst I'm trying to give you what you asked for - I just feel you don't want to see it.--WikUWerHere (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, PLEASE stop trying to draw a connection between Simpson and the games. He has none. At all. Another actor is credited for the character in Battle for Naboo. Walters' name is in the game's credits. Simpson's is not. Period. As for Galaxies, you have yet to prove to us that the character model is based on Simpson. A screenshot showing a white guy with brown hair is not reliable evidence that he is based off Simpson. Sorry. For all I know he could be based off of me. A credit or developer comment detailing this would suffice. --Torsodog^Talk 20:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in an effort to move this to a conclusion, you have asked for a 'developer comment' detailing that Sykes = Simpson, and have said that will be "sufficient" to resolve this. Here's the best I can find from some Googling:

http://files.me.com/appleiime/92tyvr An old scan of Lucasfilm's Star Wars Insider official magazine, in which Lucasfilm stated, "... The Phantom Menace actor Christian Simpson ... officially designated as Bravo Six, Gavyn Sykes (a character named in the Battle for Naboo video game)." Again, that's THE official Lucasfilm magazine, mentioning Christian J Simpson and no other actor as being Sykes, and intrinsically linked to the character across the game franchises as well as the movie. They even picture Simpson in the mag (above Padmé).
Next you only need to look at the factual chronology for the rest to fall into place:

1997 - Episode I is filmed, with Simpson playing Bravo 6/Sykes.
1999 - Episode I is released, Sykes starts to exist, and Simpson is the face that is associated with the character.
2001 - 2 years later, Battle for Naboo is released, but they use a difference voice actor (presumably as they couldn't get/afford/fly over Simpson). Despite this Lucasfilm still mention only Simpson in relation to the game in their own magazine.
2003 - Galaxies is released. It is absolutely beyond any question that the likeness for the in-game CGI character they would go to would be the actor who portrayed Sykes 4 years earlier in the movie, the same actor they mention in the magazine, the same person's face they print in the article. This would all have been in the Lucasfilm archive, including headshots of the actor, and the actual movie scenes. Add to this the striking similarity (right down to shape of sideburns I notice) of the video game character, and I'm sorry but it is without a shred of doubt that the video game likeness is based on Simpson.

http://blogs.starwars.com/bravo/1/comments With the utmost respect, I'm not sure you have seen the relevant info on this page. Ignore the actor's own blog entry if you must (even though it is endorsed and published by Lucasfilm on their own website and he is given 'VIP' blog status, reserved just for Lucas staff), and scroll down to the Comments section. There Leland Y Chee confirms, by way of reply to a fan question, that Simpson is the actor name associated with Sykes in the 'Holocron' - Lucasfilm's internal continuity database. Although this is 'just a blog', if you click on Leland Y Chee, you are taken to his profile http://blogs.starwars.com/webapps/blogs/view-profile.action?userID=414903 hosted on starwars.com, owned by Lucasfilm, where his authority to confirm the character and Simpson's association with it, is confirmed: "occupation / company: Continuity Database Administrator, Lucas Licensing. biography: Keeper of the Holocron (Lucas Licensing). Former LucasArts tester."
So here we have a Lucasfilm employee in charge of the database that holds actor's names, and who was also a tester for LucasArts (who published the 2 games in question), confirming Simpson's attachment to the character, and mentioning no other actor or reference for the likeness. Just Simpson.

Despite everything I have to say I am impressed at how much detail Wikipedia admins go to to ensure the facts are correct. I hope you will be able to kindly agree that it has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that Simpson is notable enough - albeit not the most famous celebrity in the world - and that I have answered your challenge to provide a developer comment (two in fact) confirming he is intrinsically tied to the role of Sykes. But I do believe he ticks at least one of the one required boxes for notability on Wikipedia. Thanks for listening.--WikUWerHere (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, that all seems like WP:OR to me. Even if that checks out however, we still have Simpson playing an extremely minor character in Episode I where he is uncredited, and his likeness is used as a minor side character in Galaxies. He has no connection to Battle for Naboo. Really, that sums up his notability, and to me it just isn't enough. Sorry. --Torsodog^Talk 22:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, so why did you ask me to show evidence then? Each time I come back with better and better evidence and new sources, definitely reliable ones, and each time you still act as though nothing has changed - although it has. And yes, okay, let's say that is minor (even though it was a huge movie), you are just focussing on one element, and forgetting to combine in all the other roles. Why aren't we discussing his credited roles on top British TV shows, confirmed as credited on IMDb? Why aren't we discussing his appearance at the world's biggest movie convention as an autograph guest? We seem to be focussing on the wrong details. I respect your view, but disagree. Again, can we escalate this to a senior admin who can look at the big picture here please, if you cannot. Thank you.--WikUWerHere (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to "escalate" this to whomever you want. I act like nothing has changed because I believe nothing has changed. Yes, the movie he was in is big, but the article isn't about the movie, it is about the actor, who had an extremely small role in that big film. He also had small bit parts in TV. Great. None of those roles have been notable either. Unless you can prove to me that this actor has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced films or TV shows, that he has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, or that he has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, I will continue to act like he is not notable. Minor roles in film and TV are not considered "significant roles", the fact that he has a facebook fan page and has appeared at conventions does not show that he has a large fan base or significant cult following, and the fact that he has co-written one song does not make him an entertainer that has made prolific, unique or innovative contributions. --Torsodog^Talk 22:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the protestations this article is about a non-notable subject. Fails the guidelines for general notability, entertainers and musicians. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite all the winding paths to establish notability put forward, there are no reliable sources writing about this actor so he does not meet the general notability guidelines. As an entertainer, his body of work consist of bit parts. That his character (arguably) had a pivotal role in Star Wars episode 1 doesn't make him a notable actor. It's not a notable role. Nor does his body of work show notability. So he also fails the specific criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER. There are also claims of being a writer and musician on his web site but they are completely nebulous unrealized activities. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doing EXHAUSTIVE research to find tiny crumbs of trivial evidence for extremely oblique hints of notability is a difficult way to achieve a well written encyclopedic article.Surfer83 (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please read carefully I think there is a principle at stake here which is why I wish to point out that, perhaps due to too much text above, mistruths are being written. E.g. Whpq says above "there are no reliable sources ... about this actor so he does not meet the general notability guidelines". That is simply wrong. The criteria you are guided by states "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". Read the definitions for 'significant coverage' and 'reliable sources'. The following, already mentioned above, qualify:

The Sci-Fi Channel (a "reliable source") produced a documentary solely about Simpson ("sources address the subject directly in detail"), which was broadcast worldwide. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22christian%20simpson%22%20%22unsung%20heroes%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
RTL Television, a major German channel (a "reliable source"), broadcast a segment and interview as part of their main news program, about Simpson ("sources address the subject directly in detail"). This clip is not copyright so please do not delete it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZje_xhTLU
The Star Wars Insider magazine (a "reliable source"), wrote about Simpson in two issues. The first can be seen at http://files.me.com/appleiime/92tyvr, the second is available in print and featured an interview with him on the last ever day of filming a Star Wars movie, where he was doubling for Hayden Christensen.
I could continue with several more reliable sources who have published media or articles solely about Simpson - but I don't need to, according to Wikipedia's own guidelines. I am therefore unclear why - as this clearly meets the actual wording of Wikipedia's guidelines - there is any problem here. I see no mention in the guidelines that if an actor has had a large number of albeit 'bit parts' but yet still meets the crtieria for reliable sources and significant coverage (again, please do actually read the definition for that if you are not fresh with it), he should not be considered notable enough for a stand-alone article. The guidelines are quite clear. I hope someone can politely and assuming good faith, quantify the strange reaction in this case, that appears to go against Wikipedia's own guidelines. In short, and using quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG#General_notability_guideline, which of those 5 bullet points does he fail to meet?
Ideally any response below should be along the lines of "I do not believe a dedicated documentary is significant because..." or "I do not believe RTL are a reliable source because..." or "I do not believe the official Star Wars magazine is a secondary source because...".--WikUWerHere (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor actor with minor roles. Fails WP:ENT. BTW, this is the first time I've seen "it'll create redlinks" used as a reasoning for a keep !vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmelo Rafala

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 22:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelo Rafala

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

Delete as Rafala fails to meet the WP:BIO standards for notability. The citations in the article are to passing mention in brief articles detailing the content of recently published magazines, they are not reviews of his work. For example, Woomfy says that these two sentences at SF Site: Carmelo Rafala's "Boxboy" is a darker story about a mutant child with telekinetic powers. The authorities are trying to harness them, and he cooperates in order to please the woman doctor with whom he has bonded. But when another doctor pushes him... Rafala resolves things starkly and logically. constitute a notable review. They do not. Rafala has not been often nominated for awards, he has been nominated once, and that for an award that has not yet received a Wikipedia article. What can be said is that he is a published author. --Bejnar (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficent notability ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is a publushed author, but not a notable one. The reviews aren't really from reliable sources and as quoted in the article, taken out of context to make them appear much more significant than they are. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remain intact and not for deletion Reviews are from notable sources in the field and reliable if you do the research on them. Remarks are made about the work and, therefore, reflect upon author's ability as a professional. This is standard practice and is reflected elsewhere. Become familiar with the field of publishing before jumping to conclusions about what is and is not notable or acceptable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Woomfy (talk • contribs) — Woomfy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - we are judging based on WP:NOTE, wikipedia's specific definition of notability, and we are going by WP:RS, which is wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reply publications listed are reliable, professional third party sources. It is not atypical in any industry for quotes to be used as evidence for author's credibility or notability. Points mentioned in the Rafala article on his work--and in the review pieces themselves, as listed above and linked on the page--do constitue notable reviews. See reviews from professional markets such as The Fix, Interzone, Black Static, Asimov's, Analog, The Guardian, The Times and other professional publications to see similar reviews of various works. These are industry standard reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woomfy (talk • contribs) 22:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC) — Woomfy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply They are one line statements taken out of context and inflated in importance. -- Whpq (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply to comment One line statements or more are used to demonstrate the quality of a work, which, in turn, reflects upon the author. Extended comments or in depth analysis is only required when creating an academic thesis or text for study. One again, these are industry standard practices and are acceptable and professional methods. I humbly ask if you could accept and/or adopt industry publishing standards. (Woomfy (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)) talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC). — Woomfy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Reply - Coverage needs to be significant. One-liners fall well short of significant. -- Whpq (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply to comment If one or two liners fall well short of significant, than all the major encyclopedias in the world have been doing it wrong, as well as the major critics and publishing houses. Coverage over more than one review is considered significant. As a university lecturer, I am sure that I know my business and what is standard procedure and what is not. (Woomfy (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC))— Woomfy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Fails notability as an author. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Once again, the definition of notability as pushed here does not meet with professional standards. If you are supposed to be an encyclopedia, you need to adopt industry standards to become accepted as a reliable tool by the academic and information sectors. As a professional, I am at a loss to see how you cannot understand that. See comments above, once again. (Woomfy (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Car terminology

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 20:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Car terminology

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

Nominated for deletion once again: page holds little information of a doubtful nature which isn't worth salvaging for a merge with American and British English differences. See also the discussion here. Vadigor (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, this article has never been nominated before, or am I missing something? Ikip (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - there's no (1st nomination), and there's no deletion log entries. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was confused as well, but from what I could make of the article's logs it had been put up for deletion before, although I couldn't find anything on AfD. Looking at it again, it seems that it was, in my opinion erroneously, tagged with WP:PROD by Silverxxx instead of nominated here. Snigbrook later removed that tag and proposed to merge it instead. My apologies for spreading my confusion here. Vadigor (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without proper sources this article ends up being less than accurate, and the topic is already covered in American and British English differences. I would not make it a redirect to American and British English differences, but the title only could be redirected to List of auto parts. --Bejnar (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't hold every possible difference in the languages on those other articles, so all things car related should be here. Also, a lot of it is for countries other than American and England. Dream Focus 02:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of auto parts that seems a useful redirect. Smile a While (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs references but could be a really good article. I think a redirect is okay, if the material is merged, and the history is kept. Ikip (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It isn't just a list of auto-parts, which could be merged into List of auto parts of course, but also terminology of things related to motorized vehicles. Not just showing the different names in various countries, but also the concept itself. Just needs references for each section. I'm going to go search for some now. Dream Focus 01:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, merge content, where accurate, to American and British English differences, redirect title to List of auto parts. Title is improvident for linguistic differences. This is not currently an article about car terminology. --Bejnar (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Bejnar's excellent solution. Abductive (reasoning) 10:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary, as this is a glossary of a sort. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's at least 1 reference in the article already, and I beleive much more could be found. Most things listed in the article are common knowledge, so they hardly need any references. Netrat (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do not redirect to List of auto parts because it is about English. Do not redirect to American and British English differences because that article is too long already. Also, it is not just British and American English but other varieties as well. Do not transwiki because it is a synthesis that would lose its meaning when split apart. However, a different title might be more appropriate. --Pgallert (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it "holds little information of a doubtful nature." (LOL) ~{8-)> -MBHiii (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous car-related terms which are not parts such as understeer, MOT and chauffeur. Glossaries are well-accepted here per WP:MOSGLOSS. And the US and UK are not the only countries which have cars so there may well be other useful terms in Indian English &c. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Transwiki-This article seems to just be a collection of various dictionary entries. This article would be much better suited in the wiki project if it were over at Wiktionary, not merged into the "American and English differences" article. I also oppose deleting this article, as it is very useful imformation. Therefore, transwiki'ing is the best way to go in this case. --Scouto2 (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article is in a poor state at the moment, it has potential and is quite informative. Should be renamed to: List of automotive terminology. OSX (talk • contributions) 16:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takashi Tateishi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takashi Tateishi

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:COMPOSER. Giantbomb.com says "Takashi Tateishi is a person that is credited in 1 games." Several other Google searches say he composed music for several other games but only that. I could not find any third party coverage of him. TParis00ap (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking by "Ogeretsu Kun" 200.74.84.37 (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still can't find anything that could be considered coverage. It's just more of the same "He contributed to Mega Man 2."--TParis00ap (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he was the main composer of one of the most popular video game soundtracks. There's more information about him, but only in japanese pages. 200.74.84.37 (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Japanese WikiProject we can list it to and have more information translated to expand the article and show more notability. Still, unless MegaMan 2 soundtrack was notable by WP:MUSIC standards, I dont see how it's composer is either by WP:COMPOSER standards.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There was and still is nothing that I can find that can show any notability. I say "was" because I originally prodded it when it was deleted the first time. MuZemike 16:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beverly Little League

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 15:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Little League

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

Just because it's the oldest Little League baseball organization in Massachusetts does not mean inherent notability. It's boosterism and fails WP:N. Jrcla2 ^talk 16:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep around 75 news articles disagree that it fails WP:N. Beverly Little League + Massachusetts, 12 results Ikip (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And about 75% of them seem to be from the The Salem News, 32 Dunham Road, Beverly, MA 01915 Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on news coverage of this notable fact. Dream Focus 01:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the oldest Little League organization in Massachusetts is no more notable than being the oldest Rotary Club or the oldest YMCA. In Wikipedia, this is not notable at all; it is a (debatably) interesting fact that is referred to as "trivia". This is, as the nominator says, boosterism. And it's rather selfish boosterism at that, an excuse to say that nine boys who happen to play for (drum roll) "the first Little League in Massachusetts" should get recognition that their teammates (or players anywhere else) would not. It would be ridiculous in the extreme to have have an article about the oldest Little League program in each state. Mandsford (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see nothing in the article that amounts to a good claim of notability, and Google News didn't help. Would change my mind if new information were provided. Abductive (reasoning) 10:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What coverage there is is extremely local. Even though it may be the oldest little league it does not appear that this fact has been picked up by anyone outside the area. We don't judge whether something is notable - the coverage does. Quantpole (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rimba Secondary School

