Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 19

< 18 May	20 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 Speedy close I boldly redirected this title to Patrol Men which is currently at afd. Let's try to avoid duplicate afd's please. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrol Men (film)

Another article for the same non-notable film Patrol Men I already nominated. Ridernyc (talk) 23:58, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Thailand relations

another completely random combination. non resident embassies. 3 minor bilateral agreements. Close to no coverage except of relations on the football field and tennis court. [1] LibStar (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to relevant foreign relations articles. There's (just) enough to merge- a presidential visit but he visited most of Asia on the same trip. A merge is probably the best option- it doesn't need its own article. HJMitchell You rang? 00:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing, absolutely nothing, makes this article anything but a directory listing. There is no coverage of the topic, and not likely to be.--BlueSquadronRaven 17:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appears to be a fair amount of coverage of Thailand's wish to establish a bilateral free trade area with Croatia in books, scholarly articles and the news (yes, there's lots of noise there but there is some signal). I'm not going to !vote keep, because I admit defeat in this war of attrition to get rid of articles about serious subjects that any comprehensive encyclopedia should cover. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches are not sources. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Random X-Y intersection. There are thousands of bilateral agreements signed every year and yet, they do not establish encyclopedical notability. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of any reliable sources that establish this is a notable relationship by discussing the relationship and its significance at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm just not seeing any sources that would establish that this topic meets WP:N. I spent a few minutes going through the results of Phil Bridger's searches, and I'm only seeing noise--nothing that discusses specifically the bilateral relations between Croatia and Thailand in a non-trivial manner. If someone can point out the signal above the noise and incorporate these sources into the article, then I'll reconsider, but for now I'm unconvinced of notability. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:48, 24 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilby Park (film)

Non-Notable low budget movie. Ridernyc (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete lack of reliable sources and general media coverage -Binary TSO ^???
Delete- no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:15, 25 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Romero Mier y Terán

Non-notable author (less than 10 hits on Google search) mhking (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per clear lack of notability and WP:FUTURE. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of reliable sources for this article is a big concern here. There are also notability issues here as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:23, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being Othello (film)

Non-Notable low budget movie. Article also seems to have major COI issues. Ridernyc (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI is not a reason for deletion, but lack of notability for the subject is problematic. Does not meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:14, 25 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 per WP:BEFORE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brand ambassador

This is just a neologism, info is already handled on some other article about spokespersons, branding or whatnot. Unsourced and unencyclopedic, with no reason to fix as info is already elsewhere. DreamGuy (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The tone gives this away as stealth spam: Non-traditional marketing companies utilize Brand Ambassadors in campaigns to answer questions, engage the audience, and increase brand awareness. Using reputable firm to supply this type of staff allows companies to maintain a high quality of applicants that mirror the target demographic to reach consumers in the most effective manner. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that this is a non-notable neologism, and that the tone is spammish. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a neologism as the words are well-established and, in any case, that not a reason to delete. The topic is highly notable as there are hundreds of books which discuss it. No evidence has been presented as to the other articles which supposedly cover the same topic and no reason has been presented why we would not merge rather than delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the sources the Colonel found--as he often does. Perhaps people should look BEFORE nominating. DGG (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the usage indicated above. Eusebeus (talk) 15:54, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of the Rings RPG Video Game

Not notable, no sources, WP:MADEUP, someone else tried to AFD but didn't finish their job and once again nobody else can be arsed to fix it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: tried to nominate this as unsourced crystalballing due to its dependence on rumors. Alexius08 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles that begin "There are rumors tktktktk." "There are also no sources... or varifiable facts... or..."Bali ultimate (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely speculative. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All ifs and maybes and flat-out speculation. Zivlok (talk) 19:41, 24 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VH1 Greatest Hard Rock Songs

