Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 15

< 14 May	16 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Eckankar. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ECK master

The information on this article is almost entirely primary-sourced. Most is sourced to either the official Eckankar website, Paul Twitchell (founder of the movement), or Harold Klemp (current leader of the organization). When researching some of the "ECK masters", very little discussion is found in published sources outside of the organization. If anything can be salvaged from this page, perhaps it would be better suited as a section on Eckankar. ←Spidern → 16:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eckankar. The new religion seems to be gaining minimum notability, but it does not yet merit subarticles. And few "Eck masters" are themselves notable. a little insignificant 16:14, 15 May 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 00:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eckankar. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think that the term was used in the group from which Eckankar separated, which was a form of Sikhism if I remember right. But at present, article does not clearly deserve separate status. If and when more material is added and more sources found, including from the parent group of Eckankar, maybe separate it again then. John Carter (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 based on the strengths of the arguments presented. Forums are not reliable sources; that sources may be found is crystal ball-gazing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digitrax

Unreferenced. Fails the general notability guideline. May qualify for CSD A7 as it does not indicate why the subject is important or significant. McWomble (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of importance or significance for unreferenced article. Drawn Some (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Digitrax is a major manufacturer of DCC systems and is well known in forums. Article does need a of work though. Stepho-wrs (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a topic is notable without substantiating that claim. Forums are self-published hence are not acceptable sources. The general notability guideline requires the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article does not even assert the importance or significance let alone provide any references to support such a claim. Fails WP:CORP. McWomble (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a book that mentions it. [1]

Forums are not a good source for most things (especially product specs) but having questions about Digitrax on most train forums surely counts as a lot of people interested in it. Also, a web search finds a lot of train hobby shops selling it in multiple countries. This doesn't happen for non-notable products. This is easily verifiable. But remember, I'm only using forums and shops to verify notability (as in, a lot of people being exposed to the product). I wouldn't use them for product specs.

Wrong! See WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." McWomble (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a new rail modeler I can confirm that even I have heard of Digitrax. I rarely visit forums. I would find an article on wiki very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.3.141 (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? The threshold for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources. The article fails WP:CORP. It does not even assert the importance or significance let alone provide reliable sources to support such a claim. McWomble (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to agree with McWomble, this technology already has a generic article Digital_Command_Control. I feel if the article is allowed to remain, it will turn into a product catalog. WP:NOT. I've also noticed there already is a wiki page relating to this product, railroad modelers can go edit there. www.dccwiki.com/Digitrax.Surfing bird (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Forum postings, and "I've heard of it" attestations aren't reliable sources. However, they do appear to be a significant manufacturer of DCC for model trains. Significant enough to receive a small amount of coverage in the New York Times. Another small portion of an article in the South Florida Business Journal. Model Railroading specialty magainzes seem to have a lot more coverage. [2], [3] are a couple of examples. I suspect more substantial sources can be found in specialty model railroading publications printed on traditional paper rather than on the Internet. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Refer to WP:CORP. Primary criteria - Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. That article you cite discusses the technology, and only makes passing mention of the company. Using your logic, the hobby store also mentioned would also have an Wikipedia article, there already exists a generic article for this technology.Surfing bird (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am basing my keep opinion on the likelihood that more substantial sourcing can be found in specialty magazines covering model railroading. The NY Times remarks that the company is "a leading vendor of Digital Command Control equipment" which is indicative of notability, and I suspect that more substantial coverage is available in specialty magazines. -- Whpq (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nominator has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. (non-admin closure) Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 16:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Märklin Digital

Unreferenced. Fails the general notability guideline. May qualify for CSD A7 as it does not indicate why the subject is important or significant.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Märklin decoders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Märklin-6088 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Märklin-6050 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

McWomble (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried searching for reliable sources in support of notability but could not find any. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Märklin Digital per coverage in books such as in [4], [5]. There are even books dedicated to the subject, it seems: [6], [7]. Merge the others, possibly shortened, into Märklin Digital as not individually notable components of that system. Sandstein 06:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The threshold for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources. The articles do not even assert the importance or significance of the subjects let alone provide reliable sources to support such a claim. If there are non-self published books dedicated to the subject, then cite them. McWomble (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in the books linked to is neither trivial not incidental, as is apparent from the Google Books preview. The two books dedicated to the subject are Schneider, Hans Lorenz. Märklin digital HO mit dem Commodore 64. ISBN 3925943005. and Schneider, Hans Lorenz; Mika, Christian. Märklin Digital mit dem IBM-PC und Kompatiblen. ISBN 3925943102.. Sandstein 16:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the Gemeinsamer Verbundkatalog entries, both those books are self-published. Thin Arthur (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Märklin Digital as a notable control system. Märklin decoders could be merged there, if desired, or kept as valid sub-article. Other topics should be merged. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Märklin Digital was one of the first digital model railway control system. Sounds notable enough to me, model trains quite big with some people. And with mention in books about the subject, I don't see why anyone would object to there being an article about it. You can't have more than a set number of pages in any book that mentions it, since there isn't really that much to say about it. Dream Focus 04:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Märklin Digital was one of the first digital model railway control system. This is factually incorrect. Lionel Electronic Train Control predates Märklin Digital by 37 years. Railcommand, Zero 1, Dynatrol, EMS, Protrac and Salota all appeared around 1979-80. Märklin was a relative latecomer in 1986. The only thing notable about Märklin Digital is it was designed for Märklin's AC analogue control. As already noted the books are self-published, therefore not acceptable sources. I am not !voting here, but merely pointing out that the threshold for notability has not been established. Thin Arthur (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth , as per WP:V. Considering 1986 was before the advent of the world wide web and that sources from that time period I recon will be mostly European-based, and more specifically German, their claim is valid in context. We're reading this with 100% hindsight and search engines. MLauba (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reduce to stub & cleanup. Found two English sources supporting WP:RS and WP:V (added to lead), some additional material in German could form the base of a functional description. Available sources however do not support, by far, the currently lengthy article. Note that the German wikipedia article is in pretty much the same sorry state and no further insight can be gained there. --MLauba (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The suggestion that this might meet CSD A7 is odd. We're not talking about a person, a corporation or web content, and the article makes plenty assertions of importance - so many that it's being tagged for WP:NPOV. I'd respectfully suggest in turn that the nominator review WP:A7M for clarity on what A7 is for. --MLauba (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominee has raided other hobby train control articles with AfD noms, e.g. Trainmaster Command Control‎, and has a sock on him. Procedural close as Keep - I played with Märklin trains many, many years ago, and can't possibly imagine that this article should fail inclusion criteria. Cleanup, yes -- deletion, no way. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bradleys

Local driving school that does not have coverage in secondary sources to meet notability guidelines Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 15:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete being the largest driving school in Hertfordshire doesn't automatically make the organization notable. Nor does they seem likely to become notable in the future. Bfigura ^(talk) 15:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable per WP:N, and no secondary sources to back up the claim. a little insignificant 15:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete fails WP:CORP, and the article is terrible--it starts out as spam, moves into trivia (the timeline) and eventually unravels into downright nonsense (the apostrophe section). It's like three completely wretched articles in one! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then we get to conveniently delete three birds with one stone. :) a little insignificant 16:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non-notable Driving School. Also per Nom T-95 (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it might be a very good driving school, but it's not a notable business as far as WP:CORP is concerned. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 because of discovery of Blue Ribbon award tedder (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Westside Middle School

Unremarkable middle school lacking reliable sources to establish notability under general notability guidelines or notability for a primary school. (contested prod) tedder (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a Blue Ribbon school and as such is clearly notable.[8] In addition, it has an unusual mentoring programme. Far from being an 'Unremarkable middle school'. TerriersFan (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the info on the mentoring program? (and it currently doesn't say Blue Ribbon in the article) tedder (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is a blue ribbon school and why isn't that metioned or referenced in the article? Why doesn't the article have any references? Doesn't an article have to have reliable sources? Is there any importance or significance other than it is over the 50th percentile (like half of all schools)? Drawn Some (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the ref for the blue ribbon school status. See Blue Ribbon Schools Program on our own site. a little insignificant 15:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly defined notability and is a blue ribbon school. Tedder, you would be wise not to delete my votes in future. a little insignificant 16:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the blue ribbon stuff so significant if over 5,000 schools have received it? Drawn Some (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5,000 schools is around 4% of schools which is sufficiently exclusive to be notable. TerriersFan (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the deletion of your keep was just an edit conflict, apparently- it wasn't done in bad faith. tedder (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above.--SKATER ^T. 16:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American entry into Canada by land

Very well sourced, but violates WP:NOTGUIDE. Reads like a Department of State publication (in fact, I think some of the text was lifted directly off the DOS website). Encyclopedic content largely duplicates information in US-Canada border and Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and the remainder probably belongs on (or is already at) Wikitravel. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 15:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide a reference for people to consult. Given that the rules for travel between the United States and Canada are going to change on June 1, the topic is most certainly appropriate. The matter of laws applicable to border crossing is always encyclopedic; if the objecdtion is that this sounds too much like a "how to", then it rewritten to sound less like a guide. Mandsford (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is an interesting topic. It's certainly something I have thought about (as a topic in and of itself) and have spoken with others specifically about. Since it's well sourced, I think it should be kept. I do think it's good to be concerned about WP:NOTGUIDE...if you are concerned that this reads too much like a guide, I would recommend editing to make it more encyclopedic in tone, style, and content. For example, one glaring omission is any sort of discussion of history--and I am SURE this is well-sourced. Cazort (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my own past browsing, this topic has plenty of available references that extensively discuss it in-depth. The current article is very dry though. There are towns that straddle the border with the line running down the middle of a street and there are plenty of checkpoints with only a camera. There was an incident where someone went around an unmanned crossing point to go to church on Sunday as they always had and were charged with a criminal offense. There is also a part of the U.S. on a peninsula so that the only way to get to the U.S. by land is through Canada. I would also like to see a similar topic on Canadian entry to the U.S. by land as well as U.S. entry to Mexico by land and vice versa. Another approach would be to combine the land entry articles U.S to Canada + Canada to U.S. etc. Drawn Some (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is true that the article can be improved upon by adding more general information, but I believe that its current version is certainly not worthy of deletion. As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with using text from U.S. State Department websites, since as I understand, all of that info is in the public domain. Moreover, this text is integrated with text from several other sources. This article is more specific than the articles on US-Canada border and Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative - those cover broader topics. --IO Device (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My issue wasn't with the use of Dept. of State text, that's public domain as a US Federal Government publication. My issue was with the tone and moreso the redundancy, but some good points have been brought up for keeping it. I'm going to see what I can do with the tone over the next few days (I'm graduating on Sunday so I'm not sure how much time I'll have until then). - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be the first of the Wikipedians to offer congratulations to User:2 on his or her graduation -- and to anyone else among the many friends whom I have met here and who are also reaching a milestone this month. That's a lot of work, and although the returns may not be immediate, all that work will prove to have been well worth it. Mandsford (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very, very much! :) - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 04:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC) (Thom)[reply]

While this does run afoul of WP:NOTGUIDE as written, with a bit of revision and probably a title change it does have the potential to be a valid article about a genuinely encyclopedic topic. Keep with cleanup, I guess. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiBooks travel guide. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to this article being copied to another wiki...but I would rather see the topic kept here--if people think it reads too much like a guide, I would prefer them to edit it to change the style and tone and perhaps introduce or restructure content, to make it more encyclopedic, rather than deleting it. Cazort (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. The title and lead raises most of the WP:NOTGUIDE concerns I think. As to the article content, why not merge part of it to Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the almost all of it to Canada–United States border? ZabMilenko 11:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by Dank. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SCG industries

I first declined the speedy and prodded; based on talk page comments, I'm proposing we speedy as db-hoax. Taking to AfD so that we can nail this down, and G4 in the future if necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fishy and unverifiable. Their supposed homepage [9] is a subpage of a IT company with a text-only webpage. The person claiming to have had an interview there on the article's talk page is in all likelyhood a sockpuppet: that's their only activity on Wikipedia. Article claims that SCG's "primary income is from patent royalties", but a quick patent search shows no US patents issued to any company by that name. There's a Canadian company called SCG Industries and they don't claim to be in Antarctica (or Cambridge). If you're gonna pull off a hoax, people, you gotta put a little more effort into it. Hairhorn (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Going for an A7 on this one - I can find no evidence beyond WP on this one on Google. At all. --63.64.30.2 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for lack of notability in reliable sources. It's a likely hoax or fiction. DreamGuy (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, that's 4-0 for speedy, plus the suggestion on the article talk page that this is a hoax, so I'll go ahead and speedy. I prefer not to close when I'm involved with the speedy, and I wouldn't mind leaving this open for 24 hours to see if there's any significant debate. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Article and talk page are now deleted, and the article talk page is reproduced on the talk page of this AfD. I'll be happy to re-create the article itself somewhere if anyone needs to see it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's also SCG Base -- same problems. DreamGuy (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I got it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie^☆S93 00:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FlexPortal

Calling for a speedy delete, or regular delete if necessary since someone oddly rejected the speedy delete tag, for this clear spam article. Created by a clear spam account that was blocked, same user is clearly back under a new name. Tried prods but prod was removed by created of article (who also removed speedy delete tag). Article has no sources, is blatant vanity-promotional, does not try to establish notability, and I can't imagine a situation where this could possibly meet Wikipedia requirements of enough notability for a separate article. DreamGuy (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable software. Being adopted by the Montana Dept of Transport as part of some initiative does not automatically confer notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 15:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concurred with the CSD template. If i develop software that will be employed by Microsoft or Google, does that warrant a bio about me? Don't think so. Also, initial contributer had a clear CoI and Spam intent. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as spam. Remove the contentless buzzwords, implementation details, and author namedrops, and there isn't anything left. Importance isn't a criteria for G11s; even if it were, the claimed notability is both minimal and not backed up by the provided reference (which doesn't even mention the article subject). —Korath (Talk) 19:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw it; that's why I brought it up. —Korath (Talk) 20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN Company / product as stelthy advertising. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 23:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. But I don't think it qualifies for an A7 speedy, and it doesn't seem sufficiently promotional in tone to qualify as G11 to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - FlexPortal's addition to Wikipedia is an attempt to clarify the difference between the product Adobe Flex and FlexPortal, since there is a significant amount of confusion as there are now Flex Portals built on Adobe Flex technology. I would argue that the Adobe Flex entry is significantly more commercialized than the FlexPortal entry.--Sparky1690 (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above note appears to be by the editor who took over for the original author after original author was blocked, and may not represent an NPOV. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 22:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable soruces that establish ntoability. I found this brief mention, and this press release. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary coverage, so doesn't appear to meet the WP:N guideline. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Farooj Fresh

Chain of 6 fast food restaurants ~~in the UAE~~. Um, that appears to be it. Oh, article is copyvio from a couple of sources, but my report on ANI about active copyvio got ignored amidst the usual dramamongering. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"That appears to be it" ?. That's a bit misleading, don't you think ?. There's much more in the article than that and there were 8 branches and that was in 2006. The Al Farooj Fresh establishment, for your information, is an International brand with 17 branches worldwide as of March 2009, with 14 in the UAE itself. And also, a brand's notability is not highlighted by the no of branches under it's banner. --Roaring Siren (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by the official website which states 8 restaurants (and which I incorrectly recalled as 6). I have edited the nomination. I am sure people will read the article itself before expressing their opinions here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Currently neutral~~ Comment. I am associated with this article after Dc listed it for speedy deletion and RS appealed for a WP:3O which wasn't given as there was no content dispute requiring a third opinon. This is my first comment at AfD so I've had a good look at the requirements and the sources available. There are fairly regional news websites that all seem to repeat a press release, which would suggest it's non-notable, but there is a story here. It's also listed at Business Week although I'm not sure what WP:CORP feels about that source. The fact it's involved with the "Mohammad Bin Rashid Establishment for Young Business Leaders" might help its notability. I'd suggest Roaring Siren spends a while trying to find some better sources and improves the article, it might have WP:POTENTIAL, but as it is it should be deleted. Bigger digger (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see it's tagged for rescue so I'll hold off on my opinion but will note that the two references given both read like press releases and one is not in-depth by any means and could be argued to be trivial. That's what I'll be looking at as far as notability, significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources per WP:CORP. Drawn Some (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep and expand and further source per WP:POTENTIAL and WP:CLEANUP. Meets the WP:GNG per AME info, Gulfnews, Entepreneur, Zawya, Trade Arabia, Arab Franchise Magazine, and the other results of a simple Google News search. Wikipedia always has room for articles about fast food franchises as long as they get the press... and this one has. It ain't McDonalds, Wendys, or Burger King, but bless 'em for stepping into the future. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be confusing press with press releases. This one has "Source : www.alislamifoods.com" at the bottom. This one has the PR departments contact info and "press release 2008" at the bottom. This press release is the source of at least two of your links above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep At the moment, even if the article is relatively short it's notability has been established. There is a provision for articles that are too short and that's called a WP:STUB. And a look at the article would make it clear that the article is not too short either. Given that the article has been nominated for deletion 3 times,I had a look at WP:CORP and couldn't find any criterion Al Farooj failed, so it'd be helpful if you could point that out . --Roaring Siren (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick addition to the list, AFF has also been covered by USA Today . --Roaring Siren (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partial reprint from press release - see my response to MQS. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today is a published third party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, with a staff and editorial oversite, which allows presumption that whatever they used from Trade Arabia was properly vetted for its own factual accuracy before they offered it as news and information. That they used a press release as the basis of a report becomes moot if they have done their homework to ensure its accuracy before offering it, and as a reliable source, we may presume they did just that... also underscoring the notability... as they do not have a reputation for reprinting unchecked and baseless rumour as might a tabloid. Move over MacDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell, Arbies, Jack in the Box, and all you others... Wikipedia has room for another fast food franchise. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have an interesting view of how newsmedia work. Regardless, your argument is not all supported by WP:RS. Did you really intend to compare this 18 location fast food restaurant to the ones you mention? I don't think the comparison helps your cause. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This press release repetition is my current problem as well. A Google search or GNews search seems to indicate sufficient sources, but except for the two I noted above they are simple hacks of a single press release. In other words, there is essentially one news item, self-published and then copied, which seems to be the main establishment of notability, which is not sufficient. Roaring Siren, if it is notable, there will be other news items on it other than the rehash of a 2008 press release. I think this subject might be notable, but I can't find anything to prove it, and I think if this page is to stay you need to bring something more to the table. Bigger digger (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one reason the bulk of the articles are reproduction of two or three press releases could be that given the company is based in the Middle East,any "unofficial" reports/reviews about the company would be in Arabic. I came up with one blog review,another foodie blog and a listing on a community website, and needless to say, they are all in English. Articles establishing the notability might be present in Arabic newspapers and finding such reports online might pose a problem,if such articles have been uploaded online at all. --Roaring Siren (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding English-language sources for verification is often a problem for articles which deal with people or companies that are not well-known in English speaking countries. It can be an unfair barrier for inclusion, but this is the English-language Wikipedia after all. Regardless, press releases are not considered to be reliable sources for obvious reasons and cannot be used as substitutes for actual press coverage. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: In addressing concerns that a few of the earlier sources proffered per WP:POTENTIAL were simply reprints of a press release, I just spent a several hours going through the article per WP:AFTER and WP:CLEANUP. It has been expanded, rewritten, and sourced to multiple reliable sources so as to meet the WP:GNG, and thus pass WP:N. There are not dozens and dozens of sources, as I do not read Arabic, but in the spirit of the noble work of WP:CSB, the significant coverage in multilple reliable sources allows the article to meet the inclusion requirements of the GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the press release that is copied verbatim to the source that you use as a reference six times in the article. Here, direct from the corporate website, is the press release copied in part to another of your references. It isn't worth the investment of my time to look closely at the rest of the sources, but I think you see my point. This is a chain of 18 fast food restaurants. I don't believe it is notable but it isn't worth the time and aggravation required to deal with this. I am probably going to stop participating in AfDs entirely, since lately the many of arguments seem to have little to do with guidelines, policy, or common sense. Please enjoy your meal. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch! Good catch on the AME info press release. I do not know how I could let that get by me and I appreciate your sharp eye. I have removed it as an improper source. But with the newer sources, the article has improved and "copyvio" has been addressed since your nomination. I feel that Business Week, Gulf News (1), Arabian Business, Gulf News (2), SME Awards, Al Bawaba (1), Khaleej Times, and Trade Arabia may be considered as WP:RS in meeting WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a user-submitted investment profile. The second link is identical to here, reads like a press release, and its author works for a St. Louis-based PR firm. The third link is a release from here. Fourth link is copied from the official website. Your fifth link is an award sponsored by one of the chief investors of this company, and is not only unrelated to this fast food chain but is hosted on a site dedicated to the award. Sixth link is another press release. Seventh link is an unrelated venture by the same company. And the eighth link is one of the press releases we've already covered. Save for the two irrelevant links, all of these were written by a press agent in the employ of Al Islami Foods. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of those points are valid, but the second version of the Gulf News article states that it is copyright Gulf News, so the reprint isn't a concern. Similarly, Suzanne Fenton is listed as a staff reporter, and has quite a few articles with her byline - unless I'm missing something (which is always possible), the Suzanne Fenton who works for a PR company may well be a different person. - Bilby (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, despite the fact that there are Arabic sources (which we couldn't come up with), we have still managed to find numerous sources in English reporting on AFF, even if most of them are reproductions of 3 press releases, still they do pass WP:RS and even USA Today has reported on it. Now doesn't that speak volumes on the notability issue ?. I'm sure most of those who had read the article are convinced the article is notable, and only if we can keep it on wikipedia will the possibility of any further editing by a Wikipedian able to read Arabic. --Roaring Siren (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That USA Today link is just an automatic aggregation of this TradeArabia article, which is dealt with above. There are lots of single-digit-unit franchise chains in English-speaking countries that do not and should not have Wikipedia articles, because we have no independent commentary in reliable sources to use to write articles. How is this franchise different, other than that it is based in non-English-speaking countries? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing here is it has been covered by an American newspaper, even if the source is from Trade Arabia. Had the subject been not notable would it have been covered in a reputed foreign newspaper ?. And to answer your other query, firstly Al Farooj Fresh is an International brand. And secondly , it is NOT a single-digit-unit franchise chain.--Roaring Siren (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been "covered by an American newspaper". The website of an American newspaper has listed the tradearabia press release in its aggregated content about Oman. Whether AFF is international, or how many chains it has, takes a back seat to the coverage it has received, and I'm still not sure that this notability has been established. Bigger digger (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, to show that I am trying to find sources that I might be happy with, I'll point you in the direction of this blog. Before you all shoot me down, it is tagged by the author, a journalist, as appearing in Executive Magazine and a search on that site suggests that it's hidden behind a pay wall. There are quite a few leaps of logic required there, but if I can find that there must be other, more convincing, articles out there. Bigger digger (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline requires "significant coverage" of the subject. In the piece you found, the company is merely named in a list of franchise operations owned by the parent company. There is no logical reason to assume that other, better sources exist because of this trivial mention. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I know! I'm just trying to offer some positive encouragement. Bigger digger (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the copyvio issues should be fixed now, which leaves notability. Most of the sources don't speak to notability, being verbatim copies of press releases, primary sources, trivial coverage or unrelated to the article itself. (Not that they're bad sources - just that they don't relate to notability). However, two are ok - Gulf News, which has a byline, and the coverage in Business Middle East is short but non-trivial. They're also big enough (just) so that I think it is reasonable to expect coverage in non-English sources, although I'd feel better if I could see some. - Bilby (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could someone be good enough to remove this source which is used as a reference three times? It is also a press release, as found here (please read the section at bottom or download the PDF version). References currently numbered 6 & 8 have previously been identified as press releases and should also be removed. Additionally, links to press releases don't belong in the external links section, per WP:EL. I would rather not edit the article myself at this point. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and removed the external links (the official website made sense, but the others were unnecessary). However, there's nothing stopping press releases being used, as they can count as reliable sources (given that they need to be treated as primary sources, with all the cautions that this entails). In this case they were being used to support uncontroversial statements about the company, so they should be ok. - Bilby (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems notable enough. We need to watch for WP:CSB issues. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Even if not notable, its still a brand. A M M A R 19:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I added some wikiprojects to the talk page and approached some current editors listed at Category :Translators ar-en in an attempt to find some Arabic sources to try to establish verifiability. I didn't encourage them to vote here, but equally I guess this could be viewed as WP:CANVASSING. Ammar is one of the editors I contacted. My bad. Bigger digger (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the message you left and, yes, I view it as canvassing. I think the only thing that this AfD is missing is blatant sockpuppetry, but there's still a little time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to improvements made since nomination. They are enough to persuade me that there is something valid here. I concede however that I am not an expert of overseas fast food, so I am somewhat assuming good faith here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this article only just fails to make notabililty as noted by Dc. However, in the last week I've seen a number of editors try to improve this article and argue for its inclusion. I've tried to get editors with Arabic language skills to find some sources but this seems to be a slow process on their part. I successfully rescued Aladdin's Eatery because it was based in the US and had plenty of English-language sources, despite not being very different from AFF. I think that there is a need to counter some of the systemic bias (first time I'd seen that Stifle, it's taught me a lot, thanks) inherent in an English-language encyclopedia trying to cover the globe and it's to be expected that sources in Lebanese are harder to come by. I would suggest no consensus, and in a month's time I'll put this up for AfD myself if these sources haven't appeared. Note If the closer does delete, please userify to User:Bigger digger/Al Farooj Fresh. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Most of the sources seem to be press releases, which is unfortunate - but nevertheless the relatively wide scope of coverage is, I think, grounds for notability. More independent, reliable sources would definitely be a good idea, though. Robofish (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St Paul's Cathedral School