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

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 15:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rimba Secondary School

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

fails WP:ORG. passing mentions in gnews [23]. those wanting to redirect...well there is no article for the locality Rimba or North Rimba. LibStar (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - largest high school in Brunei. We have little enough coverage of schools in Brunei without deleting one of the few we have. We cannot expect widespread coverage in English on the Internet so we should avoid systemic bias and await searches for local sources. TerriersFan (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding precedent. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovan–Panamanian relations

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 19:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovan–Panamanian relations

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

the fact that Panama has recognised Kosovo is mentioned in International recognition of Kosovo. bilateral relations cannot be simply based on one phone call as the article describes. appears to be little coverage of the relationship besides the recognition [24]. LibStar (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This can be mentioned in a sentence or two in International recognition of Kosovo. The "cordial phone call" is probably the smallest basis for an x-y article that I've ever seen. Mandsford (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Maybe nominator forgot he nominated this before, because there are several sources which were mentioned in the last AfD.[25],[26], [27],[28] Nominator also failed to contact creator about AFD. Ikip (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Panama and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kosovo page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip

Even though there have been some oversights in this nomination, which you have corrected, I don't see anything that shows that there is any ongoing relationship between these two small nations in opposite hemispheres. The new reference is to Kosovo asking Panama to support a resolution in the UN, and Panama is one of the nations that acknowledges Kosovo as an independent nation. But is there any significant trade between the two nations? Is there a product that one nation imports from the other? Has a representative from one nation been received by the leader of the other? I still don't see that there is enough of a relationship to support a separate article. Mandsford (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - articles like this make the whole bilateral relations articles look bad while there are actually some good ones. There is simply no relevance or hope that this article will ever be expanded not to mention that there is no independent coverage of the subject, only one aspect of it which is a phone call.--Avala (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple sources: [29], [30], [31], [32]. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 13:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is denying that Panama recognizes Kosovo, so I don't see the point in posting the same news from 4 websites stating that Panama recognizes Kosovo? We are discussing bilateral relations here and that is supposed to be based on more than a recognition and a phone call. I would love to hear your plan in a few points how would you expand this article?--Avala (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A relationship is notable if it receives media coverage, which obviously the relationship between these two countries, clearly has. According to the notability guidelines, its notable. Dream Focus 16:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently got my picture in a local paper while at a market. I'll start on my article on that basis of notability immediately. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A phone call. Notwithstanding that relations have had a whopping year and a half to generate serious study on the topic as a whole (I'm sure sociologist Ph.D. candidates are clamouring for that as a thesis topic) if all anyone can find is a phone call to justify an article that is otherwise a dictionary definition then there is no possible reason to keep this. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on current state of the article. If there's nothing to the relations beyond mutual recognition at this point, this does not require an independent article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the fact of recognition, recorded at International recognition of Kosovo, is the only salient point of this relationship. Given the lack of in-depth coverage of actual relations, we can safely delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only a few sources for relatively trivial standard diplomatic stuff. Quantpole (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial data beyond mutual recognition, absolutely non-notable relationship by any standards. Dahn (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No actual notable relationship. Truly minimal. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nepal-Albania relations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal-Albania relations

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

neither country has a resident ambassador. complete lack of third party coverage, almost all of it is multilateral [33]. simply talking at multilateral meets is not an indicator of bilateral relations, nor having sources from a government foreign affairs website. LibStar (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While three citations looks impressive at first glance, they're all to the same brief note. The Nepal Foreign Ministry tried to make it as, well, diplomatic as possible, with references to "mutual trust, goodwill and friendship" (polite applause) and "Being a member of United Nations... Albania and Nepal share common views in many international issues" (UNICEF is good. War is bad.) but the end result is that "There are no high level visits to and from Nepal." Mandsford (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator failed to contact creator about AFD, I just corrected this. Ikip (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nepal and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albania page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip

Good work. These things sometimes happen. Mandsford (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent references. The one source from the Nepal MFA shows why nothing shows up on a search - the two countries have no real relations. Unlike, for example, Nepal-Bhutan relations. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neither these bilateral countries are not notable. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 03:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I may not be able to get to this but interested editors might explore the links between the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist) -- a Maoist outfit which is the largest pol. party in Nepal currently and the old Party of Labour of Albania. They may well have had close links (also the successor to the Party of Labour of Albania may have close bilateral links). Aside from that; I can't see anything notable from the governmental/trade dimension. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False positive --- I suspected that the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist) might've been keen on Hoxha (and thus been in bed with Albanian party(ies)) but this doesnt seem to have been the case. Delete. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely a relationship at all, let alone a notable one. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic number (service)

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 19:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magic number (service)

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

This article is about a non-notable phone number forwarding service. There are no refs, and I could find no reliable source for this service. Mind matrix 14:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no sources, it isn't notable at all.– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 18:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources for this. Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PURISTA Mojito Blackberry

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

The result was Speedy deleted all WP:CSD#G7, author requested deletion, by Alexf. Non-admin closure JohnCD (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PURISTA Mojito Blackberry

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

Over the last few days Zepolekim (talk · contribs) has introduced a string of articles about the PURISTA brand of drinks, James Glasscock, President and CEO of the company that produces them, and now these three articles about individual drinks. There seems to be a COI here. PURISTA and Mr. Glasscock may possibly be notable enough for articles, but these three articles are pure SPAM. Wikipedia is not an advertisement hoarding. Delete all. JohnCD (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, thanks for your message. I am completely fine with deleting the above articles. My goal was not to create advertisements, but rather informative, fact-based descriptions of new beverages on the market. To be fair, they probably do not deserve their own pages. I apologize if these crossed any Wikipedia boundaries, as I am still learning the process. I can assure you that James Glasscock and PURISTA are Wiki-worthy and have been mentioned in press, online, and media outlets across the US. (Zepolekim (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy Delete - I agree with the nominator and with Zepolekim about the three nominated articles failing inclusion requirements (and the other two being actually notable). Since the author agrees with the deletion, why not simply apply G7 speedy deletion (author requests deletion)? -- Atama頭 19:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your input and advice regarding the PURISTA Caipirinha, Margarita, and Blackberry pages. I went ahead and author-deleted them. Best regards. (Zepolekim (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopian general election, 2010

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

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 19:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian general election, 2010

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

fails WP:CRYSTAL. Yes, it will almost certainly happen, but there isn't yet the information to justify an article Ironholds (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No different than United Kingdom local elections, 2010. It's scheduled to happen, it'll be even more notable if it doesn't. Lugnuts (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there is a sourced date for it. Smile a While (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The usual practice is that the next scheduled election is a legitimate topic, whereas articles like "2016 U.S. Presidential Election" are too speculative to be of any value beyond a placeholder. As such, I see no problem in making a format that can be followed as one gets closer to the June 12, 2010 election-- which is going to be sooner than November 2, 2010 voting. Mandsford (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to and mention prominently on Elections in Ethiopia, until we have something to say on the matter. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the source that was cited only mentioned 12 June 2009, to do with challenges in the Iran presidential election, 2009, and makes no mention of 12 June 2010. For what it's worth, if it works on a pentennial system, the election would be in May. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect etc., same as above. So far I don't think it includes enough information to warrant its own article. Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 09:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Kronenberg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Kronenberg

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

Non-notable voice actor/actor. His resume seems to be extremely minor--basically, background roles and extras (I.E. "Man on street") Of the 33 articles on Google news for his name, none seem to match his person. Sandor Clegane (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability (ie. lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources). ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atmospheric beast

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It looks like the article could possibly be cleaned up, so I would reccommend that at least a month or so be given for people to do that before renomination. There are possible merge targets for this as well, but all that should be hashed out on the talk page. NW (Talk) 15:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric beast

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

All references to notable authors/media are not actually related to the subject at hand; Carl Sagan never mentions these so called "hypothetical beasts"; None of the books mentioned use the name Atmospheric beast; dropping the name of those books is uncalled for... the creatures in those books are all SOLID or semi-solid, and the video game mentioned had a SOLID flying snake (not invisible). There is no notability, and the external links border on link spam. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I don't know if Sagan used that term but for sure he talked about such hypothetical beings, see this video for example, and he developed the concept in this paper -these are just the first two references I came across. The article needs serious care, better sources etc. but the concept is notable enough. Maybe better merged in another article? Don't know what one could be best. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how Sagan's theory of gas giants on Jupiter and gaseous planets equates to invisible beings in the Earth's atmosphere; Sagan simply posits that life could exist in a cloud of gas, not that the Earth's atmosphere could sustain life. Further, the earth's atmosphere has been extensively studied and flown in... surely someone would have seen/hit one of these supposed creatures if they existed. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article, in fact, does not talk of "invisible beings in the Earth's atmosphere", since it begins with Atmospheric beasts are hypothetical non-winged organisms which could live within the atmosphere of gas giants.; since Earth is not a gas giant I don't see from where your concern comes from. It talks of fictional Earth creatures within the definition but they're clearly and obviously referred as fictional. --Cyclopia (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I re-writed to address this issue. --Againme (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Thanks, now it seems much more clear and much more worth keeping. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable term, with synthesized OR pop culture trivia thrown in, to boot. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (re-write) or merge. This is a very popular and used term within the UFOlogy and cryptozoology world. Check any website on this kind of issues.--Againme (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the worst issue of the article is that it is confusing, merging together two separate kinds of hypothetical beings. I agree with the keep, but someone familiar with the term has to go and decide what's that beast. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, re-write, re-name and/or merge/redirect - Nom's arguments are pretty good for editing an article, but as pointed out by others here, the term is notable enough to warrant encyclopedic treatment. These are reasons for editing and improvement, not deletion: the term is neither a hoax nor unknown, nor made up by a guy in a basement. Also, while there seems to be some original research issues with the name, in that it should be sourced, pseudo-science and speculative science are all well covered and there is concensus for inclusion, a consensus I agree with. It could be merged into cryptozoology, but I am not sure..--Cerejota (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Sympleko (Συμπλεκω) 14:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In need of fact checking, erroneous. 99.165.205.67 (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC) John Evans, Los Angeles — 99.165.205.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Inappropriate 117.194.5.20 (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC) — 117.194.5.20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Inaccurate and Inappropriate 75.2.13.216 (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC) — 75.2.13.216 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Inaccurate and Inappropriate. In need of fact checking, erroneous.
Delete Inaccurate and Inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.130.132 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC) — 173.3.130.132 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Ehm, whatever everyone thinks of the deletion, is this sequence of anonymous and nearly identical comments normal? --Cyclopia (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inaccurate and inappropriate.74.209.23.105 (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC) — 74.209.23.105 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Inaccurate and Inappropriate.173.67.13.49 (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) — 173.67.13.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Inaccurate. Seriously needs to check the research.71.17.220.101 (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC) — 71.17.220.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closing admin. IMHO a "delete" result would be tainted due to massive participation by SPAs. Recommend a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Story (song)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A Beautiful Lie. Semi-protected as well. Inform me if this needs to be bumped up to full protection. NW (Talk) 18:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Story (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. No cover versions, no awards. Not enough material to grow beyond stub. Has only charted on Los 40 Principales, and, per WP:BADCHARTS, Los 40 Principales is not to be used. Previous efforts to redirect article have been thwarted by anonymous editors. —Kww(talk) 12:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSONGS, unlikely redirect term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. I personally don't see the point in a redirect due to the non-plausible nature of the title as a search term. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album. No apparent notability, but the title is valid per WP:DAB and the title under which users experienced in Wikipedia naming convensions are likely to look for this song. Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Beautiful Lie as per the guideline, not notable enough for a separate article Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin If you close this as a redirect, please at least semi-protect the redirect. As stated in the nomination, the redirect is continuously being undone.—Kww(talk) 12:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that semi-protection seems appropriate under the circumstances. Rlendog (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FuturixImager (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FuturixImager

AfDs for this article:

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

Completing AFD for GreyCat, who relisted 2007 AFD (which resulted in delete). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 12:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer. Rationale: article about non-notable software without any solid references. The only third-party reference that this article lists - [34] - is a review thread at forum with user comments. Google reports only 620 hits, most of which are numerous software directories. No published reviews or any other publications, nothing on Google Books, etc. --GreyCat (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to point out that in parallel discussion in Russian Wikipedia there was some authoritative coverage found. Futurix (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —GreyCat (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joe. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Qaida safe house, Karachi

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

The result was Casting vote Keep Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaida safe house, Karachi