Non-notable list prepared by a network. Never mind that I haven't heard any of these songs, I fail to see how a list without any particular scale of inclusion would warrant an article, especially given the utter lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholly subjective list from single source. Definitely not encyclopaedic. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and re-write- That VH1 did a list of its 100 greatest rock songs should probably be covered, although in its current form, the page is not very good, given that its just the list and some OR regarding the list. I'm sure more information is out there, regarding thing ssuch as when the series aired, who the commentaters were, and who was polled in the survey that was conducted to compile the list (that said, I don't have access to the resources right now to verify this, so if anyone could back me up, I'd be greatful). PS: Songs 85, 19 and 5 are awesome live (not that that matters a whit regarding whether or not this should be kept or not). Umbralcorax (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it may be interesting but it isn't notable. Where is the coverage about this list in reliable sources? -- Whpq (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google seach shows that this was independently covered, including by Entertainment Weekly [2]. Rlendog (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - List is notable and received independent coverage from independent sources. Rlendog (talk) 21:28, 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, MacMed^{talk to me!}_{what have i done?} 22:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly a copyvio, definetly not notable as a list. Hipocrite (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - listcruft. Eusebeus (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A television show got third party media review. The suggested guidelines for notability, say that is enough. Dream Focus 17:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? There are loads of similar shows produced every year. Here's a sample from just one channel:[3]

The 100 Greatest TV Adverts
The 100 Greatest Sex Symbols
The 100 Greatest Tearjerkers
The 100 Greatest War Films
The 100 Greatest Stand-Ups
The 100 Greatest Albums
The 100 Greatest Musicals
The 100 Greatest TV Character
The 100 Greatest Movie Stars
The 100 Greatest Family Films

The only reason that these programmes ever get made is because they are cheap. Hire a few talking heads, play a load of clips (cheap to buy the rights for these) Bingo! you've got 3 hours of telly, off to the pub, trebles all round.

The audience is rarely told who votes for these things, (because it depends solely on what some low-paid production assistant has cobbled together and is by no means an objective list) or what the criteria for inclusion (sorry DF, but it does mean something) are. Does Wikipedia need an article on any or all of them? I think not. pablo_hablo. 20:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as totally subjective and only being based on internet votes (which can be tricked easily). --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 18:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists like this can be notable, for example all the lists the American Film Institute puts out are commented on by the media, but this one doesn't appear to make the cut. Nothing from a quick Google search and Google News search evidences notability, and I doubt this would make it into library stacks either. Them From Space 14:32, 25 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 Ragga jungle. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raggacore

Non-notable music genre. Most of the acts listed are red links and I can't find any sources (first hit is Wikipedia!). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to somewhere appropriate. A sub-genre of a sub-genre of music associated with a sub-culture of a sub-culture etc etc....zzzzzzzz Eddie.willers (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ragga jungle. I couldn't find much to indicate any real notability. Fences and windows (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even seem notable enough for merging into Ragge jungle. Compare ‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pronk music. Nanowolf (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed^{talk to me!}_{what have i done?} 22:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this appears to be an implausible search term for a merge or redirect, and there is absolutely no notability asserted.--Disturbed Nerd999 (Delete!) 03:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a plausible search term, it has been used in news sources:[4] and on a lot of blogs. Fences and windows (talk) 03:59, 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 there is no community consensus to delete unincorporated US places identified as official with the GNIS, further discussion seems less aimed toward this article in particular than some overhaul of that consensus and needs a wider audience. So to prevent further drama, this is being closed early as keep - don't like that, WP:DRV is thataway, where this probaby should have been brought in the first place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwinhurst, Delaware