This article seems to be based on a good-faith misconception; from the title this article should be about St Paul's Cathedral School, but the author appears to have actually written an article on the unrelated St Paul's School, about which we already have a more comprehensive article, padded out with some blatant copyright violations from here. Although normally in this situation I'd delete this as routine maintenance, as someone's already contested a {{prod}} based on this argument I'll bring it over for a full discussion. I've taken an unusual step of leaving the blatant copyvio material in the article, as removing it will make the article incomprehensible and there seems to be no point in repairing an article that's likely to be deleted; if it is kept, then this needs to be removed.

I do appreciate that this is a valid topic for an article as it's an obviously notable institution, but a "scorched earth" deletion and rebuilding from scratch seems the only viable option here, as every revision of the existing article going back to the original upload appears to be about St Paul's School, not St Paul's Cathedral School. – iridescent 13:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub and keep. It seems to me that the first paragraph of the History section appears to draw the needed distinction and observe that the Cathedral School focuses on choral music. The rest of the article appears to bear out the confusion noted and concerns itself with the Colet founded school. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article and found an additional source that seems to be about the right school. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Iridescent's nomination seems to have been valid when he made it but we now have a perfectly good, if short, article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Recreate, as per nom. We seem to be unanimous here in where we want to end up, the only question is how to get there. This would seem like the simplest approach (even within the constraints of the GFDL). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but properly delete the copyvio. Don't mind whether it's done by permanently delete the original revisions or by deleting and reposting the article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix any copyvio. TerriersFan (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KKeep but fix -- It probably needs more to explain the distinction from St Pauls School and details of when the presetn institution was established. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but fix, obviously. I don't understand the logic of the original post: if it is desirable to have an article on the school then why not just rewrite it, rather than delete and then write another????

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

I was the original creator of the page and did so because there was no reference for this particular school. I am a senior member of staff at the Cathedral and have been there for 10 years and am therefore very aware of the schools history. All three schools stem from the same school at St Paul's Cathedral which is why I used the history of the John Colet school for this history because at that point they were the same. Instead of giving detail and history about the school it now seems to be about a sordid event which took place in the past. Disappointing. Ges Nelson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gesnelson (talk • contribs) 12:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIT Study Circle

Article details an educational corporation which clearly has limited web presence but does not appear to be the subject of reliable secondary source coverage (WP:ORG). Unlikely that there will be enough notable source material to rewrite the article in an encyclopaedic, non-promotional tone. haz (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Week keep~~ The current article reads like a promotional handout, but there seems to be just enough media coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. However the available information seem to be limited and the organization doesn't seem to have any strong claims of notability (like winning awards etc.) and the coverage is borderline trivial... hence the weak keep. Abecedare (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC) (changing !vote; see below)[reply]
Delete Promotional advertisement. The term IIT Study Circle is not specific to just one institute. There are 2-3 IT study circles run by different persons.The link provided by Abecadare prvides two different IIT Study cirles: one by New Horizons and another by Rammaiah. --Deepak D'Souza 12:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having given it some more thought, I think the article fails the notability requirements because: (1) judged as an organization it has not received significant coverage, nor is it a large, publicly traded, or award winning company; (2) judged as an educational institution, it is just a coaching class for IIT entrance examination and has no accreditation, or degree/diploma/vocational certificate granting ability; so even if we accept the (past?) AFD norm that secondary/tertiary educational institutions are inherently notable, the subject does not qualify. Abecedare (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radhand

Refused CSD-A7 because products do not fall under that category. Non notable under WP:N and WP:Product. Also a search reveals no Reliable sources. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I prodded as it is a NN product for which no CSD applies. There is a middle ground between CSD and AFD. Until/unless CSD is broadened, we still have PROD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC
- On second thought, WP:CSD G11 could be the way to go . Dloh cierekim 13:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable product that's verging on being spamalicious. Bfigura ^(talk) 15:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete par having nominated it. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - fails WP:BIO as there's no independent coverage of him alone. As said below, notability is not contagious. KrakatoaKatie 01:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Carfrae

Non-notable record producer. While the article asserts that Carfrae has worked with a lot of big names, it does NOT assert that his work has been recognized independently. No awards. No independent press coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, it also seems to fail NPOV with a section calling him a "Pioneer".--SKATER ^T. 12:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. ~~The article needs to be far, far, better referenced (right now I'm looking at Cilla Black's website, an industry advert, and an IP address that may or may not be MSN music).~~ Be that as it may, this is a producer who has worked with numerous notable musicians (and whose work has received awards, even if he hasn't per se). I'm hoping that the article creator (and sole contributor) will find more and better references. If they do, I may change my !vote to a 100% keep; if they don't, I'm afraid I'm going to be shifting to delete. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC) (resigning after creator addressed concerns; I've changed my weak keep to a keep. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – is notable through association with the artists he has produced. Plenty of refs out there to be had to prove it. The albums he produced sold fairly well; although he may not have won any awards for them directly, the artists may have, or at least have for other works. On these facts alone, I would say notability is attained. – B.hotep •talk• 18:29, 17 May 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) 00:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't contagious. Drawn Some (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Drawn Some notes, notability isn't based on who they are associated with that is notable. Without significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, subject is not notable. لenna vecia 13:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources to establish notability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Robinson (footballer)

Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully professional league. Does not meet broader WP:N guidelines as google and news searches show. Stu.W UK (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:ATHLETE. John Sloan @ 23:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Angelo (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the Milk Cup is an international tournament with television coverage. But I don't know if this is relevant. --can dle •wicke 15:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the tournament appears relevant anyway if this is anything to go by. I wonder if any such videos exist for this player... --can dle •wicke 15:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Milk Cup is only invitational youth tournament for clubs or quasi national sides, not the pinnacle of achievement, not nearly as notable as e.g. U-17 FIFA world cups and they do not confer notability without additionally meeting WP:N. Television coverage is meaningless. Kid may make it one day but not yet--ClubOranje^T 10:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus to delete, good arguments for both keeping as a standalone article and merging. Since we can't do both, the best thing to do is to close this AFD and let the merge discussion continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Russell-Cowan

Am artist known only as he was the main person to be featured in a film of schizophrenia. His art is not notable and he will likely never be mentioned again unless connected to a dicscussion of the film. Any information here should be moved to My Name Is Alan and I Paint Pictures. Passportguy (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above film is not about schizophrenia. It's about an artist who so happens to have schizophrenia. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) under Creative professionals it states that "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Alan and his work are both subjects of a feature-length film. It is very hard to establish notability with Artists, but obviously he was considered notabile enough for someone to make a documentary about him. Out of Phase User (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the film. The film is notable but he is not notable as an artist and his art is not notable. Available references are about the film, not about him or his art except as it figures in the film. Notability is not inherited. The film was not confirmation of his importance or significance, to the contrary, had the film not been made no one would have ever heard of him at all except for the people who pass him on the sidewalk. In addition, appearing in one film certainly does not make him notable as an actor. Another way of looking at it is remove any reference to the film and he is clearly not notable. In response to Kelapstick, if he were not schizophrenic the film would never have been made about him. Drawn Some (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added external links to the article to try to add some outside notability. Admitedly these do originate from Alan's website, but 3 out of 4 of them do not even mention the movie. He has created over 1000 paintings and has sold 150 out of a single gallery (Monster Gallery) with price ranges between $200 and $2000. These are a bit out of the point. The main point is that he is an Artist and has become notable through a documentary made about him. I can feel the downplaying of it all due to his schizophrenia, but often times the presence of a debilitating condition magnifies their ability to become famous in the public eye. I agree that he is on the edge of notable, but I believe he is there, none the less.Out of Phase User (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources can be used to flesh out an article but not to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added "as known as" Alan Streets. It is near impossible to find anything that boosts his notability like the movie does, but it should be noted that in order for interest in this movie to be made he must of already of been notable in a local Art Community (New York) which the external links to the Soho Journal attest to. It is from this local notability which germinated a movie which boosted his national notability. He's making and selling art. Sure... he's not a Damien Hirst as far as international recognizability goes, but I'm sure we're not going for such a tall order.Out of Phase User (talk) 20:26, 15 May 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 15:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio. It's copied from [10]. I'm ambivalent about keeping an article on him, there's little out there about him aside from appearing in the documentary, but he does meet the criteria of notability. Fences and windows (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted copyvio text, so the article has to be assessed with less. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the catching of the copyvio. Despite technically being here for over a year I'm still unsure what is allowed and not allowed as far as text with references. Included a little bit more bio info and fixed a reference. Would be nice to see a black KEEP with respect to your agreement to the fact that it meets criteria of notability, but I'll take what I can get.Out of Phase User (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. With the copyvio nicely dealt with (thank you, sorry not not doing it myself) and sources noted, I think he just scrapes in. Not every street artist has a documentary film made about them, nor is every street artist written about in several reliable sources. Fences and windows (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to film article for reasons detailed by Drawn Some. لenna vecia 13:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Yettaw

Person know only from one single incident, shouldn't be included as per Wikipedia:NTEMP#Notability_is_not_temporary. Please also see the discussion on the article's talk page for a previously propsed prod. Passportguy (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His actions in this matter have a profound influence on the history of Burma. We have a number articles in Wikipedia of "single event" people who are included because of the worldly influence of their "single event" actions. Kingturtle (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If his actions have a "profound influence" he can have his own article. At this point that is mearly speculation. My bet is that two weeks from now no-one will be talking about this person and he will disappear into the mist of history. Passportguy (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Her sentence was up in two weeks. She is now being sentenced again based on Yettaw's violation of the terms of her house arrest. His actions have already had their profound influence. There is no if about it. Kingturtle (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, and he can be mentioned in her article. However the fact that the Burmese junta is taking this as a pre-text to keep a person lockedup they wouldn't have released anyway doesn't change the fact that thsi is a one-off thing that doesn't make the particular person notable long term - again come two weeks everyone will have forgotten all about this person. Passportguy (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think a case can be made for WP:ONEEVENT. This should simply be a section of the Aung San Suu Kyi article. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 12:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Aung San Suu Kyi. The incident is notable enough for it to be included in the Aung San Suu Kyi but, per WP:BLP1E this person shouldn't have their own article. That said likely search term so redirect makes sense. Dpmuk (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has plenty of accepted and acceptable articles on "one event" people. This event is significant to Burma's history, and his biography is important to the story. His biography information belongs on his own article, and not in Aung San Suu Kyi's. Kingturtle (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The effect of his actions upon international relations among many countries, the diplomatic pressures on his behalf, his treatment in prison, etc., are all notable events in themselves, which, when added to the original event of Yettaw's swim, makes for a net total of much more than a mere, single event. ↜Just M E here , now 14:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment People are consusing the notability of an event with the notability of a person. The actions and the resulting conseqences are notable and should be added to Aung San Suu Kyi. The person however is still only kwown for this single event - and unless something major happens his name will have been forgotten in a few weeks. Passportguy (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The one event policy states that people notable for one event may have articles "if the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial", and I think both apply in this cause. 96T (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been awhile since I saw a "BP1E" or one-event objection. In many cases, these are silly (i.e., "We can't have an article about Chesley Sullenberger because he's only famous for landing a crippled airliner once"). This one has some merit, since John Yettaw is an asshole who will be remembered as the guy who has messed up Aung San Suu Kyi's chances for release from house arrest. I don't think that he should be the guy who messed up the Wikipedia article about Aung San Suu Kyi as well, and this incident should not become a large section of that article. Unless they behead him tomorrow, I expect that Yettaw will continue to be notable as he awaits trial. If Aung San Suu Kyi dies without every being released from house arrest, he will be villified forevermore. Mandsford (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The story is still ongoing. If this is used as a justification for her continued house arrest, as unfortunately seems very probable, he'll be in the news for a good while, and probable it'll be historic in the end. She is after all an extremely important person indeed, nationally and outside her country.DGG (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One event does not really apply if it is an event of this magnitude. This is the sort of "one event" that gets recorded in the history books and endures. This is the sort of thing Encyclopedias exist for. Dloh cierekim 22:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, of course! This man has effectively disrupted the flow of Burmese history by directly causing Aung San Suu Kyi's arrest. It would be like deleting the article for Jack Ruby. Well, not exactly, but you see what I mean. Crazy Eddy (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I first learned of this man by reading the Wiki article on Suu Kyi-- I saw his name, and that it was marked in blue as a Wiki link, and immediately wanted more information about him specifically (and separate from her). If there had been no Wiki link, I would have wondered why. I do not agree that he has played any material part in altering the course of Burmese history: Suu Kyi was not going to be released by the junta no matter what Mr. Yettaw did, I think we all can agree on that that by now. He only provided a thin legal pretext. But as pretext, he becomes notable— WAY notable-- for this single incident. I am a person who uses Wikipedia often, and I depend on it for "heart-of-the=matter" information that I cannot get elsewhere: things like verifying that Yettaw was merely a thoughtless jerk who wanted to see if he could stick his finger into the politics of another country for his own aggrandizement. I wondered initially if he was a die-hard journalist of some kind or maybe a CIA operative. Wikipedia-- and ONLY Wikipedia-- gave me a quick, concise, accurate answer. If this article were clearly an attempt by the man himself to increase his notoriety, I would feel very differently. But it isn't. It's news, and it's INTERESTING news, and I use Wikipedia, and I wanted information about HIM. Totally keep. -- KDS4444^Talk - May 19th, 2009, 5:12 pm Pacific Time. —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Per reasons stated above regarding his impact on Suu Kyi's house arrest. Also, in-state media have said jack squat about him; this is the best anyone from Missouri's going to get unless someone from Springfield or KC actually go to Falcon and write something up about him. This is the most concise information I've seen about him. --KHill-LTown (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!!! This guy is now part of Myanamar's foundation myth much like Benedict Arnold, Betsy Ross, and Mrs. O'leary's cow (Chicago Fire). And it's a darn fine entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.165.96.71 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nitrome Limited games. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Valentine and the Fortress of Steam

Procedural nomination. Originally listed with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Ninja series, which I closed early under speedy G7. As this article has a substantial edit history, I have relisted it seperately.

Nominator's rationale was: "Whilst I believe Nitrome to be a very good games developer, I don't think this series warrants its own articles. There is very little information here that doesn't or couldn't appear on List of Nitrome Limited games, and reliable sources aren't around." Marasmusine (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest simply redirecting to List of Nitrome Limited games Marasmusine (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. Original nominator. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 12:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Nitrome Limited games. No evidence of notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nitrome Limited games as a plausible search term. MuZemike 18:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lehigh Valley Jazz

I could find no references that this team actually exists. Their single page website [11] still says "Coming in 2008," and there is no mention of the team found in any local newspapers (specifically the Allentown Morning Call). A local team that competes is certain to get at least some coverage of schedules, events, promotions and scores in the Sports section of local papers and their websites. Nada. Web mentions are limited to the fact that they were one of the teams to be added to the league in 2007, but nothing further. The team is also not listed on the league's current roster [12]. Alphageekpa (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No mentions either on the website for the women's team they are supposedly affiliated with. Only Google Hits besides Wikipedia mirrors and their website is for a the Repertory Orchestra. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 12:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The team would seem to fail WP:ORG and WP:SPORT. Even if they were affiliated with a women's pro team, that wouldn't confer notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 15:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like it never got off the ground, and no coverage. Can be recreated if they ever do start competing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie^☆S93 00:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gyuszi Mészáros

Possible hoax - Google Search for "Gyuszi Mészáros" composer, for "Walter P. Kreckmann" (author of the only cited book in that article) and for "Minnesanger Press" (publisher of the cited book). Everything refers to Wikipedia article. Vejvančický (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not just Google searches, but also Google Books and Worldcat turn up no mentions of the reference. Magic♪piano 12:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Magicpiano. --Klein zach 13:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.--Smerus (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I even tried searching the author and publisher under alternative spellings, and searching using the Hunagrian word for "composer" – nothing. Voceditenore (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if not a hoax, notability is in serious doubt. --Folantin (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone read Hungarian? Dloh cierekim 22:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not much, but it looks like some kind of self-help book offering you bankers' secrets. 99.9% sure this has nothing to do with composers. --Folantin (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Folantin. Delete Searched hard for a way to rescue this. This includes searching Google Books and WorldCat for some mention of the title and/or the author. If the book exists, it is not preserved in GoogleBooks and is not listed in any library. Dloh cierekim 13:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Triwbe (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XYZ (metal band)

Poorly referenced band that fails WP:BAND Triwbe (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I would say it passes WP:BAND on account of albums on Enigma and especially Capitol. Poor referencing is not a reason for deletion: just a prompt to put some referencing in. – B.hotep •talk• 10:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of references shows a lack of notability. References are core to Wikipedia. If you can show it passes the WP:BAND requirements, then it can stay. --Triwbe (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of references means that nobody has put them in. I have no interest in the article essentially, but there are references out there if one has the time to look. I will see what I can do but I'm not sure where this onus on myself came from. – B.hotep •talk• 11:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put basic references in from NME and Rolling Stone – both reliable sources. Oh, and I threw an Allmusic one it too. – B.hotep •talk• 11:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bubba's refs meet WP:MUSIC. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Poorly referenced, yes. Failing WP:BAND, No.--SKATER ^T. 16:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 2 albums on major labels passes one criterion of WP:MUSIC. Mutiple significant coverage in reliable sources (this from Allmusic and the bio on the NME site, which is sourced from The Encyclopedia of Popular Music) passes another.--Michig (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Hotep. Iowateen (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy that the band passes WP:BAND C5 and so withdraaw my nomination. --Triwbe (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage in New England

WP:OR Article claims to notability by asserting that New England is the place where same-sex marriage has the earliest support. This ignores Iowa and California and is not drawn from any polls and sources. The article is merely a timetable of same-sex marriage, limited to the region of New England plus one press release by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. Hekerui (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that the redundancy I mention below Hekerui (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the author's creator and I will address your points.