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

fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources for this are brief mentions in internal US intelligence documents, which do not fulfil the requirement. safe houses are not an automatic pass of the WP:GNG, and more evidence needs to be provided before the inclusion of this article is acceptable. Ironholds (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Snowball Keep of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp; these seem to all be nominated by the same person, attempting to perform Damnatio memoriae and introduce deletionist censorship into WP, not for the purpose of maintaining a higher-standard encyclopaedia, but because they bear a personal dislike of the article's subject and feel it is "unworthy" to merit an article - while they have never suggested (per this example) that one of the ~40 USMC bases, or any of the Category:United States military bases of the Vietnam War merit deletion; instead they just find the military bases, military leaders and military history of their ideological "enemies" and suggest they all be deleted. WP:NOTPAPER assures us that there is no limit to the number of articles that can exist, and an article like this one - although a stub right now - will one day include information on who started the base, when the Americans (or others) attacked it, how many died, whether it affected the outcome of any battles, and the like. It merits patience in waiting for future revelations about the camp. It is notable now, and the article will be complete in the future...just like millions of other stubs. Here I find 13 different people accused whose detention in Guantanamo Bay is justified by the United States on the basis they stayed in this waypoint house...it is no more an "indiscriminate" list than List of charities accused of ties to terrorism. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, and here's an idea, you can withdraw your unwarranted personal attack and accusation of bad faith. Other stuff exists is not a keep reason. Nominating multiple articles for deletion is not a keep reason. "It may be important in future" is most certainly not a keep reason. Articles for Deletion do not work on precedent. Unless you can provide third-party, reliable sources as required by WP:N, you can shut it. I have no particularly strong ties to the US military in any way, shape or form, and would not describe myself as an idealogue - I'm not a crazy, frothing-at-the-mouth right-winger attempting to strike all references to Al-Qaeda from the internet, and having spoken to you about it off-wiki I would have hoped you'd have seen that. Indeed, it was that discussion which resulted in the difference between my previous nom and this one - you will notice that the nomination is far more complete and detailed now. Of course you obviously haven't chosen to read it, or if you have have chosen not to actually answer any of my points, preferring gratuitous personal attacks (and confused ones as well - one minute I'm tagging it as part of some wider deletionist campaign to censor the wiki, the next minute I'm a crazy, stars-and-stripes-waving patriot looking to destroy evidence his "enemies" existed? I'm not even American). I would be quite happy to nominate those bases for deletion if they also prove to be completely unimportant and have no references available as required by WP:N once this thing is done; now stop acting like a child, answer my points and withdraw your personal attack. Ironholds (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: after looking at your userpage I'd say you're the one with a bias here - my tagging of these articles conflicts with your desire to document the worlds arseholes on Wikipedia. 16:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I think the defence rests its case now, thank you. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No withdrawal of your personal attacks, no argument based on either guideline or policy, and no statement that doesn't constitute a steaming pile? Nice "case". Ironholds (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless exact location of the "guest house" is properly referenced (grin). Seriously, if it's about a house than be specific, provide address or at least GPS coords. If it's about any house in Karachi, delete. What's next, Drug Den in London or it's a one-off coattrack run?NVO (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm taken aback at the vehemence of Sherurcij's Keep argument, which throws up a good deal of rhetoric flying in the teeth of WP:AGF without actually addressing the nom's argument. I am astonished that an editor of longstanding has racked up over 30,000 edits without being aware that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, or that - far from being optional - WP:V is the fundamental, irreducible value of the encyclopedia. It is not remotely enough, as Sherurcij ought to know, to assert that someday reliable sources might exist which satisfy the requirement of multiple, third-party, reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail. They must be present now, and so far they are not. Failing that, policy holds that an article cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 17:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There are currently over half a dozen active {{afd}}s on articles on suspected safehouse/guesthouses, and Afghan training camps. As I noted in this afd I started most of these articles -- over three years ago. While I started them in good faith I now think some of the smaller ones should be merged and redirected to a larger article. But others require their own unique article. I think this is one of those. In the interest of brevity I won't repeat my arguments for selectively merging and redirecting some, while keeping others. Geo Swan (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Among the different suspected safehouses/guesthouses intelligence analysts describe some very important documents were seized from raids of the Karachi house(s). Computers were seized during these raids that contained lists of names that intelligence analysts concluded were members of al Qaeda. Geo Swan (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have coverage of those seizures that pass WP:GNG? Ironholds (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have sources in this article that discuss the safe house in significant detail, as WP:RS requires? Ravenswing 02:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I would encourage people to take a brief look at Najim Jihad, a similar article dealing with a safehouse in Jalalabad; through piecing together different reports - none of which acknowledge the other's existence, and some of which refuse to use the "accepted" name of the safehouse, we are able to host an article that sources FBI affadavits, CSRT/ARB tribunal proceedings, CNN, TIME Magazine, the Toronto Star, and other sources. While this article is not yet at that level of completeness, it is on its way there, even if it takes six months or six years to reach that point - we do not delete WP articles because they are "incomplete" - the subject is notable, even if we are currently lacking secondary sources. Take for example, the issue of if a previously-unknown lawyer is suddenly announced to be appointed to the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice; now there may not be any secondary sources we've yet been able to find giving his biography, but someone may add a WP article piecing together what can be found in primary sources about him - as long as the article is neutral and referenced - we will simply have to wait for a book about the man to be published in five years..but we won't delete the article in the meantime as he meets the threshold of notability. An article's subject is either notable or is not notable, the amount of secondary sources is irrelevant - if I were to publish my memoirs and devote a chapter to my next-door neightbour growing up...he is not suddenly notable and worthy of a WP article even though there are "secondary sources" - likewise if an article is created about Crispin Sorhaindo, the former President of Dominica in the 1990s...the fact there are no "secondary sources" about his life would not mean his article merits deletion since he is notable. Again, these articles will incorporate details about who stayed at them, when they were destroyed, whether people were killed in the bombing/raid, and similar details - but the details do take time to filter out of places like Guantanamo into mainstream press. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is by definition not notable because it fails the most basic test of notability. "it will be notable in six months or six years" is directly addressed in "arguments to avoid", and should not be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure you honestly believe this. And I honestly believe you are mistaken. Please consider what we know about what American intelligence analysts believe about the Karachi safehouses and guesthouses from just one captive -- Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani. His allegation memos listed almost three dozen allegations related to his management of six Karachi safe houses. Three of his four allegation memos stated he managed these safe houses under the direction of a senior al Qaida leader. But the earliest memo says he managed them under the direction of Khalid Shayhk Mohammed, the number three in al Qaida, believed to be the brains behind the USS Cole bombing, and the attack on 9-11. He is alleged to have hosted seventeen of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers and five of the USS Cole bombers. Bomb-making courses were supposed to have been held in the houses he managed. From his memos we know one safe house he managed was a "two-story house near the Karachi, Pakistan airport in a community called, Wireless Gate." We know another was "in the Rabia City area of Karachi". Yet another was "located at Gulshan I-Iqbal, Karachi, Pakistan to edit video tapes and produce video discs from the tapes." A fourth was in the "Mehmoodabad neighborhood of Karachi, Pakistan." The one where he lived with a planner of the USS Cole bombing was "in the Defense View neighborhood of Karachi, Pakistan". The one where he was captured was "at Sonia apartments on Tariq road in Karachi, Pakistan..." We know these American analysts believe these safe houses were used to build timers for time bombs. We know American intelligence analysts believed some of these safehouses were used to hide and nurse injured fighters. A list can be found at Allegations related to Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani's management of Karachi safehouses Would it be better to know more about these safe houses? Sure. But we have articles on topics where our references supply incomplete knowledge from all fields of knowledge, like, for instance, sub-atomic and the theories about them. You wouldn't suggest we hold off on creating articles on subatomic particles because we have unanswered questions about them, would you? Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be completely missing the point. Again. The problem isn't that the article is incomplete; the problem is that the article fails the most basic test of inclusion. On multiple articles you and other users have been asked to prove exactly how important the articles you are touting are and have been repeatedly failing to do so, instead slipping away and replying with answers that don't actually answer the query. I indeed "honestly believe" 1) that this article fails the WP:GNG and 2) that it is required to pass it and 3) that Sherurcij's argument is on "arguments to avoid". 2 and 3 aren't opinion, they are fact, and since you've done nothing to dispute 1 I see no reason why I shouldn't keep honestly believing it. Your example with sub-atomic particle theory is a false one; I am looking for notability, not completeness. If a theory of sub-atomic particles was so unimportant that the author can't meet the incredibly high standard of two third-party, reliable sources discussing the subject in some length then it's probably bullshit. Ironholds (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRT to WP:GNG, it has five bulleted points: "Significant coverage"; "Reliable"; "Sources,"; "Independent of the subject"; "Presumed". I think all those criteria are satisfied. You think they aren't. I have tried my best to address your concerns, at a very considerable cost of my time. So would it be possible for you to refrain from using inflammatory wording like I am "slipping away" from answering your concerns? Would it be possible for you to be specific about how you think the the article fails to satisfy those criteria? Geo Swan (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"significant coverage". WP:GNG requires the sources to give "significant coverage" each - you've found passing mentions of the safe house. The reason the article consists entirely of "things found in a safe house in Karachi" is because 1) that's all the information you found and 2) that is because the sources are about people who stayed at the safe house, not the safe house itself. We don't even know if they're the same house! Karachi has a population of over 18 million - they could well be different places, but because the sources aren't even about the safe house(s) we can't even verify something as basic as that. To go back to the core problem, though, there is no significant coverage, just passing mentions in various documents which have been synthesised together. This fails both our notability guidelines and guidelines on original research. Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So, first, you acknowledge that the other four criteria are satisfied? Second, how much time did you spend looking at Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani's allegation memos? Twelve pages of memos. If you strip out the redundant parts of the four memos there are still two solid pages of allegations focused around his management of these safe houses. Karachi has a population of 18 million? I assumed it was at least a million. We know American intelligence analysts believed there were multiple safe houses. We know that their interrogation records listed six houses Rabbani was associated with. So, we don't know the exact number. Some of those six may have been the same houses, merely described differently. And some of the other captives could have stayed in houses Rabbani wasn't associated with. But I don't see how this is a significant criticism. You dismissed my analogy with sub-atomic physics. Nevertheless, I will remind you we can cover quarks before scientists come to agreement as to whether there are 12 kinds, or 24, or 48. Same with string theory. Similarly, perhaps you could explain your interpretation of Synth. To describe something as a lapse from synth someone would have to introduce a novel confluence of ideas into article space. Similarly, original research requires the introduction of facts or interpretations not found in our sources. Neither of those is the case here. Going through a bunch of references, and covering what they say, without adding an original, unreferenced interpretation is just collation -- not original research. Geo Swan (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's original research - WP:SYNTH falls under original research. The article has taken references to "a safe house in Karachi", a city with a population of 18 million, and you've collated that into an article implying that there is a single Al-Qaeda safe house in Karachi - that's Synthesis. You've completely missed the point about quarks - we can cover quarks before scientists discover how many there are, yes. But if you want an article on the 24-quark model and there aren't at least two sources covering it in "significant detail" then it still fails. "some of the six may have been the same houses.. some of the other captives could have stayed in houses Rabbani wasn't associated with"; speculation to back up synthesis. It is a significant criticism, since WP:GNG specifically says "'Significant coverage' means that ... no original research is needed to extract the content.". I acknowledge that the other four are fulfilled, but then I never said they weren't, and all five are required anyway. "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." ; the sources do not address the subject directly (they're throwaway references when discussing something else) or in detail (they're single mentions in throwaway references while discussing something else). Ironholds (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collation is not synthesis. As I wrote above both WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR address the insertion of novel and unreferenced conclusions and interpretations. I do not believe this article contains any unreferenced conclusions or interpretations. Faithful and neutrally written citations of multiple references, without the insertion of novel interpretations is not SYNTH.
You have focused on things I wrote here on these {{afd}}s, and characterized them as lapses from WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. I believe you are making a mistake in doing so. Those policies bar the insertion of unreferenced personal opinion into our articles -- into article space. In our talk pages, and in discussion fora, like {{afd}}, where we discuss how to write articles, what belongs, what is important, and what is trivial, what doesn't belong, it is both routine and necessary to discuss opinions. Practically every single extended discussion over notability triggers the expression of unreferenced opinion. Even if, for the sake of argument, the policies also barred the good faith offering of unreferenced opinions in good faith efforts to discuss what belongs in article space, I suggest that those lapses should not be used to argue for the deletion of articles that don't lapse from those policies.
You say all five criteria need to be met. And you quote WP:GNG: "no original research is needed to extract the content". But then it seems to me yours is an idiosyncratic interpretation of the article. Intelligence analysts have written allegations that show what they believe about the houses they characterize as Karachi safe houses. And I believe the article faithfully and neutrally covers those allegations. Zero original research is needed to extract that content.
Your interpretation of the article is that the contributors who wrote it (mainly me) were trying to imply there was a single Karachi safe house. I don't believe the article says that. I don't believe there was a single al Qaeda safe house in Karachi. I take at face value that this is how you read the article. I suggest that would be an editorial issue, which I think you should have raised on the talk page. It is not grounds for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your last statement is correct, but luckily that isn't why I nominated it for deletion; it's never been a core reason, it was merely an illustration of a point. I appreciate you've taken the time to respond to almost all my points, but again you've missed the main one. WP:GNG requires five points to be met. The first is "significant coverage", taken to mean " sources address the subject directly in detail". The sources do not address the subject directly (merely giving passing mentions while discussing something else) or in detail (they simply mention the "safe house in Karachi". My point about multiple/single safe houses was an illustration of the lack of detail available). Please explain how the sources you have provided fulfil the "significant coverage" requirement. Ironholds (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment that I haven't shown "detailed" coverage surprises me. Back on the 25th I listed a half dozen detailed allegations, and requested you look at Talk:Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani#Allegations related to Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani's management of Karachi safehouses. I am going to repeat my request you look at Talk:Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani#Allegations related to Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani's management of Karachi safehouses. Please look at it, and then let me know whether you still believe that the coverage is not in detail. Geo Swan (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens of teenty tiny comments are not detailed coverage. If the article was on Abdul Al-Rahim then that'd be fine, but all that adds to the article is "while staying at the safehouse, Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam a) did this, b) did that, c)...". It's the difference between a book on Perth and a book on Lord Mansfield that lists all the things he did on Perth. Technically, Perth has coverage, but it doesn't mean we can create an article that'll pass WP:GNG when it almost entirely consists of "stuff Lord Mansfield did in Perth". Ironholds (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer this as well by repeating the answer from my talk page when you posed me the same question there: "I don't accept that they provide any detail at all beyond that they merely exist. C'mon ... you're not a rookie. You're an experienced editor of long standing, and it's almost beyond credulity that you consider a line like "The detainee was listed on a document recovered in safehouse raids associated with suspected al Qaida in Karachi" to mean that the source is about any given safehouse or discusses it in any detail whatsoever. This is the sort of argument we've both seen at AfD where the "reliable sources" a fanboy claims for his favorite garage band are nothing more than a one-line "Love Muscle is playing at Paul's Mall on Tuesday and Wednesday at 8 PM" buried in the arts and entertainment section of the local alternative weekly. We properly dismiss such arguments out of hand; why are you making them now? I don't get it." Ravenswing 10:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A simpler way of saying it, actually - coverage of Abdul is detailed and substantial. Coverage of the safehouse is not. If we take away "stuff Abdul did at a safe house in Karachi" we're left with nothing, because all we know is based on things people did in relation to it. Ironholds (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that different from Perth, Western Australia and Perth, Tasmania? Couldn't someone come along and say, "everything in these articles is about something someone did at Perth. Captain James Stirling founded it; John Glenn flew overhead in Friendship 7; etc. Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if that person was a moron. I can pull up the Perth, Western Australia article and see how many people live there, what the average temperature of the place is, that it's a seat of government, that's it's on The Economist Most Livable Cities list ... why, I can find hundreds of facts about Perth there, many which have nothing to do with someone doing something there. By contrast, let's take a look at this article. Other than these sources claiming that particular suspected terrorists used them, you can't tell us a single thing about them. You can't tell us where they are. You can't tell us what they look like. You can't say what neighborhoods they're in, what architectural significance they have (if any), what other people might live there, whether they're residences or businesses ... nothing. That is what makes all these articles unsustainable, and I'm baffled to the point of bewilderment that you haven't seen that. Ravenswing 19:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe your comment about only using references in articles when their main topic is the topic of the article, is consistent with how references are used on the wikipedia. Documents, including the source documents we reference in our articles, routinely talk about more than one topic. If we applied your proposed rule here to all wikipedia articles, we would have quality control volunteers weighing in, and telling other contributors, "You can't use this reference in the articles on P.T. Barnum, circus, or elephant, because it is already being used in the article on Jumbo".
That seventeen of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers stayed in Karachi guesthouses is not trivial. Their use as underground hospitals is not trivial. Their use as underground factories for the the manufacture of timers for time bombs is not trivial. The capture of a senior al-Qaeda leader's computers at one of the guesthouses, with key lists of al Qaeda members, is not trivial. Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References don't have to have the article topic as their main topic, but they do have to have it as a topic, not something briefly mentioned in passing. I'm not saying it's trivia, I'm saying the mentions are - you don't have two paragraphs about how the 9/11 hijackers stayed in the house, and what else the house was used for, and how long the house has been operating, et al, you don't have coverage of the house, you have coverage of the hijackers which briefly mentions the house. I'm not saying it has to be the main topic, but it does have to be a topic. Right now you've given me multiple sources with trivial mentions, not multiple sources with significant mentions. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Go back to Rabbani's memos. Half or more of the documents are about Rabbani's association with the safe house. Geo Swan (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're sentences about Rabbani which mention his association with the safe house, not sentences about the safe house. Sources don't have to have the article subject as the primary subject, but it does have to be a subject; show me one paragraph where the house itself is the subject. Ironholds (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am doing my very best to take your concerns seriously. I am having a lot of trouble with this last one. If the safe houses weren't a subject of these documents, then how is it the documents have informed us about the safe houses in, as WP:GNG requires, "substantial detail"? Geo Swan (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - They haven't, they've informed us of the activities of people around the safe houses in some detail. What do we know about the safe house itself? Do we know where in Karachi it is, when it was set up, when it was closed down, whether it's a single house? No. We know absolutely nothing about the house itself because none of the sources are looking at it directly. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Frankly, all of the things you claim aren't in our sources actually are in our sources. Please, before claiming some fact you consider important is not in our references, take a moment, and actually read the list I prepared for you on the 25th at Talk:Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani#Allegations related to Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani's management of Karachi safehouses. I prepared this specifically to answer your questions. It took several hours to do so. Frankly, I am mystified as to why you keep making these incorrect assertions, about what is missing from the references. Geo Swan (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The article still falls short of "significant coverage", and quite frankly I echo Ravenswing's mysticism over why a long-term Wikipedian is making such obviously flawed arguments (see his point above). I can only assume it is because you wrote the article and will jump through any hoop, however ridiculous, to get it kept. In any case, we're not going to agree here since we seem to have completely different ideas as to how the notability guidelines are to be interpreted; I would suggest leaving it here. Ironholds (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I wonder if, in the history of the wikipedia, anyone has ever started a comment with: "I am surprised that a contributor of your experience would..." that wasn't followed by a uncollegial comment. I won't respond in kind. I will remind you that arguments for deletion are supposed to be based on the merits of covering the topic -- not on concerns with the current state of the article. Yet you are arguing for deletion, based on the current state of the article, even though every concern you have raised has been addressed, multiple times here in this discussion. You wrote about what you could assume about my motives. That is counter-policy. We are supposed to discuss the issues, not speculate about the character, personal judgment, intelligence or imagined hidden motives of those we disagree with. With some effort I am going to decline to respond in kind with speculation about your character, judgment or hidden motives. Geo Swan (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If you'd addressed my concerns properly I wouldn't be discussing this, would I? My argument is not and has never been based on the current state of the article, other than a minor quibble about synthesis which is not the main issue. I note that you said nothing about Sherurcij's personal comments above; is it because it wasn't directed at you, or simply because he's on your side in this discussion? Hypocrisy much? Ironholds (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Please try harder to confine your comments to content issues. Geo Swan (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well done for dodging the point there. I'll reiterate; you're complaining about personal comments made by Ravenswing and myself. Where's your damning reply to Sherurcij's earlier ones? We're obviously not going to agree here and have different ideas of what "significant" is - lets just drop it. Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Please try harder to confine your comments to content issues. Geo Swan (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Stop trying to bait me. Our comments on content issues don't agree and are unlikely to, since we have different ideas of what the word "significant" in WP:GNG should mean. Lets leave it here. Ironholds (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A catch all article about any instance of location being called a safe house. I'm going with WP:GNG Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please be specific about which of the five points in WP:GNG you think this article does not satisfy? Geo Swan (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have said this several times in several of these discussions. ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." Ravenswing 05:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that has been repeated here. However, it seems to me that those repetitions have been bereft of any meaningful explanation as to why the details in the references that I suggested were significant and substantial, weren't significant and substantial. Geo Swan (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only question seems to be about the extent of coverage, and whether it is significant-- examining the sources themselves, I find that taken all in all they talk sufficiently about this to write an article. The possibility of combining this article with other similar ones should be kept in mind, however, BTW, I do not think that the section on people Listed on a list found in a safe house is sufficient connection to include them here in such detail. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Qaida guest house, Kabul