This neighborhood has not established notability, as nothing substantial has been published about it in any reliable third party sources. Being mentioned in an atlas or by the U.S. Geological Society in a database of place names hardly counts as "notability". Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brandywine Hundred per last afd which closed only two days ago. Also, protect the redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the same rationale used to close the last debate. This neighborhood is verifiable but not notable. Hokie RNB 11:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, as it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Elpiseos (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this different from any other community? Longstanding consensus has held that communities are notable, other than neighborhoods of municipalities. This isn't a neighborhood; it's an unincorporated community like any other. Please observe, moreover, that the rationale used for the last nomination was faulty, citing this proposed guideline as an actual policy page, despite the fact that it goes against massive consensus at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brandywine Hundred, as was the result of the AFD 2 days ago. This is not the proper place to appeal an AFD closure. WP:DRV is thataway. Fails WP:N and the proposed WP:NBHD. Unofficial subdivisions are better covered in articles about their cities, unless there are multiple reliable and independent sources about the neighborhood. Edison (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a part of a city. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is part of the unincorporated subdivision "Brandywine Hundred" and should be covered in that article. Edison (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unincorporated communities are not treated in the same fashion as municipal neighborhoods. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or, if we are to insist on following process, take the last discussion to deletion review. A Google Books search shows that this is a well-established name for this community in use for at least 70 years. Both the original discussion and a previous editor's comment point to WP:NBHD, which is a proposed guideline that has attracted no support whatsoever. Our practice has always been to include articles on populated communities with well-established distinct names. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in the Google Book search results is more than a passing reference or a directory listing, so it still fails notability and not a directory.I disagree with your claim that we always keep articles on named portions of unincorporated subdivision. They often get merged into larger administrative divisions. Edison (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you find me a good set of examples of individual articles that receive wide consensus to be merged as you describe? I don't know of any binding examples (whether at AFD or a similarly-binding setting) that have so resulted, but if you desire I can provide many examples of where community articles were kept simply because it was verifiable that they were communities. The Google Books listing establishes that it's not just some new subdivision, and anyone who does not go against overwhelming consensus in practice need not rely on that to establish notability. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - By the way, the reason I recreated was that the previous nomination had claimed a lack of reliable sources, so I added a highly reliable and useful source, the GNIS reference that is currently being used to establish location and altitude. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Counterpoint: The previous nomination mentioned nothing about reliable sources. It asserted that the "neighborhood does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards". While its existence is verifiable through the GNIS reference, it remains non-notable. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the containing subdivision. There is so little content that one can simply add a list of "populated places" to the Brandywine Hundred article and copy/paste the content there. Why do we need stand-alone articles with no hope of expansion for these minor localities when they can be better organized as a group in list form? --Polaron | Talk 03:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an unincorporated community, not a neighborhood. To quote its census definition (ref 3 in the article) "Class: Populated Place - Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village)." That qualifies. We have consistently included all such. We have never merged them. If Brandywine Hundred were an incorporated area, this could be a neighborhood of it, but it is not. DGG (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the artificial designation of whether it is within an incorporated or unincorporated area? Does that mean that now it's notable but if the surrounding area incorporates it suddenly becomes non-notable? --Polaron | Talk 13:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. If it is notable enough for GNIS then it is notable. This seems to be an deletionism vs. inclusionism debate and therefore a waste of time. --droll [chat] 05:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it appears in the GNIS database it should have an article unless it is a synonym. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brandywine Hundred per last AFD. Dough4872 (talk) 18:47, 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 snow delete, clear speculation. Jamie^☆S93 13:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of Zelda (upcoming Wii game)

Article is a about an unreleased Zelda game, which currently does not seem to have enough information that isn't WP:OR, and thus is WP:CRYSTAL. Vivio Testarossa^Talk 21:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if nobody can prove the predictions contained therein. Alexius08 (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until we have at least some reliable details about the game. Nicklegends (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is largely based on the rumour that a new Zelda game for the Wii will be revealed at this year's E3 event. Until that time, however, this has more rumours than a Fleetwood Mac album, so can thus be deleted. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-emptive snowball delete as blatant speculation. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smash Link with a ten pound hammer. MuZemike 16:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver has an article and it has had an actual announcement and alot of information released. I see no reason this should remain an article for annother year waiting for more information. --Blake (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the article's creator removed the AFD tag an lef a comment stating would you stop. you dont even know what your talking about I have readded the tag but based on the user's comment I srongly suspect that they are likely to do this again. I don't have time to keep a watching the article at so can someone please keep an eye on it.--70.24.180.177 (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Warned the user as such (see [5]). And you are right: AFD templates are not to be removed during AFD discussions. The user probably was not aware of that. MuZemike 23:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The author does not cite any sources. Most of what is said is pure speculation and can not be verified. Iupolisci (talk) 03:12, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rex D. Russell