A) You wrote that the article asserts NE is the place where it has had the earliest support, but has not drawn on any polls. However the article does not assert that, it says NE has been the place with the among the earliest legal support, which is true. MA was the first US state to have same-sex marriage (legal support through the judical), and VT, MN, and NH are the only US states that have brought about it through the legaslative - so hence among the earliest). As for it being the region in the United States with the most widespread (originally was the less descriptive word "largest") support, this is also true, no other region of the US has same-sex marriage in more then one state. - Epson291 (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B) You wrote the article ignores Iowa and California, that is not true, Iowa and CA are written about in the lead on how the only other two other US states with SSM has been Iowa, ande California (later overturned by the voters).

C) You wrote that the article does not source the claims of it having the earliest legal support, but yet all of them are sourced (I moved the sources up to the lead - they were only lower before)

D) You said the article is mearly a timetable, yes the article is arranged in chronological order, but so are all the other articles on same-sex marriage and indeed most articles

E) This is a notable article for that the New England region has thus far been the centre of almost all movement in regards to same-sex marriage. You wrote that it is WP:OR, which I assume you mean stringing it together as a region, which I understand, but I have addded some sources on it which makes it no longer only my opinion. There has been several sources specifically on the same-sex marriage movement in New England. For instance, the New York Times, which is as about the most WP:RS as you get in newspaper publications, did a very piece on this, and wrote how NE has been the centre of the SSM movement, and I've added this source. There has also been academic resoucres done on the subject matter, for instance here. - Epson291 (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above. - Epson291 (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDUNDANT The article is just a duplicate of info already found in the articles on same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage in the individual states, and the articles on same-sex unions, etc. Hekerui (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well you didn't respond to my comments about WP:OR, which was your reason for asking for deletion. But as for saying the article is redundant (and falls under WP:REDUNDANT), that is not true either. I cannot find any article or subarticle that focuses on New England's rapid leglization of same-sex marriage. This article contains information unique to New England. The fact that the states that have brought about same-sex marriage have been from the NE region hasn't been a coincidence, which is what several reliable sources have attested to/focused on. - Epson291 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - legalizing gay marriage in the region has become an important focal point of the same-sex marriage movement. --Mr Beale (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT Hekerui (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Except, it has been sourced by reliable sources (WP:RS) that in fact New England has become an important focal point of the same-sex marriage movement, which is not a case of "I like it" - Epson291 (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Epson291 (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per talk below Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article appears adequately sourced (and even if it were not, deletion shouldn't be our default position, unless sourcing cannot be found). Further, the rapid shift towards legalization in this region has been extensively covered by the media, and would seem to be notable. While there may be things that need fixing here, deletion is not for cleanup. Bfigura ^(talk) 15:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are adequate resources specifically addressing the topic and included in the article to prove that it is not original research and more references are available. Drawn Some (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Same-sex marriage in states whose names begin with A" would be OR because there're no sources discussing that as a topic in itself, but this article does have analogous sources. It's not redundant since it's not just a concatenation of "Same-sex marriage in X" for every X in New England, but actually talks about the fact that SSM-legalising states have been concentrated in New England and reasons behind that. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above -- it's obviously a connected topic, as there's even a dedicated campaign related to this issue. —Nightstallion 20:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it has plenty of external Reliable Sources, therefore is not at all "original research" or "synthesis", and at this point i would say WP:SNOW. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 21:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are common features and histories of New England states that reliable analyses have examined to explain why various liberal social movements (including this one) have started there. Also, this adds structure to isolated articles for the better understanding of Wikipedia users that do not already have knowledge of New England. Fortuynist (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It does have some sense of POV issues, but that can be fixed. No need to delete something that can simply be fixed by revision. It certainly doesn't lack notability. New England was targeted for the 6 by 12 campaign. --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable subdivision of the US. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 04:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 04:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 04:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 04:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 04:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 04:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Same-sex marriage in the United States. Ladyof Shalott 05:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep per the improvements that have been made, really discussing the region as a whole, but as distinct from the rest of the US. Ladyof Shalott 19:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Lady above. Do we really need it broken down any more than it is? It's already split into the 50 states, this topic doesn't need to be broken down by region if it's already by state. It's more overkill than anything. Too damn [[redundant. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 05:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- New England is a very relevant region in the country for same-sex marriage advances. 4/5 of the states that currently legalize the practice is in New England, and another one is on the doorstep. It certainly has relevance and notability. --haha169 (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was ready to vote merge before I reviewed the content. The lede should be cleared up to indicate which are the states of New England, and which are where in the effort. It may also be helpful if there are other civil rights examples of New England taking a lead role. Sources do seem to support this but we should take OR concerns to heart and clarify who is stating this is a New England initiative, etc. -- Banjeboi 02:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the many additions and fixes per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Same-sex marriage in the United States. Seems like a redundant separation. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. It is a nice looking article, but simply unnecessary imo, when we already have the country-wide article and articles for each individual state.YobMod 14:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: However, New England has been the focus of numerous RS (ex. NYT [13] The Globe [14] [15] WTimes [16] Others [17] [18]), and satisfies WP:N. Since there are six different states with six independent articles it is impossible to allow for the relationship between the states to be focused on (for example, the "Six by Twelve" campaign to NE's part in history for the same-sex marriage movement in the United States, to all the reasons that the SSM movement has found success in New England, and to date very little outside of it (30 states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and another 15 have statutes against it). As for the nation-wide article, it focuses on federal recognition and a nationwide perspective of states (including unions and partnerships). It does not make much sense to me to merge a perfectly independent and lengthy article with a specific focus into a general article. - Epson291 (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Same-sex marriage in the United States. I was going to vote keep because of the New York Times and Boston Globe articles, but the content seems redundant (see Template:Same-sex unions in the United States). APK straight up now tell me 04:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The content in the article is not redundant (except for the "by state" section at the bottom). This is the only article or subarticle which focuses and has sources on specifically the New England region. - Epson291 (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nom. Hekerui (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either [Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States], or [History of States approving same sex marriage] or something of that sort. There is no reason to have an article only concerning these few states, while ignoring others. I also find it odd, that it list that since the majority of people are Catholic, they support gay marriages, since long before the current generations were born they were discriminated against. The Catholic church is officially against gay marriages. Dream Focus 11:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) There are opinions stated above why the New England region should have an article (and not other regions), so there is no need to rehash it here.

2) For your point about Catholics. New England is the least religious section of the country ([19]) and like anyone else, do not necessarily follow the teachings and position of the Church. Regardless, that is an issue of content, it hardly seems a reason to include in an AFD discussion, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I will point out that it was sourced and not WP:OR, it is a reason stated by Professor Andy Smith, a political science professor from the University of New Hampshire. - Epson291 (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Image

To put it into perspective of why the New England region is so significant, here is a map with states who have same-sex marriage in purple, and those who don't in red. New Hampshire is in light purple since its all but certain (sourced by the NYT) it will be there. The purple part in the top right is also New England, I acknowledge there are seperate articles on these five states, but there is very little ability to understand and write about to the cultural, social, and geographical relation between them and reasons why SSM occured there, especially for Wikipedians unfamilar with the New England region. - Epson291 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have recently made additional improvements to the article, to the lead and overview sections. - Epson291 (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Epson. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as mentioned by others the sources show notability for a separate article, as mentioned by others. SSM in NE is approx 17kb whilst SSM in US is about 46kb, so a merge will only create a sprawling article. Eventually someone would look at the merged article others are proposing and quite rightly think "Hey, the New England stuff would make a good article on its own, there are sources that support it, so lets split it out". I'd also note that the nominated version of the article probably only had WP:POTENTIAL, but the current one, is a big improvement. Bigger digger (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Considerably improved since nomination. The overview section is is good content and justifies its status as a separate article. William Avery (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted - G3 vandalism: blatant hoax. Somno (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flopbread

Likely WP:HOAX. I get no hits on "Flopbread" or any of its alternative names. Also, the references mention nothing called Flopbread.

As a sidenote i have to add im suspicious about some of the breads alternative names - such as "Jimbo Lampa" and "yu tust gud" Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) Delete Par being the nominator - if its not a hoax its at least not notable. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a native New Zealander, I actually know of flopbread and it is quite a well-known food in this country. I would appreciate if you kept this page as wikipedia is about spreading knowledge, and people that are sick of conventional bread will certainly find this appetizing-yes I tried to click on the links to flopbread, they didn't work-that was probably just a mistake of the person who made this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.221.122.26 (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the above IP vandalised the paratha (a type of Indian bread) article to claim that "Larry Flowers", the alleged inventor of "flopbread", also invented the paratha, and to insert other BS. cab (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, i noticed that as well when that IP commented. Started a SSP case about it (Should have dropped a note here earlier i guess) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete blatant hoax, starting from the very first sentence with the alleged "Maori" text which says Paratha in the completely unrelated language of Tamil. Zero gbooks hits either with or without a space. cab (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I love the strange characters ("பராட்டா") used for the Māori translation: Te reo Māori is written using a sub-set of the alphabet we all know and love, so the strange characters ring alarm bells for me (who is also a native Kiwi, with cousins in Nelson who most curiously have never mentioned this culinary delight to me. "[D]ipping the flopbread into Peppermint or Orange-Peco Tea" strikes me as another red flag. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrakant Sardeshmukh

I've removed the speedy from this article because notability is asserted per this passing mention in a reliable source (Rediff.com). A glance at the references in the article shows that many of the news articles are unreliable sources, such as this one are from press releases. The rest of the external links in the article consist of links to this individual's publications. A Google Books search returns only passing mentions, while a Google News Archive search returns press releases and a passing mention in the Rediff article. In summary this person fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and WP:V. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Correct observations. Hekerui (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, with the English language sources available, he wouldn't appear to meet the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. However, it may be that there are sources in an Indian language that are not accessible to me because of the language barrier. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not really a useful search term, so no redirect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have played James Kirk

Insufficient scope for a list. Only two actors have portrayed Kirk in any meaningful sense (is there any need to list William Shatner three times?); I don't think the kid who appears in the new film for one scene really counts, nor would I count an unofficial fan portrayal, but regardless that all adds up to just four entries and nothing that isn't covered at James T. Kirk. Parodies of the Kirk character is something else entirely, but again it's already covered in the main article. PC78 (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say merge, but James T. Kirk already has relevant content well covered by a single image and a caption. Really not a large enough scope for a separate article anyway, I wouldn't even expect Memory Alpha to have something like this. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, you have never been to memory alpha why don't we merge it into the kirk article? it's a nicely done table, & it is relevant there. i agree that it's likely not with a standalone article page; though we might put a redirect. ~~i'll do it myself, when i get more time, if nobody beats me to it.~~ since the emphasis is on the actors it might make sense to merge all the shatner stuff into one, but i'm not that familliar with making tables, i mostly just write. if somebody wants to fix that part, ~~before~~ or after i transfer the thing into the kirk article, please do so. also, they forgot baby kirk! :P Lx 121 (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - follow-up; ok i stayed online long enough to transfer the tables over, & tweak the wording slightly. it looks good; fits in well there. so who really needs to make it to work on time anyway? haha! i've held off on blanking the page & placing a redirect, since the matter is still under discussion here, though the outcome seems pretty clear. Lx 121 (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pasting the list into James T. Kirk is rather unhelpful, and does not address this nomination. The list is entirely superfluous to that article. PC78 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - And you deleted it. thank you! ^__^ could you please explain how providing a list of the MULTIPLE actors who have portrayed a fictional character is not relevant to the article about that character? to be clear; i really don't care if you use a list, a table, or a separate paragraph for each. but at least 4 actors have now portrayed kirk in official material, plus the phase II fan series, plus the parodies, of which only a few the most notable are mentioned. when you have that many people playing the guy, it makes sense to keep track, &that tiny photo with the caption that's larger than the image is not adequate coverage: it's not comprehensive, & it's poor wiki-style. is there some reason you have an agenda here? you seem very dedicated to erasing this material. Lx 121 (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think PC78's (and mine, and other's) reasons for wanting this material excised are pretty clear here. Making empty statements about someone having an "agenda" beyond that isn't especially helpful. --EEMIV (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I have no "agenda"; I think I summed it up pretty well in my nomination above as to why we don't need this list, but if you want another reason then it's because the list gives undue weight to unofficial portrayals and parodies, as well as a largely inconsequential performance by Jimmy Bennet and even Chris Pine who has so far made only one appearance as Kirk. Perhaps you could explain why you feel the need to bypass this discussion by pasting the material into another article, especially when we don't appear to be heading for a "keep" or "merge" concensus. PC78 (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already covered at James T. Kirk. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough content, can be included at the main article, and everyone knows that there's only one Enterprise captain who matters (ducks, runs away). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James T. Kirk. Superfluous & redundant, with dubious rationale for initial creation (spawned from a content dispute over the degree to which the main article should cover non-studio portrayals of the character). I'm apathetic as to whether the list is deleted, or someone just redirects the thing. --EEMIV (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some other observations, which Lx 121 inadvertantly reminded me of: the List of... content is uncited, which is problematic in and of itself -- but, it's more problematic in this case because it fails to distinguish between actors portraying Kirk-the-character and those playing Shatner-playing-Kirk. The parodies are as much a spoof of Shatner hamming it up as on the character he presents, and this List of... fails to establish context for that explanation/those differences, which're better handled in freer form of the main article. Lx 121 is correct in that the article does not offer a "comprehensive" list of actors who've played Kirk/Shatner-as-Kirk -- a deliberate choice among the editors who regularly work on the article to stick with portrayals that have received significant third-party coverage, rather than every passing fanboy production or animated spoof. Where a spoof or fan portrayal or (obviously) studio portrayal has received meaningful press, it receives meaningful coverage. Those relatively few meaningful portrayals of the character/actor-as-character can be adequately covered in the article; a "comprehensive" separate list I think would too easily devolve into an attempt at an exhaustive list. Sure, lots of folks have played this character -- but very few of those potrayals matter (e.g. even Jimmy Bennett -- brief, passing, and pretty much negligible; same things with most spoofs, certainly the same thing with most fan productions) --EEMIV (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beam this over to Memory Alpha, where such a table will be welcome. At best, this can be described in a couple of sentences in the article about the character. Make sure to mention stunt doubles (remember when Kirk got split into two people in The Enemy Within? And William Shatner was seen talking to another guy whose back was turned to the camera? Special effects circa 1966!). Mandsford (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely pointless. Relevant info is already on the Kirk article. Redirect if you have to, but not worth a merge or anything of that sort. DreamGuy (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless list with all information already in Kirk article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said before, the relevant info is on the Kirk article. Transfer it to Memory Alpha if it's not there already. JuJube (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above reasons. Take out the two voice actors (who didn't really play Kirk) and the bit part from the new film (which is quite trivial, two or three minutes on screen?), collapse Shatner's three listings to one and you've pretty much repeated what's on the Kirk article already. Alastairward (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not disagreeing with the delete, but clearly you have not seen the new film. Bit part, two or three minutes, indeed. Mandsford (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he's talking about the kid. PC78 (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're right. Gosh, I feel stupid. Sorry, Al. Mandsford (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I meant the kid, don't worry about it :) Alastairward (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reah Valente

Non notable Brazilian musician because she does not meet WP:MUSIC. She is completely unknown in Brazil.

Lots of Wikipedia:Wikipuffery, from primary sources. None of the sources are actually independent (or third-party) which violates several policies and guidelines:

Wikipedia's policy on both Verifiability and No original research states that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability states that "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
Wikipedia's guideline on Reliable sources states that "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources".
Wikipedia's guideline on Notability states that "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."

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Algébrico (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strictly a promotional article, clear COI/spam with a long list of links to press releases and the subject's various personal webpages. Fails notability standards quite dramatically. DreamGuy (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overly promotional, and doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This artcile is now something comlpletely else, so the rationale for deletion does not apply. Closing. Tone 12:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia-Germany relations

:Abkhazia-Germany relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) The article suffers from issues related to Wikipedia:Notability, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. First off, Wikipedia is not a news collection. Second, construction of the “bilateral relations” story based upon one obscure event is OR. The last but not the least: Germany has not recognized Abkhazia’s independence and regards the region as part of Georgia. Hence, there is no bilateral diplomatic relations between Germany and Abkhazia contrary to what the article claims. Kober^Talk 03:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would not Germany's non-recognition of a country be quite notable and covered extensively and in-depth in the media?