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

The result was Casting vote: Keep Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaida guest house, Kabul

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

This is a textbook example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE - a list of people who are alleged to have stayed in an Al-Quaeda safehouse. It fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources for this are brief mentions in internal US intelligence documents, which do not fulfil the requirement. safe houses are not an automatic pass of the WP:GNG, and more evidence needs to be provided before the inclusion of this article is acceptable.Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Snowball Keep of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp; these seem to all be nominated by the same person, attempting to perform Damnatio memoriae and introduce deletionist censorship into WP, not for the purpose of maintaining a higher-standard encyclopaedia, but because they bear a personal dislike of the article's subject and feel it is "unworthy" to merit an article - while they have never suggested (per this example) that one of the ~40 USMC bases, or any of the Category:United States military bases of the Vietnam War merit deletion; instead they just find the military bases, military leaders and military history of their ideological "enemies" and suggest they all be deleted. WP:NOTPAPER assures us that there is no limit to the number of articles that can exist, and an article like this one - although a stub right now - will one day include information on who started the base, when the Americans (or others) attacked it, how many died, whether it affected the outcome of any battles, and the like. It merits patience in waiting for future revelations about the camp. It is notable now, and the article will be complete in the future...just like millions of other stubs. Here I find 32 different people accused whose detention in Guantanamo Bay is justified by the United States on the basis they stayed in this waypoint house...it is no more an "indiscriminate" list than List of charities accused of ties to terrorism. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, and here's an idea, you can withdraw your unwarranted personal attack and accusation of bad faith. Other stuff exists is not a keep reason. Nominating multiple articles for deletion is not a keep reason. "It may be important in future" is most certainly not a keep reason. Articles for Deletion do not work on precedent. Unless you can provide third-party, reliable sources as required by WP:N, you can shut it. I have no particularly strong ties to the US military in any way, shape or form, and would not describe myself as an idealogue - I'm not a crazy, frothing-at-the-mouth right-winger attempting to strike all references to Al-Qaeda from the internet, and having spoken to you about it off-wiki I would have hoped you'd have seen that. Indeed, it was that discussion which resulted in the difference between my previous nom and this one - you will notice that the nomination is far more complete and detailed now. Of course you obviously haven't chosen to read it, or if you have have chosen not to actually answer any of my points, preferring gratuitous personal attacks (and confused ones as well - one minute I'm tagging it as part of some wider deletionist campaign to censor the wiki, the next minute I'm a crazy, stars-and-stripes-waving patriot looking to destroy evidence his "enemies" existed? I'm not even American). I would be quite happy to nominate those bases for deletion if they also prove to be completely unimportant and have no references available as required by WP:N once this thing is done; now stop acting like a child, answer my points and withdraw your personal attack. Ironholds (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: after looking at your userpage I'd say you're the one with a bias here - my tagging of these articles conflicts with your desire to document the worlds arseholes on Wikipedia. 16:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I think the defence rests its case now, thank you. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No withdrawal of your personal attacks, no argument based on either guideline or policy, and no statement that doesn't constitute a steaming pile? Nice "case". Ironholds (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly misleading name. Apparently any house in Kabul ransacked by NATO soldiers fits this description. Delete unless exact location of the "guest house" is properly referenced (grin). NVO (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification please. Are you saying that if this article was entitled Al Qaida guest houseS, Kabul, you would have voiced a different opinion? If your problem is the name, wouldn't the obvious solution be a rename, not deletion? I contributed most of the material in this article. I didn't intend it to be about a single, particular guesthouse. I intended it to be about the limited number of guesthouses that intelligence analysts termed suspicious. Kabul, the capital of Afhganistan, is a large city. I am sure it has hundreds of guesthouses, possibly over a thousand guesthouse, but the number of guesthouses the intelligence analysts are interested in is a much smaller group. With regard to "exact location" -- we cover topics, in other fields, where we have less than complete knowledge. Consider the physics of sub-atomic particles, and string theory. You wouldn't argue that we shouldn't cover string theory because we have more questions than answers? We have verifiable information on some of the conventionally accepted aspects of string theory. For those important topics we should cover what we know, even when our knowledge is incomplete. And I think we should do the same here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, plural will be just as useless and unencyclopedic. Providing encyclopedic content will need an in-depth look at how the system operates - don't list those connected to the subject, explain the subject. An article on Nazi concentration camps, for example, does not start with a list of inmates; there are plenty of RS that back up a proper description. Perhaps, in the absence of reliable sources on the topic, it wasn't worth working on, was it? NVO (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but retitled to make it clear we are discussing a network, not an individual house. Possibly expand, to the network for all their safe houses in the area, not just those in one city. Major military bases such as their training camps are notable, but probably not individual houses. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any kind of policy- or guideline-based rationale in your comment? Ironholds (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V, and WP:N for not having separate articles. WP:N and WP:V, for the existence of these houses as a group & there being enough sources in the aggregate. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N doesn't cover it. WP:N requires significant coverage of the subject, what we've got here is brief mentions. Ironholds (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm taken aback at the vehemence of Sherurcij's Keep argument, which throws up a good deal of rhetoric flying in the teeth of WP:AGF without actually addressing the nom's argument. I am astonished that an editor of longstanding has racked up over 30,000 edits without being aware that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, or that - far from being optional - WP:V is the fundamental, irreducible value of the encyclopedia. It is not remotely enough, as Sherurcij ought to know, to assert that someday reliable sources might exist which satisfy the requirement of multiple, third-party, reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail. They must be present now, and so far they are not. Failing that, policy holds that an article cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 17:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There are currently over half a dozen active {{afd}}s on articles on suspected safehouse/guesthouses, and Afghan training camps. As I noted in this afd I started most of these articles -- over three years ago. While I started them in good faith I now think some of the smaller ones should be merged and redirected to a larger article. But others require their own unique article. I think this is one of those. In the interest of brevity I won't repeat my arguments for selectively merging and redirecting some, while keeping others. Geo Swan (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This nomination asserts the article is: "a textbook example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE". I just checked WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and I found it had list five different classes: Plot-only descriptions, Lyrics databases, Excessive listing of statistics, News reports, FAQs. No offense, but I don't see how this article could be described as any of those classes. Geo Swan (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This nomination challenges the references used in the article, apparently challenging whether they are reliable, or independent. The "independence" requirement is that the references be independent from the subject of the article. If the documents we were citing were written by al Qaida, then our references would not be "independent", as per the wording of the policy. Documents written by anyone else ARE independent of the subject of the article. So, I suggest that this aspect of the nomination is based on a misunderstanding of policy. Geo Swan (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've challenged it under the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added additional material on claims made in late 2001 and early 2002 that documents abandoned in Al Qaeda safehouses in Kabul shows the progress Al Qaeda was making in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Geo Swan (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are coverage of the documents and the WMDs, not the safe house. Holy shit, look, the references mention the name of the guy who typed up the report! Shall we have an article on him now? After all, he's mentioned 100 times, which is all the "significant" coverage we need according to you. Ironholds (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And Los Alamos is only the lab where atom scientists worked on the first atom bomb. Yet we cover the lab where they did the work.
    
    Yes, in some cases we cover the author of a report. How many reports are known by the name of the primary author? Answer? Lots. In some cases those authors merit coverage. Whether we cover the author depends on the the author's mandate, how much scope and initiative they were called upon for, whether the conclusions were controversial, whether they had been called upon to draft other controversial reports. But, since we are discussing Al Qaeda's Kabul safe houses here, let's have a discussion about when the authors of reports merit their own articles at some other time and place. Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I find the nominations challenges to the reliability of the references illustrates a very different understanding of the wikipedia's policy on verifiability than my own. If a non-notable blogger makes assertions about someone -- that is unreliable. When a government agency makes an assertion it is reliable that, at least, that this is the government agency's official position. WP:VER says we aim for what is verifiable, not what is true. It seems to me that what our nominator is really challenging is whether the government's assertions are accurate. Determining whether the assertions in a official government document are reliable is not our role. During the last American administration some politically appointed officials were criticized for politicizing science. They were criticized for reinterpreting the scientific conclusions of professional scientists. The one I remember best was the re-interpretation of the professional conclusions of professional scientists, on global warming. The documents this political appointee rewrote were widely regarded "unreliable" from a purely factual point of view. But, IIRC, what was not in dispute was that while the appointed official lacked the expertise to reliably rewrite the conclusions of professional scientists, he did have the chart of organization authority to rewrite those documents, and that his rewrites had become the official position of those agencies. I suggest we would then, and still would now, state that, at the time he rewrote those conclusions those were the official positions of his agency. We would not suppress the appropriate neutral and referenced coverage of this official position, no matter how widely doubted its factual reliability was. We would not suppress the appropriate neutral and referenced coverage of this official position, based on our own personal doubts over its factual reliability. To do so would be to lapse from WP:VER and WP:NPOV. Suppressing neutral material over our own personal doubts over its factual reliability is, IMO, a form of editorializing. Geo Swan (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination is based on WP:N, not WP:V. I accept that we can verify the information that we've got, the problem is that the sources, while good enough to verify this, don't cover the subject enough to pass WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Suppressing neutral material?" Material about what? These sources do nothing more than assert that safe houses exist. No sources have been proffered doing anything else. Since when is WP:ITEXISTS a valid argument to Keep at AfD? Ravenswing 02:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I would encourage people to take a brief look at Najim Jihad, a similar article dealing with a safehouse in Jalalabad; through piecing together different reports - none of which acknowledge the other's existence, and some of which refuse to use the "accepted" name of the safehouse, we are able to host an article that sources FBI affadavits, CSRT/ARB tribunal proceedings, CNN, TIME Magazine, the Toronto Star, and other sources. While this article is not yet at that level of completeness, it is on its way there, even if it takes six months or six years to reach that point - we do not delete WP articles because they are "incomplete" - the subject is notable, even if we are currently lacking secondary sources. Take for example, the issue of if a previously-unknown lawyer is suddenly announced to be appointed to the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice; now there may not be any secondary sources we've yet been able to find giving his biography, but someone may add a WP article piecing together what can be found in primary sources about him - as long as the article is neutral and referenced - we will simply have to wait for a book about the man to be published in five years..but we won't delete the article in the meantime as he meets the threshold of notability. An article's subject is either notable or is not notable, the amount of secondary sources is irrelevant - if I were to publish my memoirs and devote a chapter to my next-door neightbour growing up...he is not suddenly notable and worthy of a WP article even though there are "secondary sources" - likewise if an article is created about Crispin Sorhaindo, the former President of Dominica in the 1990s...the fact there are no "secondary sources" about his life would not mean his article merits deletion since he is notable. Again, these articles will incorporate details about who stayed at them, when they were destroyed, whether people were killed in the bombing/raid, and similar details - but the details do take time to filter out of places like Guantanamo into mainstream press. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is by definition not notable because it fails the most basic test of notability. "it will be notable in six months or six years" is directly addressed in "arguments to avoid", and should not be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Ironholds (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, that's a WP:CRYSTAL argument, Sherurcij. You speculate, without a shred of evidence to support that speculation, that after three years sources which discuss these particular guest houses in detail will emerge. Muddling the issue with irrelevant parallels - the former president of a sovereign nation is prima facie notable, whether there are fifty sources or none - doesn't much help. When all is said and done, your arguments aren't, as they should be, about whether or not these articles meet the policies and guidelines for inclusion. You're arguing why the policies should be interpreted to permit the articles you like to stick around, and this isn't the proper venue to debate that. Ravenswing 08:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. 08:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please be specific about which of the five points in WP:GNG you think this article does not satisfy? WP:SYNTH bars the tying together of WP:RS to introduce novel interpretations not present in the orginal WP:RS. Since no novel interpretations have been introduced here I believe you are incorrect to name SYNTH as a problem here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've generally asserted through the article that there's a single guest house in Kabul, and done this by tying together dozens of one-sentence references. Synthesis. Ironholds (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I trust that this is honestly how you read the article. I don't believe that there was just a single al Qaeda guest house. I don't believe that I wrote that there was just a single al Qaeda guest house. "Guest house" and "safe house" are always referred to in the plural, or specific instances are referred to as "a guest house". But if you honestly read the article as if it asserts that there was just a single al Qaeda guest house, this is an editorial concern that I believe you should have raised on the talk page instead of nominating the article for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - And I would have done that if it was my primary concern, but as I've told you multiple times, it was not. I'm not raising that issue here, simply predicting what Niteshift's response to you would probably have been. Ironholds (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        (1) WP:NOTCRYSTAL -- could you let other contributors speak for themselves? (2) If you are going to be making nominations for deletion, would you consider clearly placing your primary concern in your initial nomination? Every time I spend my time countering some point of yours, you say: "Yeah, but that was never my primary concern." Geo Swan (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry, I cunningly hid my concern in the sentence "It fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". I understand that such a complex and difficult enigma is hard to puzzle through. Ironholds (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Against The Dark 2:Darkest