Another in the recent string of non-notable obituaries by User:Billy Hathorn. This individual's only potential claim to fame is having written a book which, as far as I can tell, is not notable. Teaching classes at his local church and performing angioplasties and other things that are part of his job, is not notability. Of the four sources left in the article (after I removed other irrelevant ones), one is his obituary in the local paper, two are general directory listings, and one is the amazon page for his book. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm conflicted on this one as it is in need of a rewrite (it reads like the obituaries on which it is based rather than a biography) Russell does appear from the sources to be a medical pioneer in the state of Arkansas. It struggles to reach the line for notability but I think it might just cross it, especially if another source or three can be found. - Dravecky (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The current text of the article doesn't make the best case for Dr. Russell's notability, but a Google search of his book turns up more than 6,000 hits; the Google Books search indicates that he's cited in several dozen other legitimately puboished books (perhaps the best evidence of notability here); Amazon says his book is currently #23 best seller in its category and #19,445 best-seller among ALL Books, which ain't bad, really; and there's even a spinoff "What the Bible Says About Healthy Living Cookbook". On the minus side of the ledger, I didn't find many WP:RS reviews of the book (well, there's this one). This stuff isn't my cup of tea, but it certainly seems to be somebody's, and I'd be inclined to let him stay.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, weakly leaning keep per thoughts above - plagiarism is present in this article; for example...source: "He was the National Football Hall of Fame Scholar, Athlete of the Year in 1962, one of only eight chosen each year. He received his education from Oklahoma State University Baylor College of Medicine. His internship was served through the University of Kentucky, and he served his residency at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Rex retired from Sparks Regional Medical Center after 29 years of practice as an invasive radiologist. " Article: "In 1962, he was one of eight individuals chosen as annual "National Football Hall of Fame Scholars". He graduated from Oklahoma State University in Stillwater and the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, interned at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine in Lexington, and then served his residency at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Russell retired from Sparks Regional Medical Center in Fort Smith after twenty-nine years of practice as a radiologist." IMO, it's too close to the source. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing remotely notable. None of the above things are notable, neither individually or in combination. A physician with a purely local practice and one non-notable book. To be notable professionally he'd need much more than that. A small town obit is not a reliable source sufficient for notability--only the most major of national newspapers are. A "medical pioneer" would be one of the first doctors in the state. The obit does not say he was the first doctor to do angioplasties etc in Arkansas as the article does: it makes the much vaguer statement "He was the first physician in Arkansas to do such procedures as angioplasties etc...." : even the compiler of the local newspaper obit knew he had no evidence to say anything actually specific. If he is notable, every professional in every small town is, for they all get obits. If the town is small enough, every resident. DGG (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DGG (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does not establish notability as per analysis of DGG, certainly not as an academic/educator. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
delete per DGG, fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF by a large margin. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Eusebeus (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per excellent summary by DGG. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable if not hugely so, primarily for the somewhat notable book as Arxiloxos above. Springnuts (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd suggest merging into an article on his book, per WP:BIO1E, except that the book itself doesn't appear sufficiently notable for its own article. If it isn't, he is even less so. The only real source is the newspaper obit — rootsweb is not reliable and genealogical information is not useful for checking notability, and similarly the drscore site isn't helpful in this regard unless we want to assert that every physician is notable, and I don't think we do. But I don't think an obituary only from his home town newspaper, a town of less than 100,000, means much either; it's not uncommon for papers at this level to print obits for any resident whose family takes the effort to write one. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, from experience in that area: "it's not uncommon for papers at this level to print obits for any resident whose family ~~takes the effort to write one~~ pays for its publication." — Bellhalla (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per DGG and David Eppstein.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:04, 24 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 and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regional vocabularies of American English