May be, but certainly not under the name of non-existent "Abkhazia-Germany relations". Germany not only refused to recognize Abkhazia, but considers it part of Georgia. Hence this is more relevant to the Georgia-Germany relations.--Kober^Talk 05:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I have to agree with the nomination. Since Germany does not recognize Abkhazia the relations are non-existant. The fact that the visa department of the German embassy in Russia made a decision not to issue a visa does not constitute (diplomatic) relations. The article seems to have been written by a person angry at the denial of the visa and is written in a very POVish tone. Passportguy (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Now that most POV has been removed and article has been expanded. Passportguy (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign relations of Abkhazia. The content is replicated there. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign relations of Abkhazia. If the content is already there we don't need this article which has a problematic name. Offliner (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Merge~~ to Foreign relations of Abkhazia, since the content is not already replicated there. Mandsford (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage of the topic stated by the article title. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I already merged the material into Foreign relations of Abkhazia, part of our merging project, making this AfD obsolete. Ikip (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kober.Biophys (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. Probably some of the individual ones can be brought out separately. I point out though, that the very fact that German has not recognized the country is the basis for the incident that makes up the content of the article. Non-recognition can be a significant international relationship. I think , in fact, that there is probably in German and Georgian and Abkaz and Russian a good deal of material over that non-recognition. We might at least be able to find the German. 06:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)DGG (talk)
Delete now that the content has been merged by Ikip, quite nicely I might add. Mandsford (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note there has been some edit-war going on with Foreign relations of Abkhazia. I included the content on Germany when I made the table, it got taken out, put back in etc. Don't think it is constructive to remove sourced material relevant to the subject. Relations do not have to be formal or friendly to be relevant. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war? That figures. I see you've already got someone who erases information that he doesn't think "deserves" to be in an encyclopedia [20]. That's really gonna help your cause. Geez Louise. Mandsford (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My preference on these is to redirect rather than delete, as a convenience to readers. If they are looking for something about the relationship between the pair of countries, the redirect will come to the top of the list. No big deal though. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I haven't edited the Foreign relations of Abkhazia page I have to say that looking at it it does seem very POV, as it only gives the Abkhazian persepctive on this incident. Also it may be quite questionable whether a single case of visa denial actually constitutes "relations" in the sense of both the other listed conntries and the content of similar relations pages of other countries. Passportguy (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That struck me too. I was plugging away, making "country list" tables in "Foreign relations of" articles, then checking some of the individual "bi-lateral relations" articles to see if they were stubs whose content should be merged in, or complete articles. This one seemed, as you say, sort of POV. On the other hand, the incident seemed relevant. Perhaps wrongly, I just merged the content assuming other editors would find other sources that would give more balance, left a note here, and moved on to the next pair of countries. Lack of balance to me is a reason for expansion, not deletion. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, as patent nonsense. Germany doesn't even recognise Abkhazia, but sees it as a part of Georgia, so obviously no relations exist. The content of this article should really be merged to an article about Georgia-Germany relations, if any where. --Martintg (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - relations do not exist, and their non-existence is itself non-notable (unlike, say, US-Cuba relations or Armenia-Turkey relations). One news bulletin on a visa denial hardly changes that equation. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign relations of Abkhazia per above. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be potential for an article based on the first few Google results for "germany abkhasia". Potential is not to me a reason to keep. The article needs expansion with good sources to be kept. I may do it. 08.07.2008 Germany Proposes Plan for Ending Violence in Abkhazia WORLD Germany issues visa to seriously ill Abkhazian teenager Some Details of German Abkhaz Plan Reported Germany The Latest To Step Into Georgian-Abkhaz Fray Germany Proposes Peace Plan for Abkhazia Informationen zur Deutschen Außenpolitik Peace plan for Abkhazia http://www.messenger.com.ge/issues/1650_july_17_2008/1650_german.html German foreign minister in Georgia, Abkhazia] Encyclopedia of Human Rights Report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia (S/2008/631) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't all that needs to be said said right here? It seems to me the height of absurdity to start a chain of "Abkhazia-X relations" articles about states with which Abkhazia doesn't have relations, and whose positions on the issue diverge very little from one another--particularly when we have that article and this one already. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"What is said in International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia relevant to this discussion is: '"Chancellor Angela Merkel said, "this contradicts the principle of territorial integrity, a principle based on the international law of nations and for this reason it is unacceptable". Aymatth2 (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see point in redirecting the article based on a single non-notable incident to other entries. There is clear problem with WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT#NEWS. Furthermore, this “controversy” involves the German embassy in Moscow which denied visa to a Russian citizen. What this has to do with the fictional “Abkhazia-Germany relations”?--Kober^Talk 05:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing stops us from adding in a little relevant content there. And again, let's not glide over the larger issue: are we opening the door for Abkhazia-US relations, Abkhazia-China, Abkhazia-France, and so on? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Abkhazia. This has nothing to do with Georgia-Germany relations, but to do with the foreign relations of the sovereign and independent Republic of Abkhazia, and problems of its foreign relations belong in an Abkhaz article, not a Georgian one. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sovereign and independent, just like the Republic of Kosovo, eh? Oh, wait, the Kremlin doesn't recognise that one... - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Abkhazia does not have a wide international recognition, and certainly there are no official relations between Germany and Abkhazia, Germany does not even recognize independence of Abkhazia. Grandmaster 08:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I have done a sketchy expansion, enough to establish notability. It is an interesting subject, with a lot going on. Wish I had more time. Perhaps some other editors will add detail. There are many sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've done a quality work, but that has nothing to do with "Abkhazia-Germany relations". The info you have added deal with the German diplomacy in Georgia and its region Abkhazia, which had not been recognized even by Russia as "independent" at the time of Steinmeier's efforts. --Kober^Talk 16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has everything to do with Abkhazia-Germany relations, which is the interactions and relationships between the two governments, their positions and opinions about each other. Diplomatic recognition has nothing to do with this. Offliner (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After the recent expansion the article is large enough and notability has been demonstrated. Offliner (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Germany does not recognise Abkhazia's independence and has no established relations with it. Parishan (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the problem with the article or its name? I sense that the name suggests to some editors that Wikipedia officially recognizes the Republic of Abkhazia. Perhaps "relations" could be changed to "relationship" or "involvement" or "engagement", or something like that. "Diplomacy" would be too limiting, since there is more to the activity described than that. Germans died when the helicopter was shot down. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find a problem in the article in general. If a Zimbabwean person happens to set foot in Vitoria-Gasteiz, that does not necessarily create a necessity for an article called "Basque Country-Zimbabwe relations/involvement/engagement." Parishan (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me the German involvement in Abkhazia (my preferred title) is a complex and interesting subject. The minor topic of the 1870-1942 German settlements is sufficiently covered in Caucasus Germans, although it deserves passing mention. Much more interesting (to me) is the significance of Abkhazia as a "troublesome" area on the route between the Baku oilfields and Germany, which caused two military interventions (1918 and 1942) and perhaps has something to do with the recent flurry of diplomacy and peacekeeping efforts.

But I prefer not to pass judgment on whether a subject is worthy of inclusion based on personal interest. For example, I have no interest in Paris Hilton or Pokémon, but I accept that these articles are valid based on the principles of notability and verifiability. This article has a lot of well-sourced content - and much more could be added. German involvement in Abkazia is as notable a subject as many others.

Could the content be found in other articles? Quite a lot of it probably could be placed in articles on Abkhazia, Georgia, World War 1, the UN missions, German diplomacy and so on. Like many articles, this one assembles material around a theme. For example, Monet is discussed in broader articles on French art, Impressionism, Art Institute of Chicago, En plein air and so on. One could argue that the thematic articles are redundant - the content could be assembled from "point form" articles that discuss one very narrow subject - but that leads to absurd conclusions. This article would help a student interested in why Germany is so involved in Abkazia to understand some of the reasons, and would point them to further areas of research. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Iberieli (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that since the article was nominated much content has been added, and all the original content has been removed. The only thing the current article has in common with the one that was nominated is the name, which as several editors have pointed out is technically incorrect - the article should be renamed. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep, possibly rename, so that there will be no impresion that there is official recognition. - Altenmann >t 01:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The name is misleading since, as has been established long before I swanned in here, they do not have relations but the not-relationship or whatever it is is significant and notable and so the content should be kept and the title should be dispensed with. HJMitchell You rang? 19:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the decision is to keep, and nobody here objects, I will rename to German involvement in Abkhazia Aymatth2 (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2's contribution is appreciated. I'm withdrawing the nomination and renaming the article into German involvement in Georgian-Abkhaz conflict to meet the content and context of the article. The discussion can now be continued on that article's Talk.--Kober^Talk 03:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NOTAVOTE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother New Zealand

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}}.

There is no credible source confirming this edition. I have searched the net and there is still no articles about a New Zealand version of Big Brother. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother NZ 2009/2010 also. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 03:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does exist. Just let us find some sources. --Automatic Tiger (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC) — Automatic Tiger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I agree. This is a very notable version of Big Brother. --Riding Gentleman (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC) — Riding Gentleman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I cannot believe that this was even tagged for deletion. --The Dark Knight Of Yesterday (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC) — The Dark Knight Of Yesterday (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note--you boys (I assume that's a boy tiger) need to mask that puppeteering a bit better. Admin, please scrap a couple of these votes. Oh, "let us find some sources"--that, rather than inventing user names, is time well spent. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Geez boys. Don't you know that puppeteering should be masked??!! However, I vote keep as well. --The Creep In the Attic (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC) — The Creep In the Attic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Yes, you should keep this article. --Man Who Makes Pots (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC) — Man Who Makes Pots (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the television station that supposedly will be carrying doesn't know about it which is HIGHLY unlikely. Also, see this Drawn Some (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and per the lack of verifiability. Cunard (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this AFD remind me of my sock drawer? Delete, the only results I've found in web searches are TV listings in New Zealand for the Aussie Big Brother, and a forum post stating how they won't get their own version. New Zealand:Australia::Canada:USA in this way, not that that has much to do with this discussion. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Big Brother New Zealand IS upcoming this article SHOULD NOT BE DELETED --BigBrotherFan09 —Preceding undated comment added 09:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC). — BigBrotherFan09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. If it ain't in the Herald, it ain't happening. The only references to Big Brother I found were related to the Beehive - not quite reality TV. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think I have ever seen socking this blatant. It is amusing that they didn't even bother to turn their talk and user pages into blue links. Obvious delete due to lack of any verifiable content/likely hoax. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a case with WP:SPI, though I am unsure who the puppeteer is (even User:OMGOMG2009, the creator of the article being discussed here, seems to be a SPA). Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 12:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources. Mind you I don't think you need more to chine in, not with an entire drawer of socks to content with. Canterbury Tail talk 12:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant crystal ball-ery. Bfigura ^(talk) 15:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Man, there are so many puppets I feel like I'm at a Jeff Dunham show. Anyway, it's a pure case of WP:CRYSTAL, with a lack of sources.--SKATER ^T. 16:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Unreferenced. McWomble (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism. FYI, other editions of Big Brother have rated poorly in New Zealand and is no longer screened on any of the major free-to-air channels. A NZ-produced version is highly unlikely.dramatic (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Deep Six - hoax, lies, not true, fibs, falsehoods, tallest tale this side of Waikikamukau, and it ain't gonna happen. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No, no, no, no, no. Just no. In case I hadn't made it clear enough, no! The blatant sockpuppetry is amusing- inventive usernames! In all seriousness, though, there is nothing even remotely reliable that even suggests that anybody is even thinking about considering possibly contemplating making this. Alternatively, we could rename it "The NZ Big Brother Hoax" and keep it for amusement value! HJMitchell You rang? 20:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteHoax. I am from New Zealand, I know! --AtlanticDeep (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother NZ 2009/2010

There is no credible source confirming this edition. I have searched the net and there is still no articles about a New Zealand version of Big Brother. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 03:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Idle hands are the devil's tools. Drawn Some (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and per the lack of verifiability. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "it ain't happening - it's a WP:HOAX. Nothing in The Herald, only hits on scoop.co.nz are related to the other Big Brother. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL at best, WP:HOAX at worst. McWomble (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure vandalism. At least this AFD isn't suffering from the blatant sockpuppetry that is happening at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother New Zealand. dramatic (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Delete - It is not going to happen. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. C4 doesn't have that much money. plan 8 (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Foreign relations of Malta. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta–Moldova relations

another completely random combination, no resident embassies, note that Malta can't even be bothered having a non-resident ambassador. No bilateral agreements according to this. No third party coverage except football relations [21]. not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foreign relations of Malta, which now holds the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Per Aymatth2, the imporatant information in this article has already been moved to Foreign relations of Malta so this has become a pointless, empty argument over a redirect. Ikip (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In that case, can we have a procedural close or something so we can just redirect it? Great work, Aymatth2! HJMitchell You rang? 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Always consider cleanup before deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Market, to Market (MAS*H)

Again, a case of 'Overview, Detailed Story' Trivia. The LoE was redundant to the 'Overview', but I removed the sensationalisms at the LoE to better reflect the summary. ThuranX (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add more real world context and criticism, it is no more detailed than any movie plot or contemporary TV program. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has had tags for two years asking for such to no avail. ThuranX (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a legitimate comparison in your eyes, but there is a notable difference, as regards this set of AfDs. I'm not looking at Seinfeld, I'm looking at MASH. so I think that yours is effectively an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Perhaps I'll look at those later. ThuranX (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then show your not doing this out of personal bias or recentism and nominate some Seinfeld episodes, the plot summaries of equal length and lack sources too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not CSD and there is no policy/guideline which requires such assertions in our articles. Even if there were, it is trivial for this article to pass as such episodes were watched by millions and so had good ratings. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite what Richard says. No sources, episodes aren't individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but a very brief episode summary that seems an appropriate length. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles. Unlikely search term, so redirect unnecessary.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There might be something useful in one of these books, but I can't view the relevant pages. The thing is, if MASH were around today, there would be no shortage of IGN reviews and such. Unfortunately, older TV episodes don't seem to stand a chance around here. Just let me know when you nominate Adam's Ribs. That one might actually be salvageable. Zagalejo^^^ 06:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes, and Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip

Strong keep per Richard, there is no WP:DEADLINE as per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE merging should have been discussed on List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1)before an AFD. Ikip (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep episode of one of the most notable shows in the history of television. Since MASH has several books published about it, including an episode guide (ISBN 0810980835), sourcing should be no problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited. Drawn Some (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prominent episode of one of US television's most notable series. The episode is covered in books and newspapers, and additional material should be added to the article. Alansohn (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing nominator please note there have been improvements and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing nominator please note there is still no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Episode articles were very popular in Wikipedia's early days, but they have been superseded by entertainment wikis "Monster M*A*S*H" is the applicable one here. These do have to be nominated individually, since there were quite a few (a fraction of the total 251 episodes) that were critically-acclaimed and notable in their own right, see M*A*S*H # Unique and unusual episodes. Among the ones that I recall being a departure from the norm were "The Interview", "Point of View", "Dreams" and "Life Time", and of course the finale. Mandsford (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the parent article, specially when that parent has such tremendous notability itself. Discussions about a merge belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think everyone makes the same argument for all M*A*S*H episodes, and I wonder why they weren't all just nominated at the same time. I'll just copy and paste from now on. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 21:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on." That kind of covers every episode of every TV show ever broadcast in America. As I say, I'm glad that the entertainment wikis have made this type of article obsolete. Mandsford (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note: For some reason I'm listed as the first contributor to this article; however, I did not create it. I merely moved it to a different title. I'm not sure when or how the earlier history disappeared. The sources which have been added to support the plot summary are sufficient to establish notability. The "notability is not inherited" argument is irrelevant, because these sources (in particular the Wittebols and Reiss books) deal specifically with the episode, not merely with M*A*S*H as a whole. If notability of this episode is the reason for this AfD, that reason has been answered by the sources provided. However, the article still needs more real-world context, such as information about ratings and initial reception. I suspect that some of this information is available in the sources cited and other print works; however, I don't have access to them to add the info myself. I have added a sentence about the episode's theme, based on the Google Books version of the Wittebols book; but more real-world material is needed, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). However, the article's weakness in this regard is not, by itself, an argument for deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The single instance of a non=PLOT supporting citation doesn't really establish notability for this episode. It says 'this episode makes fun of Army Bureaucracy'. The entire series did that, in every episode. I don't find that sufficient for assertion of specific notability. Had it won awards or received major political reactions for that because of this particular episode, then it would, but simply to say something about this episode which can be said about the vast majority, if not every single episode, is not sufficient. ThuranX (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're inappropriately combining WP:PLOT and WP:NOTABILITY. WP:PLOT is not an argument for deletion, it's an argument for adding real-world context. The section I added was only the beginning of what is needed; however, the sources provided establish notability, which is what is required to prevent deletion. There is no guideline that says that "non-plot sources" are required; all that is required is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The plot material in the various episode guides and books on M*A*S*H meet this criterion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Episodes guides do not make each episode significant, they make the SHOW significant. Listing in the phone book doesn't make you significant.ThuranX (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - A phone book has a one-line entry for each telephone number. An episode guide usually has at least a page on each episode, with details about cast, crew, plot, development and broadcast. That's exactly the sort of information that an encyclopedia covering a specific television episode would have. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found episode article to be useful. I also wish the nominator had done just one or two at a time instead of 15. We can see the same comments on almost every one of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- commentNiteshift36 has made this same small, unsupported statement at many, if not all, of these MASH AfDs, and not provided any sort of 'proof' of notability assertion within any such article. ThuranX (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an example fo the proper amount of detail for an episode. Consdier merging it, but I am concerned that it might be w=unwieldy. If merged, keep the entire content,. The information about ratings and production details should be added, and can be added. It supplements the plot. DGG (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the plot summaries are the right size, they are about the same length as those found in the two published books of summary and commentary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all 24 episodes from season one are up for deletion List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), please everyone expresses an opinion at each of the 24, one way or the other. Some are still stubby and don't have a full plot summary in yet, but the vote is whether they have the right to exist to be expanded upon later. It is a lot faster to add an AFD tag then it is to write a full plot summary and garner the reviews. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STOP CANVASSING. ThuranX (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These nominations are obviously related. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. The nomination seems incoherent and no clear reason to deletion is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason, of course, is that there's no demonstration that this was "notable" as defined by WP:N. There is no rule that an episode of a television series is inherently (automatically) notable. It might appear that way, but when Wikipedia was building, a lot of articles about TV episodes were contributed, because people write about what they're comfortable with. Today, it looks like this will close in a "no consensus", but the day will come when the notable episodes of M*A*S*H -- those that won an award or that are cited when the series is discussed -- are separated from the ones less outstanding. After having my memory jogged, I vaguely remember seeing this is in a rerun -- there's a scene where a flying helicopter is carrying away a desk -- but it's not outstanding. Mandsford (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- keep It's a shame the nominator did not try to improve this article and others like it by fixing it instead of trying to delete it. Too many good reasons to keep. Dloh cierekim 14:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thuran X has not one thing to be ashamed of. I've yet to see any reason to keep an article about a TV episode called "To Market, to Market" other than "It's M*A*S*H" Mandsford (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are independent sources for the episode included in the article, so meets notability. Rlendog (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). The article does not currently meet the GNG (requires significant coverage, beyond just a reworking of the plot). Note that some of the sources used do not meet the definition of reliable. Karanacs (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But at least two (the books by Wittebols and Reiss) do. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Always consider cleanup before deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem for a Lightweight

Another case of overview, Detailed Story, and Trivia without any Notability. The LoE entry and the Overview are near-verbatim, and thus totally redundant. ThuranX (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add more real world context and criticism, it is no more detailed than any movie plot or contemporary TV program. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has had tags for two years asking for such to no avail. ThuranX (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a legitimate comparison in your eyes, but there is a notable difference, as regards this set of AfDs. I'm not looking at Seinfeld, I'm looking at MASH. so I think that yours is effectively an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Perhaps I'll look at those later. ThuranX (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any other legal proceeding where someone is disallowed from pointing out similar examples, or similar case law? Legal precedent has been the basis of legal systems for over 500 years. That is why OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an essay and not a guideline, or an policy, or a pillar of Wikipedia. You have a habit of not wikilinking to it, and not citing any of the wording in that essay. You just use the word to intimidate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity is not enough in court, so I don't see why your 'legal systems' is at all germane. One may not accuse a person of a crime based on perceived similarities to a crime for which actual evidence is held, one still needs evidence. and even if that evidence exists, it still needs legal review and an entire process to determine if it's enough to make the person eligible for consideration of that crime. I don't need to wikilink to it, it's a familiar essay, and in fact, I have ONLY used it to explain how I see the nature of your argument; at no point did I invoked it as a rebuttal via policy. You're aware of this, but you continue to lie, cheat, and mischaracterize my comments. ThuranX (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, episodes aren't individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate M*A*S*H* episode list. Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but an overly long plot summary and unsourced trivia. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles, redirecting per norm. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes, and Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Strong keep per Richard, there is no WP:DEADLINE as per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE merging should have been discussed on List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1)before an AFD. Ikip (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep episode of one of the most notable shows in the history of television. Since MASH has several books published about it, including an episode guide (ISBN 0810980835), sourcing should be no problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited. Drawn Some (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing nominator please note there have been improvements and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing nominator please note there is still no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the parent article, specially when that parent has such tremendous notability itself. Discussions about a merge belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think everyone makes the same argument for all M*A*S*H episodes, and I wonder why they weren't all just nominated at the same time. I'll just copy and paste from now on. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 21:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found episode article to be useful. I also wish the nominator had done just one or two at a time instead of 15. We can see the same comments on almost every one of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the count is at 25. He performed an AFD on all 24 of season one, and then started at season 2. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IF YOU CANNOT STOP LYING ABOUT ME, KINDLY STOP COMING AROUND AT ALL. ThuranX (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bwuh? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, as you pointed out. You did not nominate the MASH pilot, that was completed by 10 PoundHammer and you started on deletion of season two before you finished nomination of all of season one. When I wrote "then started at season 2" I had the chronology wrong. I stand corrected. You still nominated an entire season of a show, minus the pilot, before doing the minimal due diligence to see if any episodes meet even you own strict criteria of what makes an episode notable, such as winning an award. You could have performed a Google search to find the awards and commentary we found. You could have nominated one to test your theory of notability. You could have added tags to the article, you could have asked for help from others to improve the articles. Instead you disrupted Wikipedia to make your point that your narrow definition of notability should be enforced. You also spend hours defending your nominations, sometimes in ALL CAPS, in each article, instead of helping with the effort to add references, even to the articles that met your own strict standard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yet another fat bundle of lies. First, I did look at each article; I've said that enough times that you're either deliberately lying, deliberately avoiding everything I say so that you can make assertions and then say 'I didn't KNOW he said it (because i never read his words)', or you're suffering some sort of personal issue. It's not my job to fix every non-notable article on Wikipedia. Articles are supposed to present the assertion of notability, not be a big fat plot and then have others waste time cleaning up the whole matter of notability. It's been tagged for two years. In two years, no one could find that material; I see no reason for me to assume everyone else is a lazy idiot on Wikipedia. It's far more sensible to assume no one else could find a proof of the individual notability of this show. I nominated these for deletion because they do not assert individual notability, I see no reason to undermine my own efforts by then running around and trying, in vain, given the failure of people to find notability for the vast majority, to find such. two episodes have shown specific individual notability, I've withdrawn those. A third makes a questionable assertion; questionable in that I find it to be an attempt but not enough, while others find it sufficient, this is a question of degrees. The rest have not done so. Stop implying that Ten Pound Hammer is colluding with me. I explained how that SINGLE deletion of season 2 came about, but you won't listen, instead continuing to attack me with accusations of bad faith, of impatience, of ignoring some imaginary consensus that I should have stopped while these AfDs went on. I'm sick and tired of being attacked and made out to be a liar by your cheating at this set of AfDs, 'cheating' being a characterization used first by others than myself. You have been warned, repeatedly and in multiple venues to not continue your deceptive practices, and yet you do continue.ThuranX (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no such argument. You pointed out that you did not nominate the pilot, I checked. You were correct, and I admitted I was wrong. The history shows that Ten pound hammer completed the AFD process for the pilot. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to say he 'completed' the actions, implying that he was apart of thigns and his actions are in association with mine. You know what you are doing, and what your words imply. I've notified him about your continued bad faith and manipulative language. ThuranX (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completed a degree at Rutgers University. There was no conspiracy, implied or actual, in completing that degree. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the common usage is different. Apples and oranges. You could have as easily said that tem Pound Hammer made the nomination, or filed it, or submitted it. Using 'completed' after talking about my supposed nomination fo the entire season as a hostile act implies that Ten Pound Hammer was working WITH me to achieve a goal. You're implying collusion, you've been told as much, yet you continue to insult and attack other users, after lying about said users and being warned not to do that. There's no excusing your bad behavior. ThuranX (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoid people, and I don't want to imply that you are paranoid, see conspiracies where none exist. If you remember the chronology, I had no idea that TPH nominated the MASH pilot, I incorrectly assumed you did, and apologized when you pointed out that it was not you. Can you please point out where I "insult and attack other users"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say you 'don't want to imply [me]', but you do it anyways. No limits you will not go to, eh? Just ones you SAY you won't go to. You attack him in the same stroke by implying collusion, and I've already made that clear. Your feigned confusion is cheap, at best.ThuranX (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources which have been added to support the plot summary are sufficient to establish notability. The "notability is not inherited" argument is irrelevant, because these sources (in particular the Wittebols and Reiss books) deal specifically with the episode, not merely with M*A*S*H as a whole. If notability of this episode is the reason for this AfD, that reason has been answered by the sources provided. However, the article still needs more real-world context, such as information about ratings and initial reception. I suspect that some of this information is available in the sources cited and other print works; however, I don't have access to them to add the info myself. I have added a section about the episode's theme, based on the Google Books version of the Wittebols book; but more real-world material is needed, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). However, the article's weakness in this regard is not, by itself, an argument for deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentNo, i disagree. The books are some minor evidence that a few people feel the series is not able enough for Episode guides, the Episode guides aren't sufficient to confer inherited notability to all episodes. The amount of 'real world content' given by a single source is enough to merit using it in the LoE, but it is not sufficient to support this entire article. Did the episode win any awards? Receive specific criticism about IT and only it in an essay in the newspaper? No? Find proof that THIS one episode is notable, please, and include it. Find somethign specifically speaking to this episode. ThuranX (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has never required the winning of an award as the litmus test for any entry. While every person, book, film, etc that won an award should have an article, we have hundreds if red links in the award lists for people. And every studio released movie post 1950 has an article. Your definition of notability is not the Wikipedia standard, Wikipedia only requores reliable media to have noted the episode in enough detail that every fact has a source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that not every episode of the nightly news would be notable. I would agree that not every episode of a game show is notable. I would agree that not every episode of a late night talk show would be notable. Those can be summed up in a chart. What makes MASH notable, and other episodic television is that the media has taken note of them and written about the individual episodes, and provided context and commentary. We need to avoid covering only recent TV series, just because there are more sources providing commentary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Multiple independent sources verify the plot, however there isn't much discussion of themes, or real world information. PhilKnight (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample evidence of notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per arguments presented here and in the other AFD's like it. It probably would have been better to handle this in a single AFD, to avoid disruption, confusion, drama and the sheer effort of having to opine in so many of these. There is no time limit to improvements, and I do not see where the nominator tried to improve before nomming. In fact, I feel a sense of prejudice against the subject on the part of the nominator. In the brief time that these have been at AFD, a few editors have added ref's and improvements. Dloh cierekim 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AEE (motorcycle)