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 early close per WP:SNOW. This is a probable hoax that fails WP:V in any event. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against The Dark 2:Darkest

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

fails WP:CRYSTAL, or alternately just a joke - I can't find any references to a sequel, and given that the original was only released this year I find it highly unlikely that they've started planning already. Ironholds (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No confirmation that it has begun filming, no article per WP:NFF.—Kww(talk) 12:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely hoax or hopeful rumour; certainly fails WP:NFF. JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As editors above have stated, films without evidence that they're actually in production don't meet WP:NFF. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hart Family

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 15:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hart Family

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

Delete,, Notability unclear and appears to only be a family geneaology Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The family has four notable members (HLA Hart being highly notable) and the link to Polish monarchy is an interesting, probably largely unknown, fact.
DeleteNon-natable article--Notedgrant (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per #2 of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Connect the notable individuals within their respective articles. Location (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable individuals don't make the family notable. WP:NOTDIR. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Kids' Choice Awards

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

The result was delete. No argument has been provided as to how it doesn't fall under WP:CRYSTAL. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Kids' Choice Awards

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2010 Kids' Choice Awards

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

The 2009 Kids Choice Awards just took place, so this is an obvious hoax. None of the information is referenced. Until it actually happens, it fails WP:N. NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 12:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag as future event or delete. I think they can happen somewhere. The Junk Police (reports|works) 12:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag as future event. Even though it may not be completely referenced, it will most likely happen, so why not create an article about it now? User:Blazing Inferno (User talk:Blazing Inferno|

works) 22:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - No sources will become avalible for some time Francium12 (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I removed some of the blatantly incorrect information about nominations that was added by anon users. No KCA nomination information has been released, this was essentially made up information. I also took the page back to the last edit before HOAX information began to be added. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added a future tag and changed the tense to future. --Auric (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's seriously minimal information available. Most of the article was correctly deleted as blatant crystal-ball gazing, and what's left is very brief and trivial. Re-create the article nearer the time when substantial information is actually available to warrant it - "they'll probably happen" is sadly insufficient justification for any kind of verifiable encyclopedia article. ~ mazca ^talk 00:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in early 50's rock music

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in early 50's rock music

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Racism in early 50's rock music

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

This article is told from one POV, therefore violating NPOV, and it has no reliable sources, anyway, to back it up. A declined speedy. ceranthor 11:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music: racism in the 1950's now nominated as well. Ironholds (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Racism in early rock and roll. Sigh. Ironholds (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also Racism in the early rock music (separate AfD going on) and Racism in early rock music (no AfD yet). – Kieran T ^(talk) 10:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well list Racism in early rock music here, too. ceranthor 10:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks references, appears to be little more than an essay. Might be possible to create a good article on the topic but not based on the current article. Nothing worth saving here. RadioFan (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — essay. – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV-ridden essay made up of WP:OR. Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ~~"Commentators at the time were quoted to say, 'rock n roll has got to go'". And please take the essay "Racism in early 50's rock music" with you.~~ Mandsford (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is one of at least three such essays that have been posted on Wikipedia, apparently as part of an assignment from a schoolteacher who thought it would be a good idea. My apologies to User:Jassinta F; clearly, you're a student who is being required to do this. Shame on the teacher who subjects his pupils to the criticism of others. Mandsford (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essay Francium12 (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no sources and I couldn't find any. Definitely not notable – sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 08:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See this MfD, as well. ceranthor 11:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism unless someone objects. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all delete comments above. The article is not even particularly accurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amerinda Church

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amerinda Church

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

Contested PROD. I can find no independent confirmation that this organization is notable - see, e.g., Google or the "find sources" links above. JohnCD (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with option of recreation should notability as per WP:NOTABILITY be established. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - created by a non-notable organization, recently, and with no independent sources. The copyright mark is a sure sign of spam. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly promotional, no educational value. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Delete Nothing on Google News, web search finds mailing lists and their own website. Fails WP:N. Admrboltz (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editix xml editor

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

The result was redirect to List of XML editors. — Jake Wartenberg 20:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editix xml editor

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

Software with no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but delete all the XML Editor product page like Oxygen XML Editor, delete too this page List of XML editors. Sorry I disagree with your wishes, this is an information page about a product like other products, people may want to have information about a product too, you should remove macintosh, windows too because this is commercial activities ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo1972 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the fact that it is commercial isn't why I want it deleted. The software fails WP:N, our notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject". You have not shown this coverage exits, and I can't find it. Ironholds (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:BEFORE, alternatives to deletion should be exhausted before an article is nominated for deletion. I am surprised to see that Ironholds appears either not to have considered, or to have rejected, the possibility of a redirect to List of XML editors. Why is that, Ironholds?
Pending a response, I will go with the interim recommendation of redirect to List of XML editors.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because quite honestly I didn't know the list existed. Ironholds (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Would you agree it should be redirected rather than deleted?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its an acceptable outcome, but I can't see the article creator agreeing to it. He's edit warred repeatedly just over the AfD template. Ironholds (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. Thank you for your help Jo1972 (talk)

Changing my !vote to redirect and protect per Ironholds' latest remark.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails notability, redirect to a list does nothing helpful. If anyone would like to find information about it, it will find one in a list using search. --GreyCat (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite the article to make it neutral as it's written like an ad at the moment. There are several reviews of this software on Google News and it appears twice on Google Books which makes me think it's notable. See for instance [35], [36] and [37]. It's also on Apple.com althought I can't tell if it's self puslished or not: [38] Laurent (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The google news mentions are single mentions, failing to pass WP:N's muster, the first reference is a user-submitted comment, not a review and the second reference is too short to count under WP:N. Ironholds (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this is self published except if you think they use Deutch, Spanish and French languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo1972 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protest bands

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Protest song. NW (Talk) 15:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protest bands

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

No evidence of this term being used. There are certainly bands who weave political messages into their songs, but it isn't our place to arbitrarily declare them "protest bands". Ironholds (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect. Protest song is an encyclopedic subject, but protest bands (a term not in particularly common usage) are just bands that perform protest songs. I did find some bands described as "protest bands" in news articles ([39], [40], [41], [42], [43]), but in the absence of anything more substantial, a redirect to Protest song would appear to be the best approach, that article already covering protest singers and bands to some extent. --Michig (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, the single link in the very short article is to antiwarsongs.org, so making this a redirect to Protest song makes sense to me too. Protest singer seems to be a commonly used term -- Foetusized (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not enough content to be too worried, but you are mistaken about usage. 1,240 Yahoo hits for "protest bands" minus "Iran" (football players being paid to wear green protest wrist bands). 4,870 Google hits for same.Anarchangel (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't really a lot of search hits in the scheme of things. "protest singer" gets 50,400 Google hits, and "protest song" 262,000. It isn't unusual for apparently random combinations of two words to generate similar levels of search results, e.g. "guitar chocolate" gets 2,240 Google hits.--Michig (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of JB Hi-Fi Stores

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of JB Hi-Fi Stores

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

fails WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Ironholds (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Adds no encyclopaedic value, Wikipedia is not a directory and is also cities no verifiable or reliable sources. Bidgee (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JB Hi-Fi stores are medium-sized and typically don't receive much, if any, media coverage when they open and close. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This is material for JB's own web-site, not for an encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-apartheid

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-apartheid

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

The article doesn't have a lot of substance to it. To find out about "anti-apartheid" activism, one could simply go to the apartheid article and find the same two articles linked there in the appropriate sections. uKER (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a useful disambiguation page. –Moondyne 13:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep navigationally useful, non-orphan base-name dab with at least two entries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JHunterJ. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bourgeois personality

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Bourgeois personality

Comment: how do we close this discussion? Hobgoblein (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is poorly written, poorly researched, overly opinionated, just plain incorrect in many instances, and quite unsuitable for a grade school classroom let alone encyclopedic inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.104.220 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article itself seems to serve to legitimate encyclopedic purpose. It seems to be restating information about social classes already covered in other articles. Jamesofur (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI think a few sentences directing further attention to Bourgeois would be fine but most of the text (even of the current version) should go. Hobgoblein (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Is this article really being considered for deletion, or are we trying to make it look this way? Go ahead and edit or remove the bit about the billionaire if you want, but note the expand section tag. DinDraithou (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep>Wrong forum article nominated to circumvent edit-war warnings and content dispute. Abuse of AfD. Your option is to propose a merger. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a completely different person then the person who was doing the edit waring (I was drawn to the article because of the vandalism he was doing being brought up in huggle I think it's a bad article that doesn't belong here I'm not looking for a merger. If the community disagrees thats fine but I in no way think it's an abuse of AfD. Jamesofur (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is abuse. Deploy the "propose merge"-tag and discuss. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking to merge the article, I'm asking to delete it. I think my original nomination reasoning was badly worded (at the time the current content wasn't there because of the edit wars) In my opinion the current content makes the article completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. Jamesofur (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, now we're talking, instead of tit-for-tats. Give me the link to an article or articles where it's already covered. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the legitimate points are made or could be made in topics such as Middle Class Upper middle class American middle class. However (and the real reason I think it deserves to be considered for deletion at the moment) is that it is written in such a blatant POV format that it in many ways could be considered an attack article and would need a total rewrite to fix that.Jamesofur (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Got me. Also found Bourgeoisie. On further reflection, I find the title's use of "personality" highly unsual. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I truly appreciate your willingness to talk about it :) Thank you :) Jamesofur (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Changed vote after clarification (see above). Seb az86556 (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a democracy, and you are two users, both taking up too much space in this vacuum. The existence of the article predates briefly debated additions. Give informed reasons and I'll support your fashions. DinDraithou (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct it is not a democracy. It's original incarnation here is not actually that bad at all. However, in my opinion it is currently written as an attack article (mostly by you). Jamesofur (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is not actually that bad at all. Fashioned opinion. Do you feel like you know about it? DinDraithou (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close without an outcome. As an overriding consideration, plausible search terms should not be redlinks, and this is a plausible search term. Therefore the only sensible outcomes for this AfD would be "keep", "merge", or "redirect"—all of which are, in terms of AfD, variants of a "keep" outcome.
Personally I think there's a very strong case for a merge with bourgeoisie, which I note has already been proposed, but whether or not that's the outcome is an editorial decision rather than an administrative one, so it should be discussed on the article's talk page and not at AfD.
In other words, there's nothing for AfD to do here, so the speedy close is the obvious answer.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Whatever potential the subject has, this text looks like opinionated original research, somebody's not very good school paper, referenced to dictionaries and works of fiction. The article's startling claims that the American middle class routinely abuses its children -- American parents achieving a diagnosis and prescription for their child, often from a private physician or psychiatrist, are frequently engaged in middle class child abuse. This is commonly sexual seduction... -- are referenced to an Australian newspaper from the 1970s. An article making these startling claims needs better sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little surprised at this !vote, Smerdis/Ihcoyc; I had anticipated that you would be one of those who perceived this as a plausible search term. Are you certain?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has been edited substantially since I offered that opinion, and the bizarre section about child abuse removed entirely. It surely looks better now. I'm not sure now whether this merits a separate article, or ought to simply be a section of bourgeoisie. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with bourgeoisie. I'm totally for this. My original wish was to add the material there, but I got the impression of middle class power when I tried to remove two one line aspirational statements from the page instead of tagging them. I should have waited for consensus of course. Anyway, it looks like the majority of what I have added to this article is not covered elsewhere on Wikipedia, although it is commonly enough spoken, mostly in Europe including the United Kingdom, the source of the en. before wikipedia.org. The trouble with the bourgeoisie article is that it only covers the deeply held opinions and aspirations of perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 of Americans and less Britons. Status conscious Middle class child abuse can be Googled, and needs to be on Wikipedia somewhere. The shortcomings of private American psychiatry are well known internationally, and the "bourgeois personality" is a major social factor, especially when there is no chance of coverage on psychiatry pages (policed by American psychiatry students). I also have another French film, from just a few years ago, to add. Charlotte Rampling gets gloriously bourgeois French in it. DinDraithou (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede there are some problems, hence the tags, but the article is written to be brutally frank, which the title allows for. Plus it isn't close to finished. There are thousands like it with no sources at all but which don't make the middle classes angry. What we really need to delete are the countless minor sportsperson articles. Anyone ever tried to search a surname? DinDraithou (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is irredeemable, unsubstantiated, opinionated twaddle. The author lays claim to European, and specifically British, perspectives, although his perverse opinions on class and aristocracy would be unrecognisable to a native of the UK, and these "insights" appear to have been garnered entirely from watching far too much Sunday-night "nostalgia" television (e.g. Monarch of the Glen and Foyle's War), which the author cites as if a credible sociological source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.165.188 (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's what I'm doing, laying claim to historical European perspectives (not gotten from television, added for certain readers). The title contains two important words, which beg for them. You've just made an aspirational statement, expressing the hopes of your social class as your consensus. DinDraithou (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible recreation

If a little middle class wrath, American and British, forces the deletion of this article, part of it might be tweaked and recreated with another title. The "commercial aspects of American psychiatry section" could be split elsewhere, but the military versus mercantile discussion is core and of historical importance. Bourgeois mentality? DinDraithou (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term is Bourgeois worldview. Abductive (reasoning) 08:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Research type article

I'm wasting this day on the internet, going round in circles, and here I am again, because I'm the main contributor and now have to pettily defend an article I didn't start.

What exactly is "incorrect", and how can an article titled like this be "poorly researched"? This is not a research type article, but an "obvious, duh" type article, an "opinion" article, and I thought I would give it some familiar (to some) opinions, because bourgeoisie is just as opinionated and is "little worldish". Blar, I wish I'd never written anything on the commercial middle class American psychoactive drug and child abuse culture. That's what this is all about. DinDraithou (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are frustrated by writing this article, why not just abandon the damn thing and return to editing on Ireland-related topics, about which you appear to have considerable expertise. I don't know why you are wasting your time on this tedium. If, for health reasons, you simply must vent your spleen against the iniquities of the bourgeoisie, then start a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.165.188 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm tired of it, and finished off with a few tweaks and wikilinks. DinDraithou (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work to be honest ( I know you may not believe me) and I think your right about the type of article which in many ways is my biggest problem. It is an opinion title and it's very hard to get any "facts" into it because of that. That to be honest is the biggest problem I have with it just that that type of article doesn't totally belong here. To make matters worse I think the title sort of asks to be written in a point of view style which specifically targets certain social groups in a depreciating way which again doesn't belong here :( Jamesofur (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Before maybe going forward with a complicated partial merge with bourgeoisie, we could 1) change the title, and 2) add opposing views. I just came across McCloskey (further reading), who defends bourgeois society and says it is better for the welfare of the general populace. Probably true, unless one happens to be a born contentious militarist, aristocrat or religious person. DinDraithou (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nobody cares if the bourgeois are important or whatever ive never heard a middle class person talk like that. do add the mccloskey study to an article on the sociology of economic classes because thats meaningful. Hobgoblein (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Re: 88.66.165.188. I really do need to return to Irish topics and abandon this. There was this VP of General Electric... a truly awful person. DinDraithou (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish here by saying that I've added four titles under a new Bourgeois_personality#Further_reading section. DinDraithou (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs a good deal of expansion but expandable. The topic is indeed discussed under that name. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is a content fork of Bourgeoisie. Content forks are not to be tolerated. Abductive (reasoning) 06:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it still listed? It only got listed in the first place because of the repeated blanking by one single new editor, who never gave a good reason, only calling it "offensive content". I don't understand how it could be deleted now after the additional references were added. A merge could still be the eventual goal but that means approval from the Marxism focused writers of Bourgeoisie. I think it could be retitled Bourgeois mentality until they are talked to. DinDraithou (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make that six references. DinDraithou (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doubled. Make that twelve references. DinDraithou (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal I'm ok with withdrawing my proposal at the moment, it is definitely much better off then when I originally proposed deletion and while I still have some content level problems they are not in my opinion appropriate as reasons to delete the article. I think that the best way to proceed in the long term would be a merge but that may take a bit of time to work things out with what appears to be a very different group of editors at Bourgeoisie. Jamesofur (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are still problems. The article accurately represents, but a fair amount is synthetic in the extreme, which gives an original synthesis or even original research appearance to certain passages. The fact that some are "POV" is not the real problem because a lot of Wikipedia is just sourced, "academic" POV, if it's sourced at all. Again we have to look at Bourgeoisie. DinDraithou (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

im seconding james here. im kind of impressed with the new changes. Hobgoblein (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bangz

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bangz

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

Delete Does not pass WP:BAND. No sources establishing notability. #5) An act signed to a major label should have two albums released on the label. The debut album has yet to be released. Wolfer68 (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too soon, fails WP:BAND. Come back after two albums released. JohnCD (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - found an article on the web site for a music magazine [44] but that's not enough. One single released and one article doesn't meet WP:BAND. -- Foetusized (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Str8cash (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Drunken Dead Guy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete side here gave rationales that were in line with policy, and the keep side did not. NW (Talk) 15:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Drunken Dead Guy

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

Prod contested (though not by the creator, but oh well), so here we are. I feel it fails WP:MOVIE; lack of any real sources. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 06:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "The Drunken Dead Guy" is a comedy that has sold worldwide and has quite a few reviews easily found online.