This was PRODed, but it has an extensive history and a lot of activity, so I figured it should probably go to AfD for discussion. The original prodder said "OR, possibly unencyclopedic, possibly POV, largely unsourced, largely unverifiable, hard to maintain". I agree with most of those concerns, but would add that an article about this topic is perhaps possible. However, the current article should be deleted since it is just a collection of local "slangish" terms. However, I am open to the possibility of someone writing a real article (although I am not sure it is actually reasonably possible). ThaddeusB (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly possible to write a real article on this topic; there is a lot of work published on lexical regionalisms of American English. I'm leaning toward keep but stubbify, i.e. relentlessly remove everything unsourced (and continue relentlessly removing it, because they will come back and add their favorite local phrases on the basis of their own personal knowledge). +An gr 22:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would be fine with stubifying if there is the possibility of content that isn't already part of North American English regional phonology (I should have mentioned this real article to begin with) - otherwise I favor delete and then create a redirect to the relevant section of that page. I am not knowledgeable enough to know if this is the case or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep phonology is how "the study of variations in the pronunciation of spoken English", not the study of what words they use for things. This article can complement that one. There are certainly excellent sources for this material--Dictionary of American Regional English is the classic, at least for the A-Sk in the 4 very large published vols. published so far. Thgere are furthermore 100s of books discussing the basis of the variations. DGG (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A holdover from the "sources, shmources" days of Wikipedia. Although the rambling style is actually rather common in books on the subject (such as Mario Pei's The Story of English) this needs a serious rewrite, beginning with some citations. It's pretty obvious that a lot of the entries are from people who might have heard someone in Eastern Wisconsin, Southern Louisiana, St. Louis, etc. use a word and (a) they think it's unique to that area or (b) it's not really common, but an old man used the word. Interesting? Definitely. Reliable? "Who knows?", default to "no". For my part, I'd hate to lose the article or its history, but bringing it up to code means looking at one of the online sources and then eliminating anything that you can't find a source for. Mandsford (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given a library with printed books, one could probably source every one. The academic as well as the populaar literature on this is immense. DGG (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Some content may have to be excised as unsourced, but the article itself should be kept. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but prune mercilessly. As suggested above, articles such as this one often become stuffed with OR, which needs to be periodically pruned. However, the Dictionary of American Regional English, American Dialect Research, the journal "American Speech" and plenty of other sources exist for verifiable content. Also repeating suggestions made above, variation in vocabulary is distinct from variation in phonology. Cnilep (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, remove OR, convert the lists into prose, and provide a citation/footnote for each statement. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 03:15, 24 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 a7, no claim of notability here. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Osama aresheh

Claims notability, however the only trace I can find of him is a college student networkuing site and that he signed a petition. Looking at the user name of the creator of the page I'm assuming this is vanity. Passportguy (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete for no real claims of notability. Hairhorn (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not notable, self promotion. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:41, 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 speedily deleted without prejudice. Article is about an unreleased book; the only significant author has acknowledged non-notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie o'green and her wuz-buz machine

Self-published book with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Not in any libraries according to worldcat.[6] Amazon link in article says book is not yet released. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-written sources, any other mentions of the book. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book is not in any libraries yet because the book is not released until May 25, 2009. This is also the same day that it is released on amazon.com The book has both ISBN 10 and 13 numbers and is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office and the Library of Congress. I don't know how much more verifiable you can get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harkiamsuperman (talk • contribs) 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't verifiability, but notability. You might want to take a quick read of Wikipedia:Notability (books) and tell us which criteria this book meets. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, alright I agree. The book doesn't meet any of those standards of notability. But perhaps maybe one day it will, and if it does I will be back hahaha. Thanks for your help.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nolan Batman Series Villains

This is nothing but a list formed entirely of in universe style PLOT vio, of material far more properly covered with citations and depth in the two proper film articles, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight (film). Those two articles far better address the importance of characters, the ideas behind them held by the writers, directors, and/or actors. The material also represents more of a FORK than anything else. The editors seem to know how to wikilink, but have opted not to. It reads almost like a fansite.

There is no need for a redirect as the title is an improbable search string, and there is no one 'obvious' location, as the list tries to cover both films. ThuranX (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WHY?. Please give some ACTUAL reasons WHY it should be kept. It is thoroughly redundant, completely unsourced, and written in a highly POV way. It is not linked to almost any of the relevant other articles, functioning as a Walled Garden. Each of the characters is better covered in the movie article, or in their own articles, where citation and wikilinking is provided, and where more people are likely to look than searching for the unlikely title which this article has. ThuranX (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable sources exist that could serve to help us avoid original research, allow for verification as to the relevance and accuracy of its claims, and establish t hat these fictional persons have some sort of independent notability beyond the fictional works that they appear in and are already well covered here.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator is exactly right. Eusebeus (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unreferenced and consisting entirely of plot. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:22, 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 per consensus (NAC, will add "sources" tag). American Eagle (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomotherapy

Advertisement? (changed from prod to AfD) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic, verifiable sources. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a medical therapy -- Google Scholar lists over 3600 papers. However, the article seems to be conflating the generic medical term 'tomotherapy' (lower case) with 'TomoTherapy' (mixed case), which appears to be a trademark. A bit of a rewrite and some culling appears to be required here. Some sources would help as well. —BillC ^talk 01:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Plenty of refs available .Not every article that talks about a product is an advertisement. DGG (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If i need radiation I wish to know my options...Turqoise127 (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pubmed has more than 400 related articles. NCurse _work 06:32, 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. Resolve the WP:COI issue, but not on AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality control and genetic algorithms

This content could as well be explained in either two separate articles or both. The subject itself lacks notability. Google scholar and Google books give no hits on the topic "quality control and genetic algorithms". Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- What does the phrase "either two separate articles or both" mean? "Two separate articles" means two separate articles. "Both" means there are two of them and you presume we know which two you mean. "Either...or..." means one alternative or the other. The phrase as a whole does not appear to make sense. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh.... OK, now I'm guessing you mean either one of the two separate articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful material to genetic algorithms Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the applications section in genetic algorithms is very weak - a laundry list of (often) unsourced applications. Maybe better is for the article to be kept as the kern on a article on application of GA or the like. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article should be kept. Regarding the "notability" of the subject, a search for ("quality control" AND "genetic algorithms" ) of the Scopus scientific database gives 347 articles published in scientific journals. A search in Google gives 16500 pages, in Google Scholar gives 3900 articles, and in Google Books gives 638 books. Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)— Aristides Hatjimihail (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Plenty of relevant articles on scholar about the application of GAs to control systems and QA. That one of the editors has published in the field shouldn't be regarded as a problem in and of itself. Unomi (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Stub/Merge Doesn't meet notability guidelines. Searching for research citing the existing references failed to turn up other potential sources on the topic. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The last remark is inaccurate. The following is a scientific article on the GAs based QC citing the 1st reference of the Quality control and genetic algorithms: He, David, and Arsen Grigoryan. 2006. Joint statistical design of double sampling x and s charts. European Journal of Operational Research 168 (1):122-142.Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then find a way to incorporate it into the article. I didn't find that one in my searching. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both quality control and genetic algorithms are notable topics and have their own articles. This article offers little additional coverage on these topics and described only a particular application of GA to quality control as an optimization tool. There is a strong notability concern as mentioned above, since this is not considered a subfield of either optimization or control. The number of citations is irreverent - any notable algorithm such as GA are widely applied to hundreds of different fields and it doesn't make this one any more notable. --Jiuguang (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Regarding the last remark, I think that it is useful combined subjects to be included in an online encyclopaedia, as the approximately 3000 views per year of the Quality control and genetic algorithms prove. Of course they should be linked to the component subjects. Concerning the number of the citations of either subject it is true that it could be irrelevant. It is not irrelevant though the number of the citations of the combined subject, in our case ("quality control" AND "genetic algorithms"), that shows that its components are correlated. Therefore, a valid entry in Wikipedia, with references from the scientific literature could not harm. Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The inclusion of this debate in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions gives me the opportunity to point out that the subject of the Quality control and genetic algorithms was presented for first time during the 25th Oak Ridge Conference on Advanced Analytical Systems and Concepts of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, in 1993. Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Much of the information probably should be merged into quality control and/or genetic algorithms. Despite the obvious conflict of interest, I believe the Clin Chem reference is more than enough for verifiability though I am not sure about notability. The conflict of interest issue does need to be resolved. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a quotation from Conflict of interest: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is my interpretation of the situation, please do correct me. Both Quality Control and to a lesser degree Genetic algorithms are not very well developed, the content in the article under discussion could serve to give those other articles more 'meat' especially Quality Control. If both of the articles I mentioned were already sufficiently developed, this discussion would not be taking place. Genetic Algorithms has a long list of 'applications' that contain links to articles that do not even mention genetic algorithms, while wikipedia is not a 'howto' this lack of depth is clearly, to me, a shortcoming. Hopefully in the future we will have many articles akin to the one that is being attempted to be deleted here.