I don't think there ever was a British motorcycle manufacturer AEE. It is not listed in The world's motorcycles, 1894-1963^[1] nor at Sheldon's EMU. On the web, I found A.E.E. Choppers, from the 1960's [22][23], but no UK company active from 1919-1925. Motorcycles: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases has an entry for AEE which they got from this WP article itself.[24] Heh. Dbratland (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized, the third link should be [25] Motorcycles: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases, rather than a duplicate of the second link. It doesn't change anything.--Dbratland (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Tragatsch, Erwin (1964), The World's Motorcycles, 1894-1963: a record of 70 years of motorcycle production, Temple Press

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I made a real effort to figure this out, looking through a bunch of junk on Google books. This is a one line article with no references and is very difficult to verify. The bit about the choppers in the 1960s is the only thing I can find. This could have been a mistake even. There is less harm in deleting it than in keeping it unverified, as noted it is already starting to get mirrored and has now found its way into print from Wikipedia. This is a real problem and Wikipedia needs to take it seriously. This unverified stuff IS harmful, and not just to the encyclopedia, either. Drawn Some (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too short. No references. Have a nice day. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn, article kept. Jamie^☆S93 16:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Surgeon Who?

This article, after my cleanup of the plot and trivia, which I did after the location of some sources which actually do establish actual notability, seems reasonable now , and I withdraw this nomination. ThuranX (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with a long 'overview' and even longer (much longer) 'detailed story' which goes into scene by scene detail, and a trivia section, the article still shows no real world information nor notability. ThuranX (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dloh cierekim 02:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add more real world context and criticism, it is no more detailed than any movie plot or contemporary TV program. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has had tags for two years asking for such to no avail. ThuranX (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a mild claim assertion of importance or significance in that this is Klinger's first appearance but that information is already in the Season 1 list of episodes. Drawn Some (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, episodes aren't individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete via Redirect to appropriate M*A*S*H* season episode list. Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but an overly long plot summary and claimed "Mashisms" that is unsourced. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles, redirecting per norm. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes, and Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Strong keep there is no WP:DEADLINE this should have been discussed on List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) first. There is little basis to have this article to be removed from wikipedia, WP:FICT has failed to become a guideline three times, and WP:PLOT is currently under an intense edit war. Ikip (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep episode of one of the most notable shows in the history of television. Since MASH has several books published about it, including an episode guide (ISBN 0810980835), sourcing should be no problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited. Drawn Some (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing nominator please note there have been improvements and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing nominator please note there is still no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing nominator please note there is now. This episode won a Writers Guild Award. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the parent article. Discussions about a merge belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think everyone makes the same argument for all M*A*S*H episodes, and I wonder why they weren't all just nominated at the same time. I'll just copy and paste from now on. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 21:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found episode article to be useful. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This episode won a Writers Guild Award, a fact which I've just added to the article, along with some other cited real-world material. More is needed, but notability is certainly established. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of that award, which is sufficient to settle the matter even if one thought the episodes should otherwise be merged. The amount of plot detail is not really excessive, though it could be written more compactly. Some more production details and audience, etc information are needed, as usual. We needto take a more serious attitude towards these, but that means expansion, not subtraction. DGG (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I believe all 24 episodes from season one are up for deletion List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), please everyone expresses an opinion at each of the 24, one way or the other. Some are still stubby and don't have a full plot summary in yet, but the vote is whether they have the right to exist to be expanded upon later. It is a lot faster to add an AFD tag then it is to write a full plot summary and garner the reviews. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please stop canvassing and aqccusing me of bad faith actions, I'm sick and tired of it and you've been told before. ThuranX (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the nom has been appropriately withdrawn. Rlendog (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Always consider cleanup before deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Moose (MAS*H)

Two plots, two trivia sections, no assertions of notability, and the LoE already says it all succinctly. ThuranX (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

~~Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dloh cierekim 02:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
keep It's a shame the nominator did not try to improve this article and others like it by fixing it instead of trying to delete it. To say it's been in need of improvement for 2 years as a reason to delete is just wrong, given what a real effort to locate sourcing turned up. The nominator now claims that the sources added in this desperate, last minute rescue effort are inadequate. Who knows what more will turn up? There is no time limit. And this mass listing of long standing article for deletion has in no way made it easy for the rescuers to meet the artificial time limit imposed by taking them to AFD. Kudos to the rescuers. Dloh cierekim 13:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add more real world context and criticism, it is no more detailed than any movie plot or contemporary TV program. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article has had tags for two years asking for such to no avail. ThuranX (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a legitimate comparison in your eyes, but there is a notable difference, as regards this set of AfDs. I'm not looking at Seinfeld, I'm looking at MASH. so I think that yours is effectively an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Perhaps I'll look at those later. ThuranX (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, episodes aren't individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but but an excessive summary and trivia. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles. Unlikely search term, so redirect unnecessary.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep episode of one of the most notable shows in the history of television. Since MASH has several books published about it, including an episode guide (ISBN 0810980835), sourcing should be no problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited. Drawn Some (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there are sources discussing this specific episode. Rlendog (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing nominator please note there have been improvements and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP additions verify notability. Why wasn't merging this article discussed at one central place first, such as the season one MASH page, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. There is little basis to have this article removed from wikipedia, WP:FICT has failed to become a guideline three times, and WP:PLOT is under edit war. Ikip (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes, and Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip

Closing nominator please note there is still no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the parent article, specially when that parent has such tremendous notability itself. Discussions about a merge belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think everyone makes the same argument for all M*A*S*H episodes, and I wonder why they weren't all just nominated at the same time. I'll just copy and paste from now on. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found episode article to be useful. I also wish the nominator had done just one or two at a time instead of 15. We can see the same comments on almost every one of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though slightly weaker keep than some other M*A*S*H episodes. The sources (which deal with this episode specifically, not the program in general) establish notability. More real-world perspective is needed, but the absence of that is not a deletion criterion. Wittebols had only a passing analytical reference to this episode, so I couldn't add the material I've added to other articles; hence my "slightly weaker" keep. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources do NOT establish notability for this episode. They simply support the fat plot summary, but make no assertions of notability. ThuranX (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:N. Notability is not a matter of importance, asserted or otherwise. It's a matter of sources and we have them. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is defined on Wikipedia as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The sources are reliable and independent of the subject, and discuss the episode specifically. It's true that the article should contain more than just plot, but that's an argument for addition of more material, not deletion. "Notability" doesn't mean "non-plot" coverage in reliable sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Listing in an episode guide is NOT significant Coverage. it's like being listed in the phone book of a town. If you live there, you are listed. That doesnt' make you mayor. ThuranX (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A phone book only lists a person's name and number, and would not denote "notability" for the person. By the same argument, a list of episodes in the series, in a chart, would not denote notability for that episode. But here we have a plot summary published that also comes with commentary and criticism, the same standard we use for a movie being reviewed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not 'the standard used for movies', although it may be used in some movie films. Most try to find signifcantly more - cast and crew interviews, for example. ThuranX (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example of a post 1950 studio movie the should not have an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that not all episodes and series are written up in this way. The ones which are, are notable, by definition. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as before. Already compact enough, but add production and audience information. ,Consider a merge--but the main thing is to keep the content.DGG (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are independent sources about the episode available for the article, so meets notability. Article needs improvement, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). The article does not currently meet the GNG (requires significant coverage, beyond just a reworking of the plot). Note that some of the sources used do not meet the definition of reliable. Karanacs (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But at least two (the books by Wittebols and Reiss) do. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Always consider cleanup before deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee Doodle Doctor

Yankee Doodle Doctor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

With both an overview, and a detailed story, article suffers a serious PLOT vio, as well as a TRIVIA problem, and a sad dearth of sources. ThuranX (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dloh cierekim 02:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
keep It's a shame the nominator did not try to improve this article and others like it by fixing it instead of trying to delete it. There is no time limit. And this mass listing of long standing article for deletion has in no way made it easy for the rescuers to meet the artificial time limit imposed by taking them to AFD. Kudos to the rescuers. Dloh cierekim 13:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add more real world context and criticism, it is no more detailed than any movie plot or contemporary TV program. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article has had tags for two years asking for such to no avail. ThuranX (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a legitimate comparison in your eyes, but there is a notable difference, as regards this set of AfDs. I'm not looking at Seinfeld, I'm looking at MASH. so I think that yours is effectively an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Perhaps I'll look at those later. ThuranX (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, episodes aren't individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete via Redirect to appropriate M*A*S*H* season episode list. Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but an overly long plot summary and an unsourced trivia tidbit probably copied from IMDB. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles, redirecting per norm. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), and Talk:List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip

Strong keep per Richard, there is no WP:DEADLINE as per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE merging should have been discussed on List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1)before an AFD. Ikip (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep episode of one of the most notable shows in the history of television. Since MASH has several books published about it, including an episode guide (ISBN 0810980835), sourcing should be no problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited. Drawn Some (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing nominator please note there have been improvements and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing nominator please note there is still no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the parent article. Discussions about a merge belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think everyone makes the same argument for all M*A*S*H episodes, and I wonder why they weren't all just nominated at the same time. I'll just copy and paste from now on. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found episode article to be useful. I also wish the nominator had done just one or two at a time instead of 15. We can see the same comments on almost every one of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all 24 episodes from season one are up for deletion List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1), please everyone expresses an opinion at each of the 24, one way or the other. Some are still stubby and don't have a full plot summary in yet, but the vote is whether they have the right to exist to be expanded upon later. It is a lot faster to add an AFD tag then it is to write a full plot summary and garner the reviews. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability is established by the cited sources, which deal specifically with this episode rather than generally with the series. I've added a short section on themes and reception, based on the Wittebols book; more is needed per WP:WAF, but an imbalance between plot and real-world content is not by itself a deletion argument. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This particular article did get sources which go beyond supporting the bloviated plot summaries, but I don't find that they actually rise to establishing notability. What little is said can easily be incorporated into the LoE. ThuranX (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as for the overview, articles need a lede--its part of the basic style & the overview could be merged there. Additional information should be added, but inbalance is an editing question, and the relative amount can vary. In going through these, one by one, I note two three things: 1. I do not think the nomination has been preceded by any attempt to look for sources. 2. I don't even see any evidence its taken the individual article characteristics into account. 3. This many at a time is abusive. if I were not previously involved in these discussions, and came across them for the first time, i would have serious doubts that this is a good way to handle them. DGG (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are independent sources about the episode available for the article, so meets notability. Rlendog (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Always consider cleanup before deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bananas, Crackers and Nuts

Bananas, Crackers and Nuts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has a trivia section, and a "Detailed Story" (And it is.) There are no assertions of importance, notability, or use of sources in the article. ThuranX (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dloh cierekim 02:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
keep It's a shame the nominator did not try to improve this article and others like it by fixing it instead of trying to delete it. To say it's been in need of improvement for 2 years as a reason to delete is just wrong. There is no time limit. And this mass listing of long standing article for deletion has in no way made it easy for the rescuers to meet the artificial time limit imposed by taking them to AFD. Kudos to the rescuers. Dloh cierekim 13:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add more real world context and criticism, it is no more detailed than any movie plot or contemporary TV program. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article has had tags for two years asking for such to no avail. ThuranX (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a legitimate comparison in your eyes, but there is a notable difference, as regards this set of AfDs. I'm not looking at Seinfeld, I'm looking at MASH. so I think that yours is effectively an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Perhaps I'll look at those later. ThuranX (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY it replaced your argument.
No, it did not. It makes an effective summary of a longer counter-argument that I don't feel like Cut and Pasting to each and every AfD nom I've made, chasing you all over for an hour to do so. As well, the essay you cite specifically says do not even use it itself to counter others. As well, i did NOT reference OCE as policy, but rather as a description of your argument. Do not mischaracterize my words in that way, nor put them in my mouth. Your actions already break AGF, on both your part and mine. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a real problem with editors who call other editor good faith contributions "crap". Does this really help come to a consensus? Just like cruft, "this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Ikip (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, episodes aren't individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources, will this matter in your !vote? Probably not I fear :( Ikip (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate M*A*S*H* season 1 episode list. Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but an overly long plot summary. Can be pared down some and merged into season list (which, FYI, needs reformatting, seriously). Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles, redirecting per norm. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments of Richard...there is no WP:DEADLINE Ikip (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes, and Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip

Keep episode of one of the most notable shows in the history of television. Since MASH has several books published about it, including an episode guide (ISBN 0810980835), sourcing should be no problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited. Drawn Some (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing nominator please note there have been improvements and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since those liks to the "complete mash episode guide" etc... don't establish independent notability for this episode. Then redirect to the list of article.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing nominator please note there is still no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing nominator please note: there is now. The episode won an ACE Eddie Award for editing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the parent article, specially when that parent has such tremendous notability itself. Discussions about a merge belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup. ~~That aside, I get an uncomfortable sense that this series of nominations by ThuranX may somehow be related to the discussion of him at ANI.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited from siblings or parents and the article makes no claim of importance or significance for the subject. Also, please assume good faith, you are declaring that you are not. Drawn Some (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inapplicable, as the episode exists as part of the notable series. Merge discussions belong on the talk page. Tagging for sources belongs at the article. That no one has added sources that satisfy the nom or other editors contravenes WP:DEADLINE. Because of WP:COMMONSENSE presemption of notability, Wikipedia allows that such articles may sit and grow, fast or slow, for as long as it takes. The nomination of an entire series of established and related articles of a notable series in a very short time speaks for itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC
As someone who has been wrongly accused of having a particular motivation for a behavior, I would urge you to not draw conclusions about his possible motivation or reason for doing something and certainly do not publicly state your thoughts if you cannot avoid thinking them. Direct your criticism at the behavior and not at what you suppose may be the reason behind the behavior. It is one thing to criticize him for nominating an article for deletion but it is entirely another to speculate about why he did it, and it is clearly just speculation and accusations on your part as his stated reasons are different. As I pointed out to someone else, he is only nominating the articles, not deciding whether or not they are to be deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained my motivation for individual nominations repeatedly; that this is not being listened to by others is frustrating, and makes for a good STRAWMAN to distract from the actual issues at hand: that the article makes no assertions of Notability. It appears some TV Guide listings, and fan-based books have been added as significant sources and assertions of notability, but I don't see those assertions in the article. ThuranX (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am striking it here and removing it entirely from other discussions. As long as there is no connection, none need be sought. I apologize for my mis-impression. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and if you think about it, even if it were true, the nominator's motivation shouldn't affect the outcome of an AfD, the guidelines and policies should. Drawn Some (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think everyone makes the same argument for all M*A*S*H episodes, and I wonder why they weren't all just nominated at the same time. I'll just copy and paste from now on. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 21:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found episode article to be usefull. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This episode won an ACE Eddie Award for editing. Even without that, the sources would establish notability. More real-world context is needed, per WP:WAF, but that alone is not a justification for deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If ~~that can be sourced properly, and~~ the article undergoes a massive PLOT reduction, then I'll withdraw this nomination. ThuranX (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, "if that can be sourced properly"? I added it to the article, with a citation to p. 25 of the Wittebols book. You can check it for yourself on Google Books. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant exactly what I said. WHEN I posted that, there was no such info nor citation. I see you are now joining in the Bad Faith discussion that Richard Arthur Norton is perpetrating, in which you reply to or redact commentaries in a way that deliberately makes mine look as though I am ignoring what you say. Deplorable behavior. ThuranX (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment above is time-stamped 13:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC). In this diff, time-stamped 05:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC), I added the material about the ACE Eddie Award. The material was added eight hours prior to your posting. Please redact your comment. An apology would be helpful as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No apology will be made; when I looked, I did not see it present in the article. That's simple enough, and exactly what I said earlier. I note that no clean up happened either, so I guess if you're insisting I AGF, then it would be proper for you to do your part as well, and clean the thing up. ThuranX (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The award is sufficient for notability, as always. The rest is an editing question. That the nomination did not search for such things according to WP:BEFORE seems to be a consistent problem.Continuing proof for my view that nominations without them should be rejected. DGG (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the series. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that this was an award-winning episode? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, if necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy (M*A*S*H)