It also marks the first time that Bill Hinzman played a zombie with dialog (going back to 1968 with "Night of the Living Dead").

The links listed below include an internet radio interview where Bill Hinzman called in himself to talk about his role in The Drunken Dead Guy.

This is more than enough support to keep the page on Wikipedia.

Veri72x (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources must be reliable and numerous. Interviews and blog posts do not count as primary sources; they're fine as supporting material, but as it is, I don't think they'll do. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 06:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keepThank you Veri72 for your help on this matter.

Something unusual was going on with this page earlier. Links and part of the write-up were being removed which would make it easier to delete. Why are people engaging in dirty tricks to try to delete this page?

Bloody-Disgusting, B-Independent, and Internet Movie Database are as reliable sources of movie info as any out there. Also, anybody who knows Bill Hinzman's voice will recognize him in the audio interview and learn that this legend from "Night of the Living Dead" is part of "The Drunken Dead Guy" movie. The info in the stub certainly shows "The Drunken Dead Guy" to be both entertaining and interesting enough to have a listing on Wikipedia. I don't see why anybody would try to delete it.

Sec4dr (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. I removed all of this material here as it was a copyright infringement of IMDb.com, Inc. You were clearly warned on your talk page here about copypasting copyrighted material to Wikipedia, but yet you blatantly refuse to acknowledge that policy per your comment above. You're pretending that you did not hear that you cannot copypaste copyrighted material to assume bad faith in other users to get your way. That's not going to work with me. You were clearly informed that you cannot copypaste copyrighted material from other websites, and your comments suggest that you are refusing those policies. MuZemike 07:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what??? That wasn't copyrighted material. That was a plot summary that is posted all over the web, not something owned by IMDb. Again, people shouldn't make changes to a listing they are trying to delete as that is a serious conflict of interest. Have a peaceful evening. Sec4dr (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the plot summary originally come from, then? I ask because merely being widely-distributed, as you claim, doesn't mean it's not copyrighted. And please try to assume better faith next time. We're not out to get you or anything like that. MuZemike 15:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't know the source of a description, you can't assume it is copyrighted and just hack up an article. It limits the info people have, and it is a serious conflict of interest to remove text and then try to delete the article for not having enough notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sec4dr (talk • contribs) 16:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until you tell me where it comes from, then the only thing I have to go by is that its a copyvio since the material displayed on a website under copyright. I am not trying to engage in any subertuge here like you're suggesting. We have a very strict policy on not accepting copypasta that comes from sites under copyright. My removal of said material is independent from whether this film is notable and hence whether inclusion is justified. Regards, MuZemike 16:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial coverage at best. The film does not assert its notability through reliable sources, therefore it is not suitable for inclusion. –blurpeace ^(talk) 07:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ Again, Bloody-Disgusting, B-Independent, and Internet Movie Database are as reliable sources of movie info as any out there. Nothing trivial about them. And a horror-comedy can't have more notability than a talking zombie Bill Hinzman which is supported in all sources. Sec4dr (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck above duplicate !vote. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Also some question in my mind about possible sockpuppetry with Sec4dr and Veri72x, and I have asked for an SPI. Frmatt (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "DELETE" is quite meaningless to say when there are no grounds for it. "The Drunken Dead Guy" has notability and reliable sourcess. Sec4dr (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following has been transcluded from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Drunken Dead Guy.

keep This page — Youngbriand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Assuming the topic is notable, keep, but remove all copyvio material. If you don't have a disclaimer or a license in hand, it is illegal to use content you just found somewhere on the web. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC) IANAL, TINLA, HTH, HAND[reply]

Weak Delete According to WP:MOVIE, valid references do not include "Trivial coverage, such as [...] "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database." It appears to me that the majority of the references fall within this category (or are a blog), with the only exception being the director interview at bloodydisgusting. I'm putting "weak delete" instead of simply "delete" due to the validity of that reference; I'm putting "weal delete" instead of "keep" because I don't think a single interview with the director on an obscure horror site constitutes enough notability for a Wikipedia article. Qinael (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep: This is a great movie.Funny as hell with the best use ever of an egg salad sandwich.......and there are no ugly women naked!!!! — Uncleguss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Please review WP:ILIKEIT. Thanks, –blurpeace ^(talk) 02:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – the Bloody-Disgusting source is the only one in the bunch that might be reliable and independent and gives some significant coverage. The others, however, are either not reliable sources or otherwise doesn't provide any other significant coverage needed to meet the general notability guideline. The B-Independent site deals with user-generated content and displays no fact-checking or reputation for accuracy. I'm also not convinced that the interview is enough, either to establish notability. MuZemike 18:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin the accounts User:Sec3dr and User:Veri72x are Confirmed socks of User:Sec4dr, and all three accounts have been indefinitely blocked. MuZemike 21:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Qinael's spot-on breakdown. (FWIW, I was the prod nominator, having encountered the article patrolling newpages from the back of the log; I searched at the time for verification and evidence of notability, and found none.) Gonzonoir (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep The only user generated content on B-Independent, outside of the Links Database or the Message Board system, is that generated by a single user, Allen Richards, the owner of the site. Since that person is me, any reference to the contrary is an out and out lie, and to defame the validity of the site - currently one of the only sites dedicated to exploring modern underground and DIY cinema with any depth, and certainly the longest running - is to do so with no knowledge of the site whatsoever. All fact checking is done my me personally, and feel free to contact any director of any of the 600+ films reviewed to search for inaccuracies - I stand by my reputation. I don't know what your tiff is with the director, nor do I care, but please don't defame the nature of what I've spent 10 years building. As for THE DRUNKEN DEAD GUY, I'll also stand by my assessment that it's a worthwhile example of no-budget videomaking exploring absurdest and satirical ideas of society, and is worth viewing for anyone interested in this type of avant garde cinema, an of traditional B-movie and Underground sensibilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almaric (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC) — Almaric (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Thanks for that clarification, Almaric. Do you happen to be the same user as posted earlier under Sec4dr? I'm asking because I notice you've only done two contributions ever, and this AfD marks the first in three years. So, I'm a little curious how you managed to find it. If you have a vested interest, please let us know ahead of time, as per WP:COI. For the record, I don't think anyone here has a "tiff" with the director - we're simply assessing whether or not this particular film of his is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedic entry. Assuming good faith on your posting, and assuming someone else provided the original link to your site (to fulfill WP:OR), I'm still going to have to say "Weak Delete" on the article itself. Considering the movie review opens by stating that the movie was sent by one of the actors themselves with a request for review doesn't help me believe in it's notability. Remember that Wikipedia isn't about how good something is - it's about how notable it is. This could be the best zombie movie in history on all accounts, but it doesn't merit inclusion unless it's notable as verified by reliable sources. - Qinael λαλεω 00:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, i'm not sure who Sec4dr is, and no, I don't contribute to wikipedia often, although I'm a nearly daily user. My suggestion, if you're able, is to track my IP address for that one. As for how I found out about this, easy, I received a note from the director stating that former associates who had succeeded in getting his individual entry removed from Wikipedia were also trying to do the same to the entry for this movie. I don't know what's going on, nor do I care, but to criticize the validity of the movie is either as the director says, pettiness, or complete ignorance regarding underground cinema, and I'd like to think that one is more understandable considering the circumstances. As for who sent the movie to me in the first place, if it wasn't Greff, then it must have been Tina Krause, who, as a notable actress in the New York/New Jersey underground scene, was extremely pleased with her work in this at the time. Unfortunately, I can't remember who, her or Greff, actually submitted the film, but I did speak to both of them around the time of review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.20 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - this is ridiculous. According to the "my talk" section, I've been "accused of being a sockpuppet" - something having to do with multiple accounts and spamming. So much for Qinael's good faith... Is this honestly what Wikipedia has been reduced to? My suggestion to the powers that be, check the logged IP address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almaric (talk • contribs) 15:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested I check your IP to verify you are not the same user aforementioned. I put in a request for it and notified you as proper courtesy dictates. I'd appreciate the sarcastic personal stabs stay off Wiki. Thanks. - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 17:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep : The sources noted are reliable within the confines of the genre.

It's understandable that some might question the film's notability. However, the appearances of several notable actors/personalities in the production seem to me a plausible argument for retention, as does the remarkably low budget. TVPowers (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm assuming you're referring to "Other evidence of Notability" in WP:FILM, specifically if "the film features significant involvement (ie. 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." Note the subpoint, however: "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." Assuming the "Talking zombie" role really is considerably as a "major part of (Bill Hinzman's) career," I don't think there's any way to conclude there's enough information to clutter up the relatively minuscule page on Bill Hinzman. If someone could provide some evidence that this counts as a "major part of his career," I might be swayed to support a merge with the Bill Hinzman page. If not, and unless there are other notable actors that are involved which I've missed, I'm still seeing this as a deletion. - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 02:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~: Why is this even an issue? I've heard discussions of this film on NY radio, Sirius radio and all over the Internet. The page needs to stay and be expanded. DO NOT EDIT what you don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncleguss (talk • contribs) 13:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncleguss, first off, nobody owns articles here. Anybody can edit or take any action on them within reason, guidelines, and policy; they don't necessarily have to know what the topic is to edit it. Second, you only say "keep" once and that's it; this is not a vote per se but a discussion on whether or not the article should be deleted. Third, do not post comments on the top of the page; all new posts go on the bottom of the page. Fourth, you need to sign your name after all of your messages with four tildes ~~~~, which generates your username and timestamp like everyone else has. MuZemike 16:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Qinael regarding other notable actors appearing in the film, one that comes to mind is cult favorite Tina Krause (an extensive list of credits at IMDB). Nationally known TV Horror Host John Zacherle and actor/comedian Rudy Ray Moore also are listed in the cast. I haven't seen the film in question, but I have heard of it from a number of sources, which strongly suggests to me that the production is notable.

The sources cited in its Wikipedia entry are reliable, and certainly seem easily verifiable. Unless this independent SOV film is for some reason being held to the same criterion as a major studio production, I'm left confused as to why deletion would be desirable. Offhand, it seems like an example of grassroots film production worth noting. TVPowers (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree that no one owns this page which includes both of us. Considering how many people have purchased this film and know about it, I am curious why this is even in question. Now.... "I'll retire to Bedlam." E. Scrooge 24.56.141.134 (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP agree that no one owns this page which includes both of us. Considering how many people have purchased this film and know about it, I am curious why this is even in question. Now.... "I'll retire to Bedlam." E. Scrooge 24.56.141.134 (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as well. In addition to all the web support this film has, it has made appearances at horror conventions. They introduced me to Lloyd from Troma films, Joe Franklin, and John zacherle. Murrmade (I don't have a tilda on my keyboard)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Murrmade (talk • contribs) 18:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE) Chummers !voting keep, please note that arguments to policy, not sheer numbers, wins an AfD debate. Please also note that canvassed !votes will be ignored by the closing administrator, as will !votes from sockpuppets. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Delete Utterly fails WP:MOVIE and is in no way notable. It may be funny to some, but that's not a criteria for inclusion. None of those sources are verifiably reliable for inclusion. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This film brings Bill Hinzman back to his classic zombie role. It's also a great tribute to the schlock theatre of the early 1970's. Any late night UHF Creature Feature would have played this movie and the fans of such films would have added it to their "loved it" list.B Movie Lover13 (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC) — B Movie Mover13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please see WP:ILIKEIT and do not post on the top but on the bottom of the page. MuZemike 17:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While it's possible that some of the users here are not expressing their positions properly; by noting close observations of Wikipedia protocols, I must protest at what seems like unwarranted accusations of bad faith and/or fraudulent behavior.