I would hope that Aristides finds time to help improve other articles than this one, perhaps giving Quality Control an alternative to 'Refer to the definition by Merriam-Webster for further information', but contributing in the field that he is published in is not something we can hold against him. I do not see any indication that the article in its current state is overtly promotional. I also hope that should this article be merged into Quality Control that he continues to contribute to 'the work in progress'. Unomi (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep I'm guessing that there is quite a lot of work on the intersection of genetic algorithms and quality control. Both are giant fields and I would be most surprised if there were not many people working on this. Indeed Google scholar gives me 3900 papers which mention both terms.[7] The question for me is whether this article is representative of that body of work or if it is just one authors view of the field. Of that I'm not sure. The idea of incorperating some of this article into the QC or GA algorithms is good but it really only justifies a paragraph in summary style, too big a section would be undue weight for the target article. --Salix (talk): 07:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both quality control and genetic algorithms are huge fields. Aristides has argued convincingly, and provided WP:RS, that Quality control and genetic algorithms exists as a separate specialist field. I see no trace whatsoever of WP:COI in that article - Aristides evidently can write encyclopedic WP:NPOV articles on topics of which he has specialist knowledge. Please continue contributing to Wikipedia. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:00, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boondocks

Dictionary definition with uncontroversial etymology, sourced only to other dictionaries, no hope of expansion. Delete and move Boondocks (disambiguation) to this title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - an article isn't necessary for a dictionary word. Henrymrx (t·c) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agreed. Part definition, part alternative disambig page. And boondocks is not a geographical term...--Junius49 (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A cursory Google search shows non-trivial coverage beyond dictionaries, with potential for the expansion of the article. I have added some of these references to the article; there are more. A little due diligence in future, please. Skomorokh 05:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A concept, not a word. A significant one, with sources in the article and no problem gfinding more. Needs expansion, not deletion.DGG (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with DGG. older ≠ wiser 03:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless this can be turned into an article about a 'thing', which it isn't at the moment, there's nothing here that shouldn't be in Wiktionary. It's a pure dicdef.--Michig (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources introduced by Skomorokh. Per DGG its a concept, a perceived condition of "rural-ness" and "yokel-ness" , not just a dicdef. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with DGG, it a concept not just a word. Dream Focus 03:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sufficiently developed to be more than a dicdef. Artw (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Delete -- per WP:DICDEF DreamGuy (talk) 02:29, 24 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 crushed a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crushed (singer)

Non-notable musician without a recording deal or even a MySpace page. No write up in reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC Astronaut (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 No notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- wikipedia isnt myspace Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable person. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i am unable to locate reliable sources with verifiable information supporting any assertion of notability. i am at a loss to find an assertion of significance. there is no mention on allmusic. Dloh cierekim 22:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS even when I went to his web page (against my better judgment) i found no hint of significance, let alone meeting any notability guideline one might name. Dloh cierekim 22:44, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Written on Her

Another version of this article was deleted in AFD a week ago but an admin declined deleting this one so here it is in AFD. Again. Non-charting, non-notable song; fails WP:NSONGS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~G4 I fail to see what's so decline-worthy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)~~ Fine. Delete Not an individually notable song, insufficient sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. It hath been written already! Eddie.willers (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the previous result was "redirect to Birdman (rapper)", this could be implemented again without an AfD. Speedy delete criteria do not apply in this case, as we have a track from a notable band, so the delete proposers will have to give a better justification. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:01, 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, SilkTork *^YES! 19:20, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thick and thin libertarianism

Non-notable. The subject was derived from a blog post, and hasn't been published or referenced anywhere outside of Long's small community of "left-libertarian" bloggers, except for a brief reference in this blog post. Bob A (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed, it seems to only be a term used in a small circle. I do not believe it meets WP:GNG. If this were to be kept, I would reccomend merging it into another libertarian page or putting a {{Template:NN}} tag a the top. Paulish (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism. Badger Drink (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *^YES! 18:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism Joey the Mango (talk) 19:12, 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.

A quick summary of the arguments:