Cowboy (M*A*S*H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has an overlong plot unsupported by real world info or notability; a trivia section, and an infobox. The plot summary in the LoE is redundant to what's here. ThuranX (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ - The article is a copyvio from [26]. I tagged it for speedy deletion. OlYeller^Talktome 02:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If only. that's a mirror of us. ThuranX (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Ma bad. OlYeller^Talktome 18:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a copyvio too. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<<ec>>Speedy declined. http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/2262054 got its content from WIkipedia. Look in the upper right hand corner. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep It's a shame the nominator did not try to improve this article and others like it by fixing it instead of trying to delete it. To say it's been in need of improvement for 2 years as a reason to delete is just wrong, given what a real effort to locate sourcing turned up. Kudos to the rescuers. Dloh cierekim 13:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article and those like it are essential to coverage of the subject M*A*S*H (TV series) as a sub topic. In other words, a paper encyclopedia, had it the room or interest to do so, would include these sub-articles as part of an article on M*A*S*H*. Wikipedia:NOTINHERETED says "notability of a parent entity or topic . . . does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case. . . " Those favoring deletion would be correct if all there was to the notability of these articles was a few remarks in episode guides, but the main subject is sufficiently notable to require coverage of individual episodes. So "no assertion of notability" and "episodes aren't individually notable" are not really relevant, nor is not plot a valid argument in the cases of this article and those like it. Those arguing to delete, with all due respect, have not made a convincing argument that these articles are not essential to full coverage. Those arguing for merge are on firmer ground. However, the individual article titles are valid and valuable for redirects to the List, so deletion again would be unhelpful. Also, such mergers (and even if there is little value in merging content, the additional sourcing and the preservation of the edit summaries is something to consider) would serve no constructive purpose. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add more real world context and criticism, it is no more detailed than any movie plot or contemporary TV program. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. The scrape of the Wikipedia article is the violation, not the other way around. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article has had tags for two years asking for such to no avail. ThuranX (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, episodes aren't individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a legitimate comparison in your eyes, but there is a notable difference, as regards this set of AfDs. I'm not looking at Seinfeld, I'm looking at MASH. so I think that yours is effectively an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Perhaps I'll look at those later. ThuranX (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has been superseded by WIKIPEDIA:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be wrong. A popular cheap rejoinder to a serious point isn't superseding anything. The point stands. ZBecause you can find a problem in something else does not jsutify ignoring a problem here. ThuranX (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel so strongly, AFD a few Seinfeld episodes too, to show me that this isn't recentism, and is a deeper policy issue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay guys both please be civil. ThuranX is nominating the articles, not deciding whether or not they should be kept, and he should be thanked for doing all of this work, not attacked for it. Mr. Norton that last comment is inappropriate, he's already working, you nominate the Seinfeld junk and let him finish this. Drawn Some (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are already showing you bias by calling it "Seinfeld junk", without ever contributing to the articles there at Seinfeld. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)That's not the project I'm working on, and I'm not your monkey. Go Nom it yourself. I fail to see how noting that articles tagged for for GNG for 2 years, consisting of only plots and trivia, should be deleted, has anything to do with recentisms at all. It happened to be a mess I stumbled upon and decided to clean up. That's it. ThuranX (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not your monkey" comments like this are conductive to comprimise and consensus. Ikip (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather troubled when editors call other editor good faith contributions "crap". Does this really help come to a consensus? Just like cruft, "this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Ikip (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~Delete ~~to appropriate M*A*S*H* episode list.~~ Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but an overly long plot summary and unsourced trivia. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles. Unlikely search term so redirect unnecessary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The title represents a highly improbable search term, redirecting seems irrelevant. ThuranX (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the episode list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes, and Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip

Strong keep per Richard. There is no WP:DEADLINE as per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE merging should have been discussed on List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) before an AFD. Listed in TV guide as a classic episode.[27]Ikip (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing nominator please note since this nomination there have been signifigant additions and improvements to the article.[28] Ikip (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production trivia, plot summary, and a TV Guide sound bite do not an article make. Citing the plot over and over doesn't rectify that it still comprises 77% of the prose in the article. Use cites and sound bite in LOE, the delete. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing nominator please note there is still no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the parent article. Discussions about a merge belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup.T Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think everyone makes the same argument for all M*A*S*H episodes, and I wonder why they weren't all just nominated at the same time. I'll just copy and paste from now on. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained, repeatedly, in various places, my rationale for individual nomination. Please look for it, and read it. There should be one at WP:TV, and in a few of these AfDs. Since you're editing all of them, you either have or will soon see it, please read it and stop asserting that my intentions were in Bad faith. ThuranX (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly didn't think it was bad faith. I just thought you didn't think of doing it the other way. Don't assume everyone is out to get you. It would've been great to have them all in one place, since everyone participating is posting the same stuff in all those places anyway. Dream Focus 00:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The people arguing to keep have not demonstrated notability and in general are skirting around or ignoring the notability question. This page has a number of sources given but they are hardly reliable and independent (fandango appears to be run by comcast, and thus has an interest in promoting television, and is hardly independent, classicsitcoms.com is a self-published site run by Vince Waldron--these are barely acceptable, and i think could be argued unacceptable, for sources, and are definitely not adequate for arguing notability). "Watching M*A*S*H, Watching America" does provide a couple paragraphs of this episode but it is nothing more than a plot summary--there is absolutely no context of how the episode relates in any way to anything else, which, in my opinion, is a key aspect of notability--and thats it, very scant coverage for a few-hundred-page long book dedicated in detail to the series. Cazort (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found episode article to be useful. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
commentNiteshift36 has made this same small, unsupported statement at many, if not all, of these MASH AfDs, and not provided any sort of 'proof' of notability assertion within any such article. ThuranX (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I've added some real-world sourcing to a few of these M*A*S*H episode articles, based on the Wittebols book; however, I've now reached the limit of the number of pages Google Books will let me see in that book, so I can't do any more now. Nevertheless, the point stands: the sources that others have found establish notability for these episodes, and source material exists to add the real-world material which these articles need. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe sources Josiah mentions are multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, in an attempt to put sources on the page. They do not alter my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability. ThuranX (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability on Wikipedia is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It doesn't say "except episode guides". WP:PLOT is an argument for improving balance of content, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Episodes guides do not make each episode significant, they make the SHOW significant. Listing in the phone book doesn't make you significant.ThuranX (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A phone book has a one-line entry for each telephone number. An episode guide usually has at least a page on each episode, with details about cast, crew, plot, development and broadcast. That's exactly the sort of information that an encyclopedia covering a specific television episode would have. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Additional information should be added, but inbalance is an editing question, and the relative amount can vary. In going through these, one by one, I remark again that it is so much easier to nominate for deletion that to look for sources. One person says one sentence, and a dozen people have to scramble. I'm not sure these should have been nomin as a group some like this one have indications of outside recognition of notability, and thus are much more certain keeps. I don't fault doing them individually--I do fault doing them all at the same time. DGG (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources = evidently notable, as one would expect. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are independent sources about the episode available for the article, so meets notability. Article needs improvement, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the list of episodes for that series. All the substantive content fails WP:PLOT. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLOT does not have consensus support and so is not an accepted policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). The article does not currently meet the GNG (requires significant coverage, beyond just a reworking of the plot). Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm not redirecting this; why Foreign relations of Malta, and not Foreign relations of Saudi Arabia? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta – Saudi Arabia relations

Malta – Saudi Arabia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

could not find any real evidence of notable relations. [29] the first article of that search is just 2 academic institutions signing a memo of understanding (rather than agreement). I did find an article of Malta considering closing its embassy in Saudi Arabia which may something about the level of relations. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foreign relations of Malta, which now holds the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage of the topic stated by the article title. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Foreign relations of Malta, at this time it is harmful to delete such articles while heated debates are going on. -Marcusmax(speak) 15:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE the imporatant information in this article has already been moved to Foreign relations of Malta so this has become a pointless, empty argument over a redirect. Ikip (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should Marcusmax (talk · contribs) blocked for editing to deciding for delete an article of bilateral relations. I should request it at notice to the admins. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 10:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked, I am curious for what. For not wanting to delete this article and instead redirecting it? -Marcusmax(speak) 13:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please continue above conversation on your talk pages. thank you. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no reliable sources discuss this alleged relationship anywhere. I have no opposition to a redirect but it's a highly implausible search term.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed there is no harm in the re-direct, and of course if it appears to be useless as time goes on it can always be listed at WP:RFD. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect to Foreign relations of Malta. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, there are no relations of which to speak really. I wouldn't oppose a delete, but at least merging it would keep (possibly) useful content in the encyclopaedia. Merge to Foreign relations of... HJMitchell You rang? 22:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable secondary sources adress these relationships. Hipocrite (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, random X-Y intersection article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere, if necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Please Come Home

Henry Please Come Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article consists of a plot summary redundant to the LoE, and an infobox. Not claims of notability are made nor sources used. ThuranX (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Speedy keep It's a shame the nominator did not try to improve this article and others like it by fixing it instead of trying to delete it. To say it's been in need of improvement for 2 years as a reason to delete is just wrong, given what a real effort to locate sourcing turned up. Kudos to the rescuers. Dloh cierekim 13:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, episodes aren't individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand the plot to match the others and add more real world context and criticism, it is no more detailed than any movie plot or contemporary TV program. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a legitimate comparison in your eyes, but there is a notable difference, as regards this set of AfDs. I'm not looking at Seinfeld, I'm looking at MASH. so I think that yours is effectively an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Perhaps I'll look at those later. ThuranX (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete via Redirect to appropriate M*A*S*H* season 1 episode list. Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but a short plot summary which is easily mergable to existing list (badly formatted list, perhaps, but still existing). Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles, redirecting per norm. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was trying to count how many places Thuran and Richard were having the exact same argument verbatim and lost count at about 9. Surely you can see why this procedure is flawed? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As flawed as any political system is ... but, can you offer an alternative? I always agree it is better to set a global standard for plot summaries, than to have piecemeal deletion. A lot of work goes into massive AFDs in a series of articles, and even more goes into defending against the deletion. More can be done by working out a global compromise. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I previously suggested that Thuran bundle all the episodes he was aiming to delete into one discussion. I know it would be a massively colossal bundle, but it would be a case of applying one standard across the board, and it would consolidate everything. It would also make sure people who !voted made informed !votes. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 09:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes, and Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip

STRONG KEEP additions verify notability. Why wasn't merging this article discussed at one central place first, such as List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) first, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. There is little basis to have this article removed from wikipedia, WP:FICT has failed to become a guideline three times, and WP:PLOT is currently under an intense edit war. Ikip (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing nominator please note there have been improvements and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing nominator please note there is still no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the parent article. Discussions about a merge belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think everyone makes the same argument for all M*A*S*H episodes, and I wonder why they weren't all just nominated at the same time. I'll just copy and paste from now on. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the episode list. Query, why are these all separate discussions anyways? 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found episode article to be useful. I also wish the nominator had done just one or two at a time instead of 15. We can see the same comments on almost every one of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
commentNiteshift36 has made this same small, unsupported statement at many, if not all, of these MASH AfDs, and not provided any sort of 'proof' of notability assertion within any such article. ThuranX (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I've added some real-world sourcing to a few of these M*A*S*H episode articles, based on the Wittebols book; however, I've now reached the limit of the number of pages Google Books will let me see in that book, so I can't do any more now. Nevertheless, the point stands: the sources that others have found establish notability for these episodes, and source material exists to add the real-world material which these articles need. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe 'improvements' above are simply the use of multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, in an attempt to put sources on the page. However, my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. ThuranX (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability on Wikipedia is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It doesn't say "except episode guides". WP:PLOT is an argument for improving balance of content, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Episodes guides do not make each episode significant, they make the SHOW significant. Listing in the phone book doesn't make you significant.ThuranX (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A phone book has a one-line entry for each telephone number. An episode guide usually has at least a page on each episode, with details about cast, crew, plot, development and broadcast. That's exactly the sort of information that an encyclopedia covering a specific television episode would have. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The improvement that this needs is obvious: expansion. Both some more production and reception details, and a better and longer plot summary. DGG (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable as with all the other ridiculous nominations of these episodes. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Warden. Looks fine to me. Referenced, notable—just like the last one I voted on just like this. — Jake Wartenberg 16:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are independent sources about the episode referenced in the article, so meets notability. Following WP:BEFORE would have avoided this unnecessary nomination. Rlendog (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list of episodes in the series until there's something more than a plot summary to put in. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While we can probably agree that the subject would ordinarily fail WP:BIO due to the lack of substantial independent coverage, the guideline does presume notability for the holders of notable awards and I can't discount the arguments made to that effect. Sandstein 06:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lessie Wei

Lessie Wei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Keep (caveat - I am article's creator).

Article and subject are both sufficiently notable. The same editor who ahd the article speedy deleted previously (when I was not around to defend it) has done so again, so I initiated this AFD for a vote by my peers. The article's subject, Lessie Wei, has an extensive CV of government service and was awarded the Silver Bauhinia Star, which is the post-British honours system in the Hong Kong SAR, which means it is the equivalent of an OBE or MBE, which are notable per se. I really would like to create articles for as many Gold Bauhinia Star and Silver Bauhinia Star awardees as I can, but it's not easy. Having an idea of whether or not these future efforts will be subjected to speedy deletes or PRODs or how my peers view them will be useful in that I won't waste my time. [email protected] (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has been speedy deleted once as there was no assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO as the references given are not independent. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as the subject has not held a international, national or first-level sub-national political office. The article also seems to be very close to the past creation that was deleted. OlYeller^Talktome 02:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALSO: The article is close to the prior version which was inappropriately speedy deleted, because it was restored by an administrator who agreed that the speedy deletion had been inappropriate, for me to work on and returned to the mainspace once I perfected it as best I could. I repeat -- the first time the article was speedy deleted I was not around to put the "hangon" tag and defend it. No one can stay on Wikipedia 24/7. It should have been AFDed or PRODded to be fair in that regard. Speedy deletes should only be used in cases of blatant nonsense, vandalism, slander or libel, none of which is the case here. Bottom line: subject is notable by virtue of government background and Silver Bauhinia Star honour (see above). [email protected] (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for deletion of recreated material only applies for articles that were deletion through discussion, such as this discussion, and not speedy deletion or a prod. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the creator wants it kept, why did they start an afd? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 03:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For an answer to this please read my above comments. Suffice to say that I feel the article is entitled to be defended and I am not afraid of a fair vote on the article's merits by my peers on Wikipedia. To deal with speedydelete, there is no guarantee that will happen as a hangon tag can be and have been and are often ignored. [email protected] (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I researched this quite thoroughly from the award itself to the structure of the Hong Kong Government and see no reason why the Silver Bauhinia Star shouldn't establish notability for Ms. Wei as well as any other recipient, that is one of the first things noted in the guideline. I wish Ms. Wei could point to reliable sources to give more details about her life and career as the article is rather thin at this point and there must be information considering the positions she has held. Drawn Some (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Neu_tralle 11:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think being issued a Silver Bauhinia Star is enough to meet notability. Sure the article could use more sources, but all that takes is a few editors to fix up the article. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's precisely two sources kinds of sources which could be used to expand this article:

Information which Ms. Wei has chosen to put out there herself in her government bio

Character assassination in unreliable POV-pushing sources [30]

Not exactly the stuff which we should be using to write biographies of living people. Ms. Wei has received no attention from reliable media, whether English-language or Chinese-language, except as an easily-quotable "authority figure" due to her title. This appears to be the same situation for almost all the other Silver Bauhinia Star awardees; that lack of sources argues against "automatic notability" for any of them (aside from the ones who were already notable regardless of some lump of government-approved metal, like Jackie Chan, or those who went on to higher things and subsequently got awarded an even more illustrious lump of metal, like Timothy Fok). I'd like to see some of those people with a "keep" opinion address this problem ... cab (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because the article looks like POV Pushing, doesn't mean we should delete it. Someone can address that problem only when you keep the article. Ms Wei is a recipient of both SBS & JP. Those 2 alone can keep the article! According to some wiki members here, just because we can't find reliable media to write her bio, we should delete her entry all together?! Great, we should just keep the "good people's bio" on wikipedia then. plz~ TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if bios don't have reliable sources for their info, the information should be removed as specifically stated in WP:BLP. If there are no reliable and independent sources for an article, the article should be deleted. OlYeller^Talktome 18:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP also says to improve the article and use RS. The article has refs from the Gov. of Hong Kong, now please tell me they are not RS so you can delete it. Also, while you are at it, I want to delete the following Wiki Entry: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad & Kim Jong-il, I think they are POV Pushing & and none of the refs are RS. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know three things:

First - why does cab cite Epoch Times as I do not recall ever using that paper for any references on Wikipedia, much less Lessie Wei

Second - why does TheAsianGURU claim I am "POV Pushing", when I am doing no such thing?
You made it sound like I was the first one to say that. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third - and more important -- how can OlYeller21 state that my article [does not] "have reliable sources for their info" and that there are "no reliable or independent sources" for this article? This user is being wholly disingenuous because the below-referenced sources were provided in the Lessie Wei article.~~OlYeller21's stalking of the article since it was properly restored -- as it should have been, since it never should have been speedy deleted in the first place -- does not inspire confidence, either.~~
http://www.csb.gov.hk/print/english/info/788.html

http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/publications/publications_press/pr105.html

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr96-97/chinese/lc_sitg/floor/961002cd.doc

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr95-96/english/panels/fa/minutes/fa290796.htm

http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/98/1/1.98.swf

http://www.gld.gov.hk/egazette/pdf/20010513e/egn2001051313.pdf

Yours, [email protected] (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I draw your attention to the guideline on notability, specifically the part which 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." So any source you cite in writing this article should satisfy three criteria: 1. Significant, 2. Reliable, and 3. Independent. Unfortunately, people on Wikipedia often use "Reliable" as a shorthand for referring to all three of these criteria --- sorry for the confusion.

Examples of sources satisfying all three criteria would be real newspapers (something like Ming Pao, not government proceedings or obscure screeds put out by animal rights groups), books, academic journals, etc. which discuss Ms. Wei. Of the sources you listed above:
Neither significant (1 paragraph about Ms. Wei) nor independent (it is written by Ms. Wei's employer, and probably by Ms. Wei herself)

Has significant coverage of some tree-planting programme, not significant coverage of Ms. Wei who is only being quoted, not written about

Primary source (raw text of legislative proceedings), not secondary source; also not significant coverage of Ms. Wei as it mentions her name precisely once in a long list of names

Primary source (raw text of legislative proceedings), not secondary source; also it's not about Ms. Wei, it's about the topic of "history and the present market situation of bullion trading in Hong Kong" on which Ms. Wei gave a report

Does not consist of significant coverage (it mentions Ms. Wei's name once) in addition to being a fringe publication

Does not consist of significant coverage (Ms. Wei's name appears in a huge laundry list of individuals).

Finally, I did not state that you cited the Epoch Times. I myself am offering it as an example of a source which meets at least 2 out of 3 criteria in WP:N: it covers Ms. Wei somewhat non-trivially and is also independent of Ms. Wei; however, it is also a fringe publication, and thus doesn't qualify as a "reliable source". Regards, cab (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RMS, I think it's important to note that this article is not yours (see WP:OWNERSHIP. People think you're POV pushing because it's become obvious that you're emotionally involved with this article. Calling me a "stalker of this article" is a personal attack and would further prove that you're emotionally attached. The article was on my watchlist as it was automatically added when I tagged it for an A7 speedy deletion the first time. I realize that you may have worked hard on this article and it may or may not be deleted but please refrain from personal attacks and taking ownership of an article that belongs to Wikipedia. OlYeller^Talktome 14:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look I am not emotionally attached to the article. (There are some articles I have created that I care about strongly, but not this one.) If it's deleted, it's deleted. I know I do not own the article or any other work product related to Wikipedia. However the article never should have been speedy deleted in the first place to land on OlYeller21's watchlist. The judgment of the person who tagged it and the admin who complied were both seriously flawed. The fact that I was denied due process the first time around is the reason we have to go through this now. If User:OlYeller21 had checked the article's history he would have seen that the article had been restored to the mainspace by an administrator, one who acknowledged to me that speedy deletion had been inappropriate. In that light tagging it again as a speedy delete was inappropriate. This article, however imperfect, bears no resemblance to the nonsense, plagiarism and vandalism that WP:SPEEDYDELETE was designed to eliminate. [email protected] (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CSD for what speedy deletion is for. The page made no assertion of notability (the award part was left out) so it was deleted under A7 (not for "nonsense, plagiarism and vandalism"). Again, you're making false claims about the tagger (me) and the admin (who I have notified about this discussion). How could I have checked the history to see that it was userfied before the article was deleted in the first place? Also, any deleted article can be userfied as long as it's not vandalism or plagarism (see here). Also, I'm very interested to see a link to where the administrator who restored the article to your userspace, agreed that the article was deleted incorrectly. I found these 4 conversations you had with the userfying admin where there was no indication of your claim that it was "inappropriately" deleted ([31][32][33][34]). It's very possible that I missed something but I'm asking that you back up your claim about an admin and my "seriously flawed." Your colloquial responses, constant bolding, personal attacks, perhaps the longest list of confirmed sockpuppets I've ever seen (Category:[email protected][35]), previous ban and this edit is what made me think that you're emotionally attached to this article. This response has nothing to do with the deletion of this article but your false claims need to be addressed where you made them.OlYeller^Talktome 17:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Your colloquial responses, constant bolding, personal attacks, perhaps the longest list of confirmed sockpuppets I've ever seen (Category:[email protected][36]), previous ban and this edit is what made me think that you're emotionally attached to this article. This response has nothing to do with the deletion of this article but your false claims need to be addressed where you made them" -- and you're not a stalker!?!? Well, maybe this is a self-fulfilling prophecy on my end, but I've been around the block and can usually judge 'em. As far as your making reference to things from my pre-reinstatement period, which far more knowledgeable and qualified persons than you have already reviewed ad nauseum, and which, in your own words, "have nothing to do with this article", is evidently some primitive attempt to embarrass me. It won't work but it does show me the kind of person you are. [email protected] (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I reviewed the WP:CSD section (A7) cited and it states that the criterion of importance (not even notability) "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion." That sounds like the article should never have been speedy deleted to begin with the first time, much less twice, and that I followed the proper protocol. [email protected] (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per WP:BIO the silver star is enough to establish notability and you need look no further, you don't need in-depth blah blah blah. Drawn Some (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The presumption of "automatic notability" from award X generally flows from the idea that award X is given only to those who actually have some accomplishments or contributions beyond showing up to work every day. What accomplishment sparked my government to give Ms. Wei the SBS? Apparently, no one (not even the government which issued the award, let alone the media which can choose whatever they want to write about) cares enough to say why. As far as I can see, they give these things out like candy to retiring civil servants of no accomplishment or fame whatsoever. That argues strongly against automatic notability for any SBS awardee. My grandpa got a gold watch and a plaque when he retired too.