Basically, it appears to me that this discussion has decended into the realm of clashing opinions as to what constitues notability, and the rejection by some of what normally (in the field of independent horror films) would constitue reliable sources. Their basic verifiablity should not be in question, from what I can glean from the section on what is meant byverifiably. Of course, the above suggests to me that the guidelines on WP:FILM may need revision, allowing for 'special case' status for films that are not intended as mainstream fare. TVPowers (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Then bring it up at WT:FILM. This is not the place to have such meta-discussion. And you are right in that there is bad faith and/or fraudulent behavior. There has been confirmed sock puppetry going on as well as clear off-wiki canvassing and meatpuppetry in an attempt to votestack. MuZemike 19:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MOVIE and WP:GNG. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I just came across a clip of Rudy Ray Moore from this film. To see the late great Dolemite, the inventor of party records, describing his dream about a drunken dead guy, that by itself makes this movie noteworthy. Rayemite (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC) — Rayemite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
In response to MuZemike, I wish to note that I did not intend to begin a meta-discussion of the WP:Film guidelines here, but rather to suggest that some of the arguments regarding deletion or inclusion stem from how users are interpeting them. (Some strictly, some loosely.) Regarding bad faith actions, I assume that you mean that individuals from both sides of the debate are engaging in off-site canvassing. In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit this is how the matter first came to my attention. However, I have been a user and occasional contributor to Wikipedia for several years, and spent some time checking the merits and sources of the stub in question before venturing an opinion. Nor do I have any connection to the film or filmmakers. (As indicated above, I have not seem the film.) Sockpuppetry is in my view a more serious matter, and I would join in strong disapproval of such actions, if confirmed. TVPowers (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unnotable film that fails both WP:NF and WP:N in general. And the serious, and obvious, meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry going on should probably be addressed (and some format fixes done above). Hope someone has an SPI prepared. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPIs won't be of much use because there's known off-wiki canvassing here. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. Seems like there is an SPI for some of the named accounts, but as you note, there is obvious off-wiki canvassing occurring as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ I'm laughing here! Sockpuppertry? Get a life! The country is in a severe recession, unemployemnt is over 10% and some clowns here have as their lives goal to eliminate this funny movie. Get a fuckin' life!24.56.141.134 (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC) — 24.56.141.134 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You will be warned for making personal attacks. MuZemike 00:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few mentions in niche magazines don't get past WP:NF to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and considering the number of sock/meatpuppets Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I have been unable to find significant coverage about this film. Cunard (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep I bought this DVD online about a year ago and was happy to see the well deserved page on Wiki last month. Now I'm horrified to see an attempt to see it deleted by people with zero knowledge of B-movies and it is being deleted with such venom. In fact, after reading this discussion page it appears that anyone who supports the article will be bullied by the other side and hit with accusations. The argument about the DVD gets lost, which is probably the intention. I for one see a film with 4 major cult figures (Tina Krause, Bill Hinzman, Rudy Ray Moore, and John Zacherle), and especially with Bill Hinzman bringing back his Night of the Living Dead role, this time with comic dialog, this DVD along with its reliable external links, can have no serious argument against its remaining on Wiki. I walk on eggshells and give it a STRONG KEEP. Zomcult74 (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC) — Zomcult74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 01:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somatics

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somatics

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

Nominated for deletion per WP:DICT. Please expand the article (if possible) so that it is encyclopedic, and remove this afd when it is completed. <3 bunny 05:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. As the nominator implicity notes, it is possible for this entry to be made appropriate to an encyclopædia, but at present it is a dictionary entry. (However, I note that the nominator seems to propose the wrong sort of procedure here.) —SlamDiego_←T 06:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Annoyingly, I can't close this under WP:SK ground 1 because User:SlamDiego has !voted "delete". Nevertheless, I do recommend a speedy close. Everyone so far agrees that it would be possible to write an encyclopaedic article with this title; and so do I.
The nominator and SlamDiego are both focusing on the current state of the article, which is an egregious failure to comply with WP:BEFORE. At AfD, our role is to evaluate the article's potential state. It is not appropriate to nominate something for AfD to try to force someone else to do a lot of work bringing the article up to scratch. Improve it yourself instead.
Therefore I recommend a snow closure as a nomination that fails WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, you're quite wrong. Since I've not nominated the article, I simply cannot have violated WP:BEFORE, egregiously or otherwise. And, as a matter of logic and of procedure, to support a nomination to delete is not the same thing as to agree with the reason or motivation of the nominator. I am not seeking to force someone to improve the article (I specifically noted that “the nominator seems to propose the wrong sort of procedure here”); I'm seeking to have an entry that is just a dictionary definition removed from article space, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If it is removed by appropriate replacement, that is fine with me. —SlamDiego_←T 11:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - On WP:BEFORE: I also remarked on WP:PRESERVE, which is policy. If you agree that it would be possible to write an encyclopaedic article on this topic, then would you also agree that this title should not be a redlink?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You began by accusing me of an egregious violation of WP:BEFORE, and noting that you later invoked WP:PRESERVE isn't going to remove the absurdity of the accusation. Further, WP:PRESERVE wasn't meant to contradict WP:DICTIONARY. Your question is equivocal. I certainly wouldn't agree with the proposition that any entry is better than a red-link so long as a proper entry could in theory be written. If such were made policy, Wikipedia could be filled with a sea of entries that were nothing but plausible-sounding titles; it would almost perfectly fail its users. Part of what is required of an entry is indication of “notability” from “reliable sources”. Now, if you can persuade the community that I am a reliable source, so that my word that a subject is notable is sufficient, then I will be most pleased, and perhaps we can change my vote on this article. But if you try to extend this status to <3 bunny, then my pleasure will be more than offset by my concern. And if you propose to do this for even more editors, well, I cannot embrace that at all. —SlamDiego_←T 12:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not agree with you at all. I think WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE both make it entirely clear that the thing to do with unsatisfactory content is to fix it, not to delete it. I think I have been quite clear that this is my position, and I do not see how it is equivocal.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I said was equivocal, as you know, was your question. I can walk you through various interpretations if you'd like. As to the rest of your latest comment, well, it's just bald contradiction without further argument. —SlamDiego_←T 10:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the formal creator of the article I suppose I should say something. I originally created it as a REDIRECT when looking up information, and have no opinion on deletion: no objection, no firm support. I think the content of "Somatic disciplines" got moved here after I created the REDIRECT. Pol098 (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I nominated this for deletion is because I felt that the information here is insufficient to develop an article out of. I don't believe this violates WP:BEFORE, as a dictionary entry is not something that can just be transformed into an encyclopedic article. If necessary, delete the article first, then recreate it when it is in a better state. WP:PRESERVE acts on articles that have content that can and should be preserved. This is a dictionary entry. Also, as a clarification, I was not trying to force anyone to fix the article; I was merely trying to imply that if a fix is possible, then this article could still be worth keeping. <3 bunny 21:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning, and I sympathise with it, but I am afraid that unless the outcome of this AfD is "delete", Wikipedia's content licencing system requires us to retain the contribution history so we can give due credit to the contributors. This may seem silly but our licences are rather clear.
"Delete" is only an appropriate outcome if this title should be a redlink. However, even if this article is only a dictionary definition, it should become a soft redirect to Wiktionary. You see, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but our sister project Wiktionary is, and the convention is that we direct users to Wiktionary whenever a dictionary definition is needed.
A soft redirect to Wiktionary is technically a variant of a "keep" outcome at AfD.
In this case I am convinced that an encyclopaedic article could be written, and I am also sure that a soft redirect to wiktionary would be appropriate until such an article exists.
On thinking about this some more, I shall boldly create the soft redirect now; revert me if you disagree.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the page in its current state (soft redirect) is permissible per Wiki guidelines, then I'll withdraw this AfD. <3 bunny 17:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumberjacking

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lumberjacking

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

Non-notable unreleased film lacking GHits of substance and with no GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM ttonyb1 (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if deleted, this should redirect to Logging 76.66.192.144 (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not, as the film is called Lumberjacking, and even if deleted today could return in 3 months when it gets released and gets additional coverage. A redirect to an unrelated article would be confusing. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The film is yet to be released and promotion of the premiere has not begun since it is 3 months away. However, the film has a significant following already having had a large grassroots promotional campaign throughout Rhode Island as well as viral promotion with over a 1000 fans of the film on facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lumberjacking/68955318740?ref=ts), also the film has passed IMDb standards as a film that is being released to the public (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1492970/) with links to the people involved who have also worked on films that are also available to the public. For more information on the group involved, their website is richcampent.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richcampent (talk • contribs) 04:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Eluchil404 (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please help us understand how this film meets the criteria in film.

Delete - no coverage to establish notability for this film -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and userfy to author. Allow return in 2 or 3 months if it can then meet WP:NF. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christos Kotsakis

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

The result was deleted per author request at the talk page. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 12:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Kotsakis

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

Autobiography. Much of the information is obviously self-promotional and/or uncited. He may deserve an article because of the books he has written, but this current article is basically spam and would need to be extensively rewritten. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Shaw

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Shaw

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

Non-notable actor. Fails WP:BIO. Although he has a number of roles in his IMDb profile, I have been unable to find any reliable sources about him. Note: There are many false positives in the Google News Archive; I limited the search down to "Jimmy Shaw" actor, "Jimmy Shaw" "Forced Vengeance", etc. but have found nothing. Cunard (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of meeting WP:ENTERTAINER. Cheers, CP 05:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to clear notability bar for Wikipedia. But IMDB is the perfect place for this entry. TruthGal (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Khater

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of Khater

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

Procedural nom. Page was tagged by 80.108.124.14 - The IP's statement on the talkpage was:

The page includes a lot of details that are not true and most of them are based on lies. The book did talk about this family but never mentioned anything about them being around middle eastern countries, it is misquoted and obviously they quoted a book that no one could find nowadays so that we can't really make sure of whatever they are trying to write. The second and third editions of the book never mentioned this family and I doubt that the first edition of the book would have have done so.

Completing the nom; I am neutral at this time but I'll have a look and !vote appropriately. ~ mazca ^talk 10:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently verifiable; if the nominator's assertion that the book reference is fraudulent is correct, then I can't find any other coverage. Even if it is true, I'm dubious of keeping an article based on a vague claim backed up by one printing of a very old source. ~ mazca ^talk 22:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @227 · 04:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is probably some claim to notability, however, WP:V is always the relevant policy. The article was previously more substantial before the blanking of many sections, although it was still not referenced properly: [45]. Location (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sinister Slug

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

The result was redirect to List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants. A redirect makes sense here. The content is available for editor who is willing to merge anything useful from here. Tone 13:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sinister Slug

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

I declined the speedy deletion nomination as technically A7 doesn't apply, but notability is definitely lacking. Bringing it here for further evaluation –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's a one-shot in Sponge Bob. No real notability. Anything else on him to change my mind? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to the redirect target for the episode, or to a list of characters. JJL (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge: per nom, I was the one that put the CSD up. -Falcon8765 (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge into List_of_characters_in_SpongeBob_SquarePants. No need for a redirect, as I doubt that anyoneeven knows that this character exists. If someone types it, the aforementioned page will anyways come up in the search results. Redirects also take up as much space as the original article(Yes, I know about WP:PERF,but I still don't like unnecessary redirs.)ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 08:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manish, in terms of taking up space, a redirect is almost always cheaper than a deletion; because "deleting" material on Wikipedia just means hiding it from non-admins, and deletion discussions are expensive in editor time (as well as usually occupying more space than the article being considered). This page should really be called "Articles for Hiding".
Besides that, a merge includes a redirect because of Wikipedia's content licensing provisions and to preserve the article's history. Deletion only happens when AfD decides the article's title deserves to be a redlink.
I should clarify that the above is a remark and not a !vote of any kind.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List_of_characters_in_SpongeBob_SquarePants. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @224 · 04:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambrose, Louisiana (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 House of Wax. NW (Talk) 15:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose, Louisiana

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AFD happened in the dark days of early 2006, just a few months after the change from VFD, so it looked a lot like a straw poll for yay/nay deletion. The original nominator's rationale still stands: this article is about a fictional location with no assertion of its notability. The other articles User:Proto mentioned as examples are a) merged, b) real places which have the same name as a fictional place, c) well-referenced, or d) part of a long-running series and not just one, single movie. I support deletion over merging because all the relevant content is already mentioned in the plot section (this over-detailed description doesn't really help understand the movie better) and the lawsuit content existed before this article. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BEFORE, alternatives to deletion should be exhausted before an article is brought to AfD. In this particular instance, Axem Titanium appears either not to have considered, or to have rejected, the possibility of a redirect to House of Wax. Why is that, Axem Titanium?
Pending a response, I shall go with an interim recommendation of redirect to House of Wax.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, to respond to your question, it's an extremely unlikely search term; the average user will remember the name of the film before its setting. There is nothing to merge, and since the redirect isn't useful, I suggest deletion. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirects are cheap, and policy suggests using them in preference to AfD (which is expensive, in editor time and stored word-count for the encyclopaedia). I understand what you say but I still think policy should prevail in this instance, so after due consideration I shall stick with my !vote.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The lone occupant of what may be the dumbest idea ever for a category Category: Fictional cities and towns in Louisiana, this is an extended plot summary of the 2005 remake of House of Wax, and I can't see merging this much detail. There aren't that many fictional towns that are memorable. I don't even consider the remake memorable, but this ain't no Mayberry, NC. Mandsford (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nietzsche and the Nazis

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche and the Nazis

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

Others have made complaints about this film's "notability." I, however, watched this movie on Netflix. I tried to look up secondary sources for this film but couldn't find any. This film is not even listed on IMDB. Torkmann (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly non-notable film. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I did find one secondary source which Ich added to the article. Torkmann (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply - thanks for doing that; but the source is a film review from a small-town newspaper, by somebody with a very strong ideological point of view (an "ax to grind" as we say in the U.S.), asserting the fringe theory that Naziism was in fact genuinely socialist. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NF. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bocca

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bocca

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

Non-notable game. Violates WP:N; Violates WP:MADEUP (Wikipedia is not for something made up one day). mhking (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A made up game. Joe Chill (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - was made up 6 days ago. -- role^player 09:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I suspect there may be a snowstorm on its way. Sorry, Thebfjj, but please read WP:FIRST. Chzz ► 12:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment mhking, why did you change it from a PROD to an AfD here ? Chzz ► 12:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, A madeup game with no reliable sources to show that it is notable. --A new name 2008 (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Made-up game.--EchetusXe 13:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. WP:MADEUP. Tim Song (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MADEUP. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feedback felching

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback felching

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

Possibly a neologism, but I doubt even that, as there are no Google hits. Fails general notability guidelines. Chzz ► 03:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prodded this, prod hasn't even been declined yet. At any rate, this is probably a notable practice, but not a notable neologism. Two Google web hits, neither are relevant; zero news hits. And felching means something else entirely. Hairhorn (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: cannot find any sources which back up the claim. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron B

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aron B

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:MUSIC. Location (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Admin: AFD tag was removed from article and has now been restored. The tag was missing for about 1 day. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Johnson (American football)

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Johnson (American football)

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

This guy is not in the NFL or even in any pro league. He fails WP:ATHLETE. Plus all the stuff in this article is wikipuffery. John Asfukzenski (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:Athlete and a professional career is irrelevant, as he clearly passes WP:GNG and the basic criterion of WP:BIO ("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"), as established by the sources cited in the article. "Wikipuffery" is a term coined in an essay that has no weight as a guideline or policy. Moreover, there is no such thing as described in that essay in the article; it contains only factual statements without "exaggeration". Johnson has had feature articles in numerous newspapers: The Albuquerque Journal, The Oregonian, The Tulsa World, The Birmingham News, and The Mobile Press-Register. He was also considered a Heisman Trophy prospect during the 2008 season by The New York Times, The News & Observer, and CBS Sports. Additionally, Google News has 380 hits for "'David Johnson' + Tulsa + quarterback" since 2004. Here are more sources qualifying as "significant coverage" in varying degrees: The Press-Register, ESPN, The Daily Oklahoman, The Oklahoman, USA Today, ESPN, The Register-Guard, The Tulsa World, The Seattle Times, The Oklahoman, The Tulsa Beacon, The Associated Press. Strikehold (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strikehold's remark appears to have concluded the matter. It's very hard to argue with that. A candidate for snow keep, perhaps?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strikehold's sources make it clear that he passes WP:GNG.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ATHLETE doesn't bar an athlete from proving notability in the usual way, it only sets out which persons are considered automatically notable. The fact that the NYT was following him as part of its "Heisman Watch" is evidence enough of significant coverage outside of local sources. Mandsford (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing and C-USA offensive player of the year award. matt91486 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced, neutrally-written article. I don't see any puffery here. --Esprqii (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Caning in Malaysia. In this case, the arguments for deletion, though less in number, make far stronger arguments. Some of the arguments ("notability is self-evident", "We already have articles on people who are only known for being sentenced to be caned"), come straight out of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The keep side fails to address the issues raised by the delete side, in particular WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. Redirecting this as it is a valid search term, and because perhaps some information could be salvaged. NW (Talk) 15:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno

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

Still no claim of notability. My speedy was declined. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do a search using any search engine, you will find a large number of articles, although I accept this could be better integrated into the article given time. PatGallacher (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Explain why she might meet WP:BIO, or some other notability guideline. Also see WP:BLP1E. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She would be the first woman to be caned under Sharia law in Malaysia in recent years. Amnesty International have called for the sentence not to be carried out. MartinL63 (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the external page counter, this page had 388 hits in August 2009, suggesting that it has attracted some interest. PatGallacher (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That has neither relevance to notability nor necessarily interest; they could be coming from HERE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She hasn't even been caned yet. This article is premature. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The thing may yet not happen at all. If it does, we can decide whether she is notable. I would have thought not, myself. The case can surely be covered under Caning in Malaysia and Sharia law. The individual woman herself is not really the subject of interest. Did somebody produce a Wikipedia article for the first individuals to be caned when Indonesia started doing this a couple of years ago? I doubt it. Alarics (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And with all due respect to Amnesty International, they call for something or other every day. We don't usually produce an article about an individual just because of that. Alarics (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it has just been announced that the authorities have now put it off until after Ramadan. The story is changing by the hour. It's not an encyclopaedia's job to try to keep abreast of breaking news. That's what the news media are for. Alarics (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.