Try googling any of the other names on the list of SBS awardees. Neither I nor any other member of the HK public knows about people like Robert George KOTEWALL, LEUNG Cham-tim, etc. Journalists don't care. Scholars don't care. So why should Wikipedia serve as space to reprint their government-issued biographies which have undergone no independent fact-checking? Let the government gazetteer list all these utterly non-notable people; that is not the function of Wikipedia. cab (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PEOPLE say that a person is notable if they, "received a notable award or honor." I don't consider this award notable but that's just me. OlYeller^Talktome 17:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I investigated this thoroughly. This system of honors replaced the British system after the lease on Hong Kong expired. Both are awarded by the government and recipients are chosen by the government. The recipients of the British awards are considered inherently notable, there is no reason not to accord the same for the recipients of the Hong Kong awards. Any criticism made of them could be leveled at the British honors. Drawn Some (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's a fair conclusion. The problem I have is that I don't see where anyone has been proven inherently notable for winning the Silver Bauhinia Star. On the Wiki page, the awardees are listed and less than 10% of them have their own page on Wikipedia. Has that precedent been set in AfDs? I haven't checked. If so, can you provide some links please? OlYeller^Talktome 18:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the first 6 articles for awardees (from the top of the list) and all of them are notable for other reasons. OlYeller^Talktome 18:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is precedent for the British honors being considered notable at AfD, I don't know about the Hong Kong ones. The author actually put the article up for AfD to get a determination because it was being speedied. When I say I investigated this, I spent well over an hour, I don't remember exactly because it's been a while. I read up on the history of both the British honors and the Hong Kong ones, the here and investigated the numbers of recipients, the departments of government and positions she held, etc. Note that the author is only planning to do gold and silver stars, there are certainly more bronze stars handed out. I'm not sure where the POV thing is coming from, like I said, it's no different from any of the current Commonwealth countries in the way it works. Drawn Some (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I see you found the first six notable for other reasons as well, that would tend to confirm my findings, I didn't even think of doing that. Drawn Some (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that confirms your findings at all, to be blunt. All I was saying is that those people are notable for reasons complete independent of the award. You say that they are inherently notable based on precedent but haven't showed that with any proof whatsoever (especially when asked specifically). Prove that there it s precedent for silver star winners being notable and I'll change my opinion. Don't dodge my question unless your dodging is admitting that there is no precedent. OlYeller^Talktome 03:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be prepared to accept the highest level, the Gold star, as notable. Based on the careers on some of those awarded the medal [37], it appears to go to the very highest ranking civil servants, essentially the level of ministers. I would not be prepared to accept lower levels. I don't think its compatible with what we do for other jurisdictions. Some of them are members of the Legislative Council & might thereby be qualified, but other are at the level of Deputy Secretaries of departments, not Secretaries. DGG (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Hate a Mystery

I Hate a Mystery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article consists of a long plot summary, a trivia section, and an infobox. Nowhere is an assertion of notability made, no sources provided, except for an WP:OR violation. ThuranX (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
keep It's a shame the nominator did not try to improve this article and others like it by fixing it instead of trying to delete it. To say it's been in need of improvement for 2 years as a reason to delete is just wrong, given what a real effort to locate sourcing turned up. The nominator now claims that the sources added in this desperate, last minute rescue effort are inadequate. Who knows what more will turn up? There is no time limit. And this mass listing of long standing article for deletion has in no way made it easy for the rescuers to meet the artificial time limit imposed by taking them to AFD. Kudos to the rescuers. Dloh cierekim 13:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add more real world context and criticism, it is no more detailed than any movie plot or contemporary TV program. We need to avoid a bias toward recentism. I don't see any difference between this MASH episode an a random Seinfeld episode, for example: The Postponement. Seinfeld has episodic plot outlines as well as season summaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a legitimate comparison in your eyes, but there is a notable difference, as regards this set of AfDs. I'm not looking at Seinfeld, I'm looking at MASH. so I think that yours is effectively an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Perhaps I'll look at those later. ThuranX (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am troubled when editors call other editor good faith contributions "crap". Does this really help come to a consensus? Just like cruft, "this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Ikip (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete via Redirect to appropriate M*A*S*H* season episode list. Unnotable episode of the series with nothing but an overly long plot summary and some unsourced trivia tidbits probably copied from IMDB. Seriously y'all...GROUP NOM! Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Per Wp:MOS-TV, numerous other episode AfDs, and general consensus regarding individual episode articles, redirecting per norm. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments of Richard...there is no WP:DEADLINE Recent additions verify notability. There is little basis to have this article removed from wikipedia, WP:FICT has failed to become a guideline three times, and WP:PLOT is currently under an intense edit war. Ikip (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:M*A*S*H (TV series), Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes, and Talk:List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip

Strong keep there is no WP:DEADLINE this should have been discussed on List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1) first. Ikip (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing nominator please note there have been improvements and signifigant external link additions to this article since if was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing nominator please note there is still no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sibling articles are allowed if inclusion of their information would overburden the parent article. Discussions about a merge belong on the article's talk page and concerns for sourcing should be met with a tag, as AfD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think everyone makes the same argument for all M*A*S*H episodes, and I wonder why they weren't all just nominated at the same time. I'll just copy and paste from now on. Millions of people found the episode notable enough to watch, and thus it is clearly notable enough to have a wikipedia article on. Any movie that has a significant number of viewers is notable(the guidelines changed after a discussion I was in not too long ago), and there is no reason why television shouldn't be held by the same common sense standard. Dream Focus 21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the episode list. Query, why are these all separate discussions anyways? 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Someone with access to a multi thousand dollar lexisnexis account is probably needed to get this article up to snuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found episode article to be useful. I also wish the nominator had done just one or two at a time instead of 15. We can see the same comments on almost every one of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I've added some real-world sourcing to a few of these M*A*S*H episode articles, based on the Wittebols book; however, I've now reached the limit of the number of pages Google Books will let me see in that book, so I can't do any more now. Nevertheless, the point stands: the sources that others have found establish notability for these episodes, and source material exists to add the real-world material which these articles need. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe sources referred to above are simply the use of multiple Episode Guide books to source the plot summary, but they do not support nor present any actual assertions of notability. However, my initial premise, that the article makes no assertion of real notability, stands. ThuranX (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability on Wikipedia is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It doesn't say "except episode guides". WP:PLOT is an argument for improving balance of content, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Episodes guides do not make each episode significant, they make the SHOW significant. Listing in the phone book doesn't make you significant.ThuranX (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A phone book has a one-line entry for each telephone number. An episode guide usually has at least a page on each episode, with details about cast, crew, plot, development and broadcast. That's exactly the sort of information that an encyclopedia covering a specific television episode would have. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of sources, lots of notability, not much WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks fine to me. Referenced, notable. — Jake Wartenberg 16:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list of episodes in the series until and unless there is something more than a plot summary to go in. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 PyPy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RPython

RPython (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. RPython is only used within the PyPy project, and we already have an article for that. — ^Fatal Error 02:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed for reason given above. CaptainMorgan (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge into PyPy article~~ ~~or delete as per above~~ Nanowolf (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nanowolf (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/redirect to PyPy~~ per WP:PRESERVE. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PyPy per below. Cunard (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge+~~Redirect into PyPy. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There isn't really anything to merge; everything important about RPython already exists in the PyPy article. — ^Fatal Error 08:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PyPy since there don't seem to be any sources discussing its significance, and there's really nothing to merge that's not there already. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to PyPy. Iowateen (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie^☆S93 23:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juan David Moreno

Juan David Moreno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article recreated after PROD for failure to pass WP:N and WP:ATHLETE expired. Re-created article did not provide any references and there is no evidence that the player has played in a fully-pro league. I've added one source which shows he played amateur football in 2008 and does exist, but nothing to satisfy notability requirements. Jogurney (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any of the criteria on that list Arma virumque cano (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I'm finding is articles about a "knife wielding robber" by the same name: [38]. There's nowhere near the level of coverage that I normally see people needing to find to justify keeping this athlete. Cazort (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:ATHLETE. John Sloan @ 23:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources to indicate that the player meets notability criteria for footballers, nowhere near enough significant coverege to meet WP:N King of the North East 17:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, currently fails WP:ATHLETE, recreate if and when ClubOranje^T 10:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Samir El-Masri

Dr Samir El-Masri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiographical entry by non-noteworthy academic. Hairhorn (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to clean up the article, but quickly realized there would be little left. Non-notable, not even a book apparently, not a high position, no coverage generated, nothing in Google News to satisfy WP:N, and the guy of the same name who generates all the hits in Google Scholar is in acoustics. Etc. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam article Arma virumque cano (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a quick search and found some academic articles with some citations, but these are articles BY him, I find absolutely nothing written ABOUT him as a person, in any capacity. Seems nowhere near WP:BIO. Cazort (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Cazort. Iowateen (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Hairhorn and Drmies. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a social networking site.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If the images are perceived to be a problem, then perhaps it is they who should be nominated for deletion instead of the list which uses them. Sandstein 05:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-passenger and special vehicle registration plates of Georgia (U.S. state)

Non-passenger and special vehicle registration plates of Georgia (U.S. state) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page is merely a gallery of non-free images. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nothing but a non-free gallery. Bop all the images too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's more to the article than just the images. If the images are a problem, that issue can be addressed directly. Deleting the article definitely seems like overkill. Qqqqqq (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the images claim to be free-use. I've got to call bollocks on that. Delete because this many fair-use images in one article is kind of ridiculous, and without them there'd be no reason to have the article. I don't really see the point of the list either, but that's immaterial to this discussion. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether or not the list should exist is not immaterial to the discussion; it is central. The images should be considered separately from the article. However, I must agree with you about the few images used in this article that claim to be free-use (which are not more than a few of the many images in this article); they should be retagged as fair-use. These were uploaded by a now-blocked user who repeatedly violated various Wikipedia policies. But the article need not be punished for the few incorrectly-tagged images it employs. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I meant to say it was immaterial to my !vote. There's no good reason to have scores of fair use images in one article. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But is the use of too many images a good reason to simply delete an article? Qqqqqq (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. WP:NONFREE#Non-free image use in list articles: "In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section. The following considerations should be made to reduce the number of new non-free images associated with such lists:" And just below, "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered." It's pretty commonplace to set a reasonable limit for the number of fair-use images in one article, with discretion of course for the article's length, but I'd never have more than about four or five in one article at the absolute most. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 10:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing there about the inclusion of too many, if you will, non-free images' warranting the deletion of an article that features such images. It might suggest that too many images are being used in this article, but nowhere do I see that it suggests that the use of too many images is grounds to delete the article. Grounds to remove some of the images, though, maybe. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the images should be removed. My argument is that, without the images, this article is nothing, and so it may as well be deleted. This is more of a gallery than an article (though I do not doubt it was created in good faith). Would it be worth keeping a list of Pokémon, if it was decided that Pokémon were outside the remit of the encyclopedia? J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're deciding simultaneously that a list of the types of license plates issued by a state is outside the scope of Wikipedia? That's another issue entirely. Qqqqqq (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And one that is fitted to this AfD. I consider this article a gallery, and, generally, I do not consider gallery articles appropriate- the issue should be judged on a case by case basis. However, this article should have none of the images it does have, as they are an abuse of our NFCC, meaning that we are left with a gallery article with no images, which I can never support. J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if someone wanted to try to write this article without the images, I suppose that'd be okay. I just wouldn't see the point. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 10:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If ever there were a good gallery of non-free images, this is it. It is hard to imagine presenting this kind of information any other way. There is absolutely no issue here about stepping on the rights of a copyright owner to publish the images for money; the state of Georgia sells license plates, not pictures of license plates. The validity of every image is sourceable to an unimpeachable authority on the subject. If this article cannot remain, it is not because the subject is inappropriate, but rather because the anti-fair-use image brigade will not allow it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is nothing more to this article than a non-free gallery- it would be considered useless without the images, but is not acceptable with them. Ihcoyc- there clearly is an issue with regards to publishing these images for money, otherwise the images would be released under a free license. As they have not been, we have to assume there is an issue. That's back to the completely flawed argument of "everything's fine until someone complains", which is not the way we work here. This article is not valid subject matter- it's not the equivilent to X discography, it's the equivilent to Album covers of X, which, presented in this format, would clearly be completely inappropriate. J Milburn (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't follow your logic regarding a possible financial component to the images. They are produced for public promotional purposes by a state government agency acting in its official capacity. Just because the state has not actively worked to release them under a free license does not mean that it is suffering some financial hardship when those images are used elsewhere in a fair-use capacity. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our place to make that judgement. If the state was happy for them to be used in such a way, they would have released them. If you feel the state would be happy to release images of them, why not contact whichever agency owns the rights to the images and request the release? J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I was arguing with regards to a hypothetical third party publishing the images for profit, rather than the owners losing money due to our publishing, in response to what was said above. J Milburn (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't see how so called "non-free" images are a reason to delete the article. SF007 (talk)

Delete, a gallery of images (non-free, at that) does not an encyclopedic article make. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's more to this article than the images. In fact, it existed for nearly a year without but a few images. Only when I began to add fair-use images did it attract this attention. That said, I do believe that a list of the types of license plates a state issues does belong in Wikipedia. Also, this article is probably the only resource there is anywhere for this list of information. The state itself hasn't even been able to keep track of all the plate types it issues. Qqqqqq (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that to say that the article is unsourced to reliable secondary sources? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, merely that this article is likely the only place where information from a variety of primary and secondary sources has been compiled. The state itself does a poor job of presenting information; this article draws from the official website and a few other external sources. These are given in the article. Qqqqqq (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no reason to delete. Any image issues should be addressed but the list is valid even if there are no images. Rlendog (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie^☆S93 23:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wereling

The Wereling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Almost unsalvageably POV/unencyclopedic and asserts no notability. Talk page on the other hand does provide a link that may assert the work itself is potentially notable. - Vianello (Talk) 01:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, little followup - link doesn't actually seem to indicate any notability at all, so far as I can discern. - Vianello (Talk) 01:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Totally unsalvageable. I almost place a CSD G11 on it, but I am not entirely sure if this is advertising since there isn't a link to a product, so to speak. I'm hoping it will snow here soon. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm no weatherman, but I'd say that's probably in the forecast. - Vianello (Talk) 02:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Author Stephen Cole (writer) has an article that mentions these books. I couldn't find any reliable coverage of the trilogy. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't look notable. I also hope the books are better written than this article is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Unsourced material has been removed in line with OTRS ticket #2009051110022742. Unsourced material should not be added to this article. Seddσn ^talk 00:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Talbott

John R. Talbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this article (version as of nomination) for deletion at the request of the subject, per OTRS #2009051110022742. The article lacks sufficient sourcing, the subject is not a public person, the "references" listed are articles written by the subject rather than about him, and given these factors and the subjects' request, I believe the article should be deleted. Daniel (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how he can claim not to be a public person. The article can be cleaned up but there doesn't seem to be anything libelous or even negative in there. He meets the criteria for notability in WP:CREATIVE as his works are held in major libraries without even looking at other factors such as sources, for instance, the public library system in New York City has over 70 copies of his book Obamanomics alone. Primary sources can be used in articles, just not to establish notability. If I'm missing something here, I'll be glad to reconsider my opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're not missing anything. The subject of the article requested that we evaluate it for deletion, so here we are. Keegan^talk 04:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the contributions of the creator, Na.ls.0731 and the relation to the same publisher that put outs the subjects books, I think that there would be a more than slight COI in its creation, and consider it in that context promotional. There are few enough edits to the original article to merit speedy deletion if Na.ls.0731 were to request it...just a thought. Keegan^talk 04:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, author of several successful books seems notable enough for me. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As author of the page, I request its deletion (Na.ls.0731) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Na.ls.0731 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G7, author-requested deletion. But if it is deleted, any recreation from keep !voters should be protected from being deleted under G4. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 16:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G7 reads "Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author". The edit history shows a number of editors who have added content, and it's about the author, not the subject. Cazort (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of my !vote, the article was 4,846 bytes, of which 4,503 were written by the original author. Four other users had edited the page - one was to remove a stale {{inuse}}, one to add a category, two edits marked minor summarized as "formatting," and only one edit was content-related. The original author had provided the overwhelming majority of the content (really, all of it), and there had only been five other edits. And I think you probably could have figured this out given that my !vote came on May 13 at 16:06, a day and a half ago. But in the end, I really don't care that much. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs sourcing, but if this person has written half the books listed he is definitely notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable author. 5 major books, each in several hundred libraries. Obanomics translated into Chinese & Japanese & Korean. Publiishers include Wiley, FinancialTimes, McGraw-Hill. Google News Archive shows reviews in LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Bloomberg, NY Times, CNN, Globe & Mail, SF Chronicle, CBS, Hindu Business Line, WSJ, and in Finnish and Russian as well. This is notability at a major international scale: 9 countries. An author of popular commercial publications under public affairs is not a private person with respect to his writings. I would gladly accede to any request to suppress material not related to his notability, but his writings and their reviews make him notable. The article gives nothing person besides his degrees. An author might well complain that an article showed him in a negative light. This article is neutral. Sometimes an earlier version of an article shows major problems that would reasonably bother a subject, but have since been removed; sometimes there are unfortunate remarks on the talk page -- but neither are present here. There is no possible basis for removal of this highly important author; what the author needs is expansion. I am surprised the nom. even considered it. A7 is no longer applicable, as people have spoken here for keep, and the reviews have been added I am surprised also the author asked for it. I wonder if there is some hidden story here, because this just not make sense. DGG (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe subject of the article (John R. Talbott) and the presumptive representative of his publisher (Na.ls.0731) do need to understand that if it is deleted it will be re-created so nothing will be accomplished unless the objective is to erase the history of the article. Drawn Some (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (agree with Drawn Some): If the article is deleted, there are sufficient sources to meet the relevant guidelines (including [39], [40], [41], [42]), so a new article about the subject would probably be created; because of this I don't think deletion would achieve anything useful. —Snigbrook 00:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am confused -- what is wrong with the article? Mr. Talbott is clearly notable and very successful, and the article doesn't appear to malign his work or integrity. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. As I see it, there are several issues here:

WP:Biographies of living persons/Help#What you should expect says: 'If the community agrees you are in fact very minimally "notable", or of transitory (brief, non-lasting) notability, you may be able to request your article's deletion.' So the question here isn't, "Is he notable?" but, "Is he more than minimally notable?"

There are two ways that writers generally qualify as notable: WP:CREATIVE (usually for writers of fiction) and WP:ACADEMIC (usually for writers of non-fiction).

WP:CREATIVE: He's borderline here (as are most non-fiction writers).

There's no guideline as to what number is needed to qualify as having "works in many significant libraries."

As for "has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"—well, that one's a maybe. But are those articles about Talbott, or about his books? If the latter, maybe the books themselves should have articles instead of the author?

WP:ACADEMIC is another maybe:

Has he "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"? Looking at Google Scholar and Google Books, I was surprised to see that he's not cited that much.

I don't see that his "academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education," as I was only able to find one college course using any of his books as a textbook.

I have a completely unscientific criteria for determining how notable an author is. In this case, I compare Talbott's WorldCat page to the WorldCat page of another author who is (imo) definitely not sufficiently notable. Result: Talbott has fewer works, is in fewer publications is in fewer languages, and is in fewer libraries. Result: borderline notability, and therefore, his wishes take precedence.

I don't see anything offensive in the current article either, but that is not the question at hand. My 2¢... Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about deleting pages of marginal notability when the subject requests deletion. But there are too many factors here...he is the author of a number of books, many of which are best-sellers and have attracted detailed reviews in major newspapers, discussion on talk shows, etc. I simply can't see your point about this being a marginal case. Cazort (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the productivity and holdings of authors across such very widely varying subjects as financial economics and java programming is not a realistic way to judge. All academics are not lumped into one pot, nor all authors. The expected distribution of material is different; to take extremes, what is notable in say, theology, is not going to count for much in popular fiction. DGG (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Following discussions with Keegan as to the best way to proceed, and after correspondence between Mike Godwin and the subject, I've decided — with Keegan's full consent — to undelete the article, reopen the AfD to let it run its natural course, and archive this section based on the developments in discussion between Mike and the subject. Regards, Daniel (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and with that, I propose the AfD continue as normal, below. Daniel (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The individual is widely-covered, his works are available nationwide and the article has ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is beyond doubt a public figure – not only an author but an analyst with appearances in the mass madia – and notable, and the article is well sourced and overall neutral in tone. (If anythting, it's a tiny bit on the laudatory side.) There is absolutely no justification for this to be deleted, and for it to be considered for deletion is, on the available evidence, inexplicable. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The people recommending to delete are not really addressing the question of notability, in my opinion. I tend to be swayed to be more likely to want to delete a page if the subject requests deletion--but this case falls too overwhelmingly on the side of notability. I did a very brief search and found a large amount of coverage and attention for his books, articles of his that are often cited, etc. And the current page, while it certainly needs improvement, doesn't seem to have any problems that justify deletion of the material (and erasing the edit history). Cazort (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--I don't see how deletion here can be justified, given the obvious notability and neutral tone of the article. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources found by DGG and the Newsweek and Bloomberg pieces alone are very substantial. It not have had comprehensive footnoting when the article was nominated, but that's a reason for improvement, not deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Authors of books on politics and financial affairs who appear in the media as commentators cannot credibly claim to be shrinking from the public eye. The subject would otherwise meet every notability test. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Is a notable, willing public figure. Requests for deletion must therefore be given minimal weight. The individual also fall under any standard of marginal notability but is rather fully notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't see how this person could argue with a straight face that they are not a public figure. Ample secondary coverage to meet notability guidelines, and no malicious, incorrect, or slanderous content in either the current version, or the past versions of the article. I acknowledge that the subject does not wish to have an article, but in this case he's notable enough that I think we have to politely decline. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Pearson (1943-)

Colin Pearson (1943-) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not establish notability per WP:N. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a significant person, no " significant coverage " Arma virumque cano (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability, no information out there on this person that I could find. Fails the general notability guideline. — Jake Wartenberg 16:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't even really claim importance. Going to agree that he doesn't meet the WP:BIO guideline. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Characters of Lost. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eloise Hawking

Eloise Hawking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character has no impact on the real world. No reason to create a character for every single character of a TV series. There tenths of characters appearing in this show and 99% of the information put here is just rephrases of plot summaries of episodes already in wikipedia. Magioladitis (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As a supporting character in a reasonably important series, the material should be merged. I often suggest that the entire content should be merged, but this is not one of those times; the content is excessively detailed. Not knowing the series, I don't want to try to edit it down, but I'd suspect about 1/4 of the present length might be right. There is no real reason to insist on these being separate articles. Tell the plot by way of the characters can be a clear approach to complicated stories, so even if the material can be figured out from the episode sections, that is not a reason to delete character articles and sections. Articles like this should not be written--nor should they be deleted. There is a middle way of doing it. DGG (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strip and Merge/Redirect I agree with DGG here. I think the article is problematic because it cites episodes directly, not secondary sources written about the subject/character as an encyclopedia article needs to. (WP is not a fan wiki and I think it is problematic to write huge articles about fictional characters citing only TV episodes!) A quick search shows some sources: [43]. Is this enough to justify notability and write a full standalone article? I don't really know. I do know it would be easy to split the article back off if it grows to considerable size. I would like to see the article basically gutted and merged though. Cazort (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the info here back into Characters of Lost where it came from and belongs. Not notable enough to have her own article, it sets a precedent for other unnecessary articles to be created also Tphi (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Neu_tralle 11:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a significant character in an extremely popular series, and there is enough information about her to warrant her own article. Dream Focus 21:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any magasine or newspaper that characterises this character as "significant"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find one person who has seen all the episodes, who would disagree with me that she was significant? If not, the rule of common sense applies. Dream Focus 00:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i have seen all the episodes, and while i think the character is significant to the plot, i don't see why she should have her own article. to merge it with the rest of the secondary characters would be just fine.--Camilorojas (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article wouldn't fit anywhere else. You'd lose 90% of it. Since there won't be any information copied over that isn't already there, any vote for merge will mean delete, so call it such. The article is fine the way it is, no need to destroy it. Dream Focus 18:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you'd lose 90% of it because 90% of it is plot from the series. the other 10% is ok if we were to merge the article with "characters of lost"... merge and delete are not, as you say, the same. i'll be right behind you if eloise starts making regular appearances and the character starts being really relevant (it seems like she will)--Camilorojas (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. She's played a fairly large role in season 5, but only appeared once (?) before that. The article seems overly detailed, and sourcing seems to be problematic - I thought we weren't supposed to use Wikipedia as a reference? All but one of the references are Wikipedia articles. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as I do not recall there being any interviews with the actress about the character; thus, it will be hard to give a real world perspective. I do not say merge because she already has a short entry at Characters of Lost. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I agree with Magioladitis, not every character should get its own wiki. even less a minor one.--Camilorojas (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Characters of Lost article, character has not had significant mention outside of Lost. Loves Macs (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now, might be significant but more sources and information are needed to prove this. It is, however, incorrect to say she has never spoken of the character or series. She appeared on Tubridy Tonight in February 2007 and "talked about the excitement in Hawaii surrounding the programme's very secretive filming process". I don't know if the clip is available outside Ireland though but I'm sure somebody will try to view it. This was over two years ago so I'm sure there must be some more recent examples as her character has developed. --can dle •wicke 21:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Did anyone actually check for sources? I found some quite easily on Google which might be of some small help. Kansas City Star LA Times The Washington Post The New York Times Digital Spy San Francisco Chronicle – "From nice shop lady in "The Constant" to killer mom in "The Variable." :-o --can dle •wicke 21:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I had a google. I found a few "last night on TV" pieces, but nothing that really established Eloise's significance. Surprising, really, because I think Eloise has been one of the more significant roles this season. I'm still dubious as to whether she's significant over the whole 5 seasons, however - with or without references. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Characters of Lost- There are no third-party references, no out-of-universe information (development, reception, etc.) and no assertion of notability. There may be a few sources that can be used to expand the article, but I can't really see anything more than stub left once all the fluff is removed. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 22:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Under My Skin. Not sure what bits should be merged so I've just redirected. I'll leave it to someone else to do the merge. Flowerparty^☀ 10:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonez World Tour

Bonez World Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tour, consists only of a setlist and tour dates. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 05:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY Yintaɳ 21:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--♫S manu! 15:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Under My Skin see this discussion we had few months ago --Darth NormaN (talk) 09:41, 13 May 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 00:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep major tour. JJL (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...With insufficent sources to prove notability outside of the artist. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, nothing to merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Under My Skin Contrary to TenPoundHammer's comment above, the article does have sources. Most of the sources are unreliable, but there are three from MTV that are. Cunard (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should stay because actually this is a real World Tour which obvioulsy means it was relevant not like others artist that call a World Tour to just made some dates in North America and Europe, the references are perfect it comes from mtv and billboard sources and the ones that refer latin america are in spanish but they're true, I think it's fair for her to have documents of her 3 tours here in wikipedia it has enough info and every other artist have it and some of them whith much less success, This girl had 3 big tours it's unfair to see that new acts like Lady Gaga or Katy Perry with such un-notable tours performing at clubs of 990 people have documents without problems so this and the other avril's tour documents should defenetly stay IF they keep adding info with sources.Emmanuel rocks (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Under My Skin. Sources provided are a bit choppy, and since the album and the tour are pretty tightly bound together, it makes sense I think to only have one article that covers both. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie^☆S93 23:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Officer Down

Officer Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N and WP:BAND. Google returns nothing. The only relevant thing seemed to be an interview of some kind, but that as a) on a some blog and b) for a band of the same name, only in California. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I would of actually put this up for CSD.--Skater (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, spam article Arma virumque cano (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Miserably. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 20:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable myspace band. — Jake Wartenberg 16:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like the name, though. — Jake Wartenberg 16:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Robots#Potential problems. Not quite enough consensus for delete. Sandstein 05:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Williams (robot fatality)

Robert Williams (robot fatality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not conform to standard of notability, i.e. person known only for one event. See WP:BIO1E for more information on rule. Age Happens (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already covered in Robots#Potential problems, WP:ONEEVENT and is meaningless outside the context. Any important information or references can be moved to the main article. Drawn Some (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Yes, any important content can be moved, but attribution needs to be retained. This page should also be named on dab page for Robert Williams as directly linking the target article violates style conventions on dab pages. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 8 May 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 00:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Per above.--Skater (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointless trivia. 20:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wadgy Abd el-Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim

Wadgy Abd el-Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:BLP1E. Coverage of this person is limited to one recent event. Policy is clear: Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Atmoz (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non notable, only claim to fame is being on a list William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The 'bad boy list' isn't a random selection of people, it's a list of extremely notable individuals. Expand the article to improve coverage of the individual. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No obvious assertion of notability. Oren0 (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article affirms his notability. Also Americans Against Hate find him sufficiently notable to include him on their Watchlist. Þjóðólfr (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as being placed on the list does affirm some level of notability and there are secondary sources. Symplectic Map (talk) 01:53, 13 May 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) 00:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Continuing coverage over a length of time, backed by reliable and verifiable sources, establishes notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Has been placed on multiple lists and involved in several incidents, but article currently makes no mention of individual's actual response. Article should be expanded and improved. Nanowolf (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is on several lists of banned persons and was going to be deported from the U.S., so this isn't quite a case of BLP1E. His actions, including the deportation case, do appear to be notable and documented as well. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie^☆S93 16:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Öland national football team

Öland national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The bold title in the lead is definitely more accurate: Öland local football team. This is a representative team who played 3 exhibition matches against other Scandinavian islands. For their participation in international tournaments, 2 of those teams are notable. This team isn't. The citation given in the article is for an unsourced website. No games listed on the most comprehensive, sourced football stats site rsssf.com. In summary, fails WP:N and questionable WP:V Stu.W UK (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; non-notable regional team. Giant Snowman 00:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another NN so called "national" football team! John Sloan @ 00:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam article Arma virumque cano (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--but "spam"? Arma, did you look at the article? I wish there was a rule that any article that has Oland in it were automatically notable, but I'll grudgingly admit that since Oland is not a country it cannot have a national team. If only they'd destroy Oland bridge, that would be a start. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete have tried to google in Swedish for "Öland" "national team" in various forms and not found any hits. I've never heard about any (and I'm very confident that there doesn't exist any) inter-landskap championships (which would be the equivalent to county cricket) in any sport, so even on that it falls. chan dler ··· 03:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N --Angelo (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non Notable BigDunc^Talk 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Öland is not a country, therefore it doesn't make sense that there'd be a "national football team". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woman city

Woman city (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N and WP:NF. Google returns nothing. Google news is no better. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per nom. Gets a "strong delete" from me due to self-promotion, as it seems to contain blatant plagiarism from the movie's own website. This movie may become notable in the future, but it certainly is not now. Nanowolf (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-promotion of (currently) totally non-notable film. Maybe someday, not now. DreamGuy (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sigh the imdb page has some pretty obscure people...I think I know where this AfD is going. Going to require some digging I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think you do too, Casliber. There just isn't enough information out there at the moment, and it reads a bit too promotionaly. Perhaps there will be sufficient coverage in the future. — Jake Wartenberg 16:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Kelly (BBC WM Presenter)

Danny Kelly (BBC WM Presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO, insufficient non-primary sources —Snigbrook 22:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well he's a BBC WM presenter and plenty of others are listed. Perfectly verifiable facts - the article links to his page on the BBC web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginoir (talk • contribs) 10:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the other articles linked on the BBC WM page and the majority of them appear to meet the guidelines for inclusion (or could do, as the sources exist), although I've proposed deletion of two of the articles, and I've tagged another article that I'm not sure about. Radio presenters are not inherently notable, and quite a few articles about presenters have been deleted before. —Snigbrook 22:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also primary sources may make the article verifiable, but are not enough according to the article inclusion guidelines. —Snigbrook 22:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 7 May 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 00:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient 3rd party coverage. [44] LibStar (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Weak keep still come coverage but not a lot. [45] LibStar (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That coverage refers to a different BBC presenter called Danny Kelly. Tassedethe (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A local DJ with no more than local notability. I wouldn't say that there were multiple, independent secondary sources, nor that he meets any of the additional criteria for notability e.g "received [or nominated for] a notable award or honor" or "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record". Tassedethe (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ape Chronicles

Ape Chronicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a notable publication. In particular, there does not seem to be any significant third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to establish any significant coverage. It's mentioned in some books but these are only passing mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 11 May 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) 00:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are the cites to? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff like this. -- Whpq (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. RP459 (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 18:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N. Scott Stedman

N. Scott Stedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No independent sources (links are to a dead site that didn't look reliable anyway and his own website). Clearly vanity/promotional. I don't know if the L magazine is notable, but if it is that doesn't mean this guy is, as notability is not inherited. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 8 May 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) 00:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing is sourced leaving the content in question. Been around for years, doesn't look like anybody's going to make it notable. CaptainMorgan (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge and redirect to magazine whatever can be sourced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since nothing appears salvageable. Drawn Some (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - procedural close. I saw no version in the article's history to which an AfD notice had ever been attached, nor had any ever been added in the history. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of evil Power Rangers

List of evil Power Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List completely lacks any reliable sources or comprehension, it is purely fan junk. What is defined as "evil"? The list has no context and to the casual wikipedian who is unfamiliar with the subject matter it is terrible given that the article is completely in the universe and not our own. Utterly unencyclopedic reads like a child diary. It is articles like this that people assume our articles are written by kids. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article necessitates a laundry list of unencyclopedic miscellanea. -Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:10, 8 May 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, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, they don't look evil, not even in a funny way. No match for the real E. S. Blofeld. The case is so obvious that invoking the usual suspects like verifiability, RS etc. itself becomes meaningless... NVO (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. --SKATER ^T. 12:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see that the AfD notice has ever been added to the article in question. I could not find a version with one. Given that this has apparently been relisted, I'd suggest a procedural close as keep without prejudice to starting anew. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa Apps

Alisa Apps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod and then an attempt to list at AFD by someone else didn't work. I am trying to fix this. Reason for deletion given was "This article is about a non-notable musician. It's only links are to disambiguation articles on non notable webpages and commercial RP releases. The subject is not notable enough to merit an article and does not meet general Wikipedia notability guidelines. The article does not link to notable sources. The artists has not release any material on any notable record label, publishing house or achieved any record sales or chart success. The article claims that her notability come from her video being banned from Youtube.com. Inappropriate sexual content postings on youtube are not a criteria for a wikipedia article. The article has clearly been created by the artists as self promotion." I agree that it should be deleted, so count this as my delete too. DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the references in the article are reliable sources. My own search turns up only press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just wanted to re-check 100% and I have found no notable accomplishments or reliable references to any release or recording contracts etc. Is the list at AFD all correct now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotgirl2001 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC) — Robotgirl2001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 9 May 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 00:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any indication of notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 18:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty Holding

Beauty Holding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable new (less than 1 year old) company. References are all blogs. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a new online social network, not a business or company. References are to major TV (CNBC) or online media sources (Urban Daddy, nu.nl). Definitely worth keeping Nasdarq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.221.48 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedily okay by me. I don't see any indication of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It's not notable, and seems to be close, if not an advertisement.--SKATER ^T. 12:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 18:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ketan joshi

Ketan joshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author; book article also nominated, as it has no secondary sources, only 2 google hits; the book is not notable as yet and therefore neither is the author. Per WP:CREATIVE. Chzz ► 10:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom.--SKATER ^T. 12:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete author's only(?) book apparently came out last month and isn't notable enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Zheng

Eddy Zheng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While this article suffers from many issues, such as tone and POV, I attempted to overlook those and try to see whether the subject itself is notable enough for inclusion. I don't really think it is. The lead itself doesn't even assert the subject's notability, nor could I even imagine it being able to do so: "Eddy Zheng is a Chinese immigrant who was committed of a crime, almost deported, but then nothing else happened. The end." The sources and external links all fall into one or more of the following categories: personal webpages related to Zheng himself, blogs, obscure POV publications whose titles contain "Asian" or "Diversity", and very local media. I did a google search, and this article really seemed to be scraping the bottom of the barrel. The first two pages of results had either already been included in the article or were random pages that could not possibly serve as references. I couldn't find any major media outlet covering this story. I have no grudge against this article, and I would love to be proven wrong and shown that it really should be included. However, I seriously doubt the likelihood of that happening, which is why I've brought it to AfD. Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~WP:ONEEVENT. He has been in the news only because of his deportation. Note that the coverage has not been ongoing and continuous in reliable media.~~ Many of the Google News hits are for other Eddy Zhengs, with Nextar or something like that, and a guy who opened a gay bar in PRC. Drawn Some (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am changing my opinon to keep because the new references added by CaliforniaAliBaba demonstrate that it was not a single event but something that unfolded over several years with media coverage. It may not have been on the front page of major newspapers but it was covered in-depth by multiple reliable sources over a period of time. CaliforniaAliBaba devoted a couple of hours to this judging by the edit history and added not just the references but also a good deal of new information that explains more of the long-term nature of the story. This does expose the bias towards English references but that's the nature of the beast and fortunately the process allows for it to be corrected if anyone is able and cares to do so. Thanks for the new information. Drawn Some (talk) 04:36, 15 May 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) 00:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Asian Americans has been notified of this debate. cab (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contra Drawn Some, the coverage has been ongoing over a number of years. SF Weekly, June 2002; Sing Tao, March 2006 (in Chinese); Ming Pao San Francisco Edition, various hits in 2007 (in Chinese; their website is down at the moment but you can still see the GHits); China Radio International, July 2009 (in Chinese). The article needs a rewrite on the basis of real sources and not advocacy blogs, but that's a matter for the normal editing process, not AfD. cab (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article on the basis of the above sources and the reliable ones already in the article, and removed all the citations to blogs, self-published websites, and other similar unreliable sources. cab (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Sufferer & the Witness. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behind Closed Doors (Rise Against song)

Behind Closed Doors (Rise Against song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NSONGS. It has not charted on any major charts and has not won any awards. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 00:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to The Sufferer & the Witness--SKATER ^T. 12:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I enquire to how you expent to have a redirect if the page is deleted???? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page is deleted and the created with a redirect. For proof this is has happened before see Here. --SKATER ^Speak. 21:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the album article. I'm not a fan of individual articles for songs as a rule of thumb. I'm a fan of Rise Against and it's a good song but it doesn't merit its own article. If Black Masks and Gasoline isn't worth its own article, this certainly isn't. HJMitchell You rang? 22:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per growing consensus that NN songs shopuld be merged into the CDs. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nasr Javed

Nasr Javed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:BLP1E. Coverage of this person is limited to one recent event. Policy is clear: Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Atmoz (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The 'bad boy list' isn't a random selection of people, it's a list of extremely notable individuals. Expand the article to improve coverage of the individual. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no obvious assertion of lasting notability. Oren0 (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge My inclination would be to merge into an article about the people banned. But there seems to be some notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Individual has responded to being placed on the list, and secondary sources exist. Failing that, would be somewhat in favor of merging as per above. Also, compare this discussion to that about a similar AfD about another individual on the list. Nanowolf (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. This person is a senior operative of a rather large terrorist organization who appears to be notable for additional reasons to Britain banning him from the country (he's been mentioned in The Hindu a few times for his quote about jihad). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 18:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Basement Sessions

The Basement Sessions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is highly debatable content which provides no reliable sources at all. The information itself is hardly notable either and it includes information of Crowz which has been removed from Wikipedia at least 7 times before. REZTER ^TALK ø 19:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unpublished albums to begin with - goes into much of the details behind production, but doesn't seem to fall into notability as such. Good work, but maybe better for a fansite here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 00:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smells made up Arma virumque cano (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unreleased demo would not generally be notable, and that's even if this isn't just made up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 18:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Bianchine

David Bianchine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable ad copywriter, probable autobiography. No evidence of independent coverage in reliable sources. All awards mentioned were presented to the whole creative team rather than to the individual in question, and are given to literally hundreds of people every year. Hqb (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines and seems intended to be promotional. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Nanowolf (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lapidus

Frank Lapidus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(This AfD was malformed. Fixing. No opinion. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 12:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Original nomination reason given:

This article cites no sources, and is only a paragraph long. It could not be much longer since we do not know much more about the underwhelming Lost character. Bibbly Bob (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Characters_of_Lost#Frank_Lapidus. This character isn't as distinct as many other characters without an article, and I cannot see a reason for a separate page. ∗ \ / (⁂) 12:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current article is a copyright violation, as it is copied from LostPedia, which is licensed CC-BY-NC-ND. I am not deleting it immediately, however, but simply blanking the text to allow the AfD to proceed. (It is still visible in history, but we cannot publish copyrighted text even during the time of an AfD.) This article has been created in the past as an infringement of that same source. If consensus is for deletion, I recommending protecting the redirect to prevent this space being used to violate copyright again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Played a relative minor role in series 4, and a relatively minor role in series 5. No references, and difficult to see how decent refs could be found. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect - The character is not notable enough at this time to have its own article. I say delete the page history because it is a copyright violation. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 03:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect sounds reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Tragatsch, Erwin (1964), The World's Motorcycles, 1894-1963: a record of 70 years of motorcycle production, Temple Press

[1]