Keep. It focus a lot on the issue of Malaysian legislative processes which concenrs international interest. Why then, are so many international press reporting on the issue? Take Seung-Hui Cho as an example. Not so much on the person, but the shooting spree. Mr Tan (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but more imptantly, this article is getting thousands of views, and we need to put WP's best face forward. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could I now suggest we do a speedy keep on this. It's clear from the external links and elsewhere that this case has received considerable third party attention. Hits have gone through the roof, over 7000 at the last count. We already have articles on people who are only known for being sentenced to be caned: Lubna al-Hussein, Michael P. Fay, Sarah Balabagan. PatGallacher (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Insofar as "We already have articles on people who are only known for being sentenced to be caned", we quite likely also have a problem, especially where the other stuff pertains to living individuals. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation, this is more a case for WP:SNOW than a speedy keep, i.e. this article has not a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted. PatGallacher (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On futher rational consideration, "Keep" is extermly improbable. Arguments based on guidelines suggest delete or merge (somewhere). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect (selectively) to Caning in Malaysia. Fails WP:ONEEVENT, but seems a relatively prominent illustration of the larger topic. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep notability is self-evident. 96.255.252.189 (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that is "self-evident" so far is that the prospect of this caning has caught the salacious interest of the news media. If, as looks increasingly likely, the punishment is never in fact carried out, the whole thing will be rapidly forgotten, and then where shall we be? An encyclopaedia should be taking a much longer view than the short-term focus of the daily press. Alarics (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear about the arguments, the notability is obvious. All you have to do to show that is provide two reliable articles on the subject. You're argument is about WP:NOT#NEWS which has special rules for single events in the news. Whether that applies is a matter of opinion, but notability is "self-evident" or whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I agree with Wikipedia:News articles, which says:

Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact. (.....) A violent crime, sensationalized event or accidental death may be notable enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage in the news, but not be of encyclopedic importance.

-- Alarics (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ardamax

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ardamax

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

After a bit of searching, I can't see any reliable sources to assert notability. I don't think this key logger passes the notability guidelines. Chzz ► 01:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be several Russian GNews hits, which I can't evaluate. As for English, there's this, which doesn't seem reliable, and this which is borderline. Combined with the adverty tone, my vote is Delete --Cybercobra (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed the false categories, but nothing I can find seems to be a WP:RS on this. Admrboltz (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humane law enforcement

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 20:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humane law enforcement

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

Delete, this is more like an essay then an encycloepedida article. I do not see an assertion of notability Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no surces backing this up so possibly a case of original research.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - I added sources and expanded the article, giving more information. MOOOOOPS (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COmment, One source 3 times? Really?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, really. It backs up the information in the article, and is informative. MOOOOOPS (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article would be a lot more credible if it had references (other than WiseGeek) demonstrating that this is an established term/concept. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can this be re-named to or merged with Animal control? Bearian (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could merge the Animal Control page into the humane law enforcement page, then create a section for animal control. MOOOOOPS (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As is, the article does not appear to meet WP:V, however, "humane law enforcement" get enough hits to suggest it is notable. Location (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doomed for the foreseeable future to be “original synthesis”. —SlamDiego_←T 06:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absurd nomination on the basis of the article's current content, with no regard for the notability of the subject. 20,400 hits for the title, as shown above. 240 in Books, for crying out loud, so obviously not a neologism either. No rationale presented that should not be presented on the talk page. Synthesis is by definition impossible, as both articles use the term, therefore there cannot even be a hypothetical synthesis of the two, let alone one which is presented or reasoned. A waste of everyone's time. Go do something useful and let this article grow. Anarchangel (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facebook terrorism

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook terrorism

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

Obvious neologism, clearly in violation of WP:NFT. The author's username implies that they may be the creator of this neologism Intelligentsium 01:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found three refs on Facebook terrorism and added them to the article... no comment on keep or kill. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These references are not relevant to what is discussed within the article. Intelligentsium 02:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: page bordering on original research, leaving little doubt that the creating user and the Dan Walder mentioned in the article are one and the same. Also contains broad sweeping unsourced claims, e.g. Daniel Walder is the first person to attempt to incite a social web based networking revolution via Facebook. -- role^player 01:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Though this seems to be an emerging concept I couldn't find any reliable resources dealing specifically with the term. From what I could find there seem to be two concepts here: The first deals with terrorists using Facebook to coordinate their activities, and second deals with individuals or groups using Facebook to harass and/or intimidate other individuals or groups. These concepts might have a place in broader articles dealing with digital terrorism and bullying but don't, as of today, stand as an article. One day it might be an accepted term but that doesn't justify creating it today according to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:OR. Joe Chill (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the text in the sources appear to contradict what is asserted in the text as it stands. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is a tetriary source, not for things made up in a day, and not for original research or synthesis. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lol, finally some real OR. It is almost worth keeping as an example of the only actual OR/SYNTH I have ever seen in an AfD. Also, there is some BLP vio and issues about using Facebook as the defining parameter for the subject. Anarchangel (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dario Chioli (2nd nomination)

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Chioli

AfDs for this article:

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

I had proposed this for speedy deletion as I cannot find any claim to notability; now I bring it here. Apparently Google does not return anything relevant about him apart from wiki mirrors, a personal website ("superzeko.net" is edited by himself) and some commercial site selling his books. Goochelaar (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I got 16,000 Google hits for "Dario Chioli," and while my cursory examination didn't yield any obviously Reliable sources (some were not in English, as to be rather expected of an Italian poet), some of the links looked like they might hold promise. And there were still quite a few others I hadn't looked at. Its not at all clear he's Notable, and without proper Sourcing, there's no way to know. If this were the article's first Nomination for Deletion, or it were relatively new, I would vote Weak Keep, but as this is its second Nomination for Deletion, and as its been around for nearly four years, I can't really justify its continued existence. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:29, 15 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 00:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems vaguely known only on a small subset of Italian new-age or exoteric sites, nowhere near enough notability. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable per WP:BIO. Appears also to have been rejected by our Italian counterparts: [46] Location (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil&gas eurasia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oil&gas eurasia

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Oil&gas eurasia

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

Article contains no third-party sources, and I can't find any that focus on the company. Yes, it does exist (based on this Christian Science Monitor article), but I don't see that it meets the notability or verifiability bar. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:47, 18 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 00:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OZTek Technical Diver of the Year

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OZTek Technical Diver of the Year

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because I think that there are no reliable, published sources independant of the subject.

Of the three sources listed in the article, the first is the website for the conference this award is presented at, the second appears to be the organisation behind the convention, and the third appears to be a diver's group involved in organising the next conference. On that basis, information from these sites would not be independant this article's subject. That said, I was unable to find any relevant information about the conference on the latter two sites, although I concede that such content may be buried in there somewhere (in which case, specific citations to the relevant sources as opposed to the top-level URL would be a good step in demonstrating a reason to keep this article).

Google News does not list any results for the award name. Ditto for Google Books or Google Scholar. Vanilla Google claims 196 results for [OZTek "Technical Diver of the Year" -wikipedia ], but a lot of these appear to be either press releases, blogs, or forum discussion. A Vanilla Yahoo search brings up 38 results, again, non-reliable or non-independant sources. -- saberwyn 12:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 12:26, 15 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) 00:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent source for notability. Looks more like self-promotion than encyclopedic entry. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. A non-notable award. Joe Chill (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Finals Song Contest

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Finals Song Contest

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

This is a small fan-voting with no significance to the participating artists (who are likely not even aware of it). All the information is available in the referenced website. May not pass WP:N. Zosha (talk) 12:52, 15 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) 00:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 02:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be just a poll conducted by a web site. No independent sources have been provided to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panfu

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

The result was delete. No significant coverage; no assertion of notability. In my view this would in fact have been a valid A7 speedy; browser-based Flash games are "web content" by pretty much any definition even if they are also technically software. ~ mazca ^talk 13:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panfu

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

Non Notable online game. No sources found. Was tagged for A7. I removed that as games are software and not eligible for A7. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 14:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:48, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this online game. Joe Chill (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of many, many, many throwaway flash games on the internet. No notable coverage. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cory Stier

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Stier

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

Unremarkable drummer. Appears to have been in one or possibly two barely-notable bands (ex Pistolita) but is pushing the chain of notability past the breaking point (see WP:MUSIC). Suggest redirect to Pistolita if no consensus for deletion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:52, 15 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) 00:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the full text, but the two articles that turn up in a Google News archive search do not appear to be sufficiently in-depth to confer WP:N notability. I also searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles but found nothing about this musician. Delete unless some independent reliable sources are forthcoming. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Paul. Joe Chill (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Hutch

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hutch

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

Tagged for A7 speedy, which I was about to agree to, but then saw what looked like French Wikipedia categories at the bottom. Sure enough, fr:Larry Hutch has existed since November 2008, so I wonder if this person is famous in Francophone places? Anyway, uncertain enough to ask for more eyes on this one. Splash - tk 15:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:57, 15 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) 00:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1ine

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K-1ine

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

Non-notable online zine, deprodded. Article is quite promotional. The structure of the name makes Internet searching a bit tricky, so if somebody can dig up reliable, third party sources that talk about this publication, I'll gladly reconsider this nomination. Abductive (reasoning) 19:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:N. Procedural listing due to de-prod. Admrboltz (talk) 20:52, 16 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) 00:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this online magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Come Down

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cheers (album). NW (Talk) 15:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Come Down

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Don't Come Down

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

Song fails WP:NSONGS. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Song failed to appear on any Billboard charts. [47] Niteshift36 (talk) 19:19, 15 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) 00:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly fails WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 12:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cheers (album), as per the guideline that even the nom quotes "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song". No need to be brought to AfD Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dylanfromthenorth. Rlendog (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research Junior Football Club

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Research Junior Football Club

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

A non-notable Australian rules football club competing at junior (under -18 and below) level.Mattinbgn\^talk 00:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a contested PROD. The article is entirely unsourced. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom...a google search brings up mainly personal, municipal, and WP mirrors. While no doubt that this exists, it appears to fail WP:NOTABLE. Frmatt (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable junior football club - WP:ORG isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete to Lower Plenty Football Club with which club affiliation is claimed. If it is verifiable, of course. florrie 03:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Goodwin

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Goodwin

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

Former agent for Lebron James, setting up an endorsement deal does not qualify for notability. No other notable info, works, news, thus any mention on Wikipedia would be an advertisement for a sports agent. Btl (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - many news links exist but they are all trivial coverage, thus failing WP:BIO. Kevin (talk) 05:54, 10 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 21:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of several news articles, and mentioned in many others: [48] Besides serving as James' first agent, Goodwin has represented Gary Payton [49], Dwight Howard [50], and Chris Webber [51], all of whom have been NBA All-Stars. There's nothing particularly advertorial about the article. Zagalejo^^^ 23:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment His notability in terms of client list is no different than every other large scale Agency. The Lebron James endorsement deals, and only because of James' age and hype/profile in high school, is the only "newsworthy" bit of info to distinguish this Sports Agent from many others. Also, listing his past/present client roster in the article for notability, would eventually require a citation back to the Agent's Firm's website. I think there needs to be more compelling examples of Notability. If not, this is covered by WP:NOTNEWS. Btl (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not our job to determine whether or not someone is "important" enough for Wikipedia. We're just supposed to determine whether the subject has received enough attention from independent sources. I think Goodwin has. This Sports Illustrated article is primarily about Goodwin. The magazine considered him the eighth most influential minority in sports. I think that alone is enough to establish notability. This, this, and this are also primarily about Goodwin. In my experience with AFD, those four articles combined should be more than enough to keep the article. I'll note that a couple of similar articles, Rob Pelinka and David Falk, have achieved GA status. Someone could probably do the same with Goodwin's article. (By the way, Goodwin's clients are listed in many news reports. There is no need to cite his own website for anything like that.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Zagalejo has demonstrated that he passes WP:GNG. Location (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loose Cannon: The Cut Off (2nd nomination)

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loose Cannon: The Cut Off

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD was delete, but some sockpuppet involvement made it change to a procedural keep. This is a non-notable mix-tape that fails WP:ALBUMS. Never charted. No significant coverage by reliable sources. No mention on Billboard. [52] Niteshift36 (talk) 20:30, 15 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) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again, fails notability per WP:JANNMT. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources still. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Born For Supremecy

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Born For Supremecy

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

Another non-notable mix-tape by a non-notable rapper. Fails WP:ALBUMS miserably. The album never charted on Billboard, nor has the rapper ever charted. Line. Signed to a label that was deleted after an AfD as non-notable. Possibly a speedy candidate. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knoc's Landin'

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knoc's Landin'

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Knoc's Landin'

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

The album was made before 2002, but was never released, so it obviously failed to chart. No significant coverage by reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Possibly a speedy candidate. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- The leftorium 21:53, 15 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, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreleased album that will most likely never be released. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knoc'sville

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knoc'sville

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Knoc'sville

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

Unreleased album that doesn't have a verifiable release date or tack list. Lacking in significant coverage by reliable sources. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER and WP:NALBUMS Niteshift36 (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 14:14, 16 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) 00:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorry I Left You

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I Left You

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

Internet only release from an album that doesn't have a release date. Fails WP:NSONGS. Not sure if digital only can chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this song. Joe Chill (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarem

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Beast Wars characters. or any other place that is more appropriate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scarem

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

This is a minor Transformer character that doesn't assert any sort of notability. It has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a stub, but it has references, fictional appearances, etc. Mathewignash (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has no reason not to exist either... After all, it is a real thing that we can see actual photographs of and is from a major franchise and according to our articles, which does have a few references, Scarem figured into a toy, animated series, and publication, i.e. has multiple mentions across various media. Now per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, I see no reason why at worst we would not merge and redirect this non-hoax that is obviously relevant to some segment of our community (at least five editors have contributed to the article) and/or to merge/transwiki with wikia:transformers:Scarem and maybe even this? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge as with other minor characters. It's not sensible to keep as a separate article, nor to remove all reference--it would be at least a redirect to a list. Unless the nom. can show why a redirect is inappropriate, the discussion does not belong here. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems to make the most sense. If I were looking for info on this character, I'd actually welcome being redirected to an article that listed all of the secondary characters rather than have to keep clicking around to find each of them individually. TruthGal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Merge in the interests of consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 05:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capercaillie concert tours

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capercaillie concert tours

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. A list of tourdates, many of which are festival showings and not going to give much coverage, is not appropriate. Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory. Joe Chill (talk) 14:11, 16 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) 00:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If somehow this could be justified (which I do not think it can be, per WP:NOT), I might favor merging it into Capercaillie (band), but even that is not merited for this. Un school 00:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Made of Blood & Honey

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Made of Blood & Honey

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

Mid-price compilation released by non notable label (Laser Light Digital). Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Kekkomereq2 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Finals Song Contest

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Finals Song Contest

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

This is a small fan-voting with no significance to the participating artists (who are likely not even aware of it). All the information is available in the referenced website. May not pass WP:N. Zosha (talk) 12:52, 15 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) 00:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 02:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be just a poll conducted by a web site. No independent sources have been provided to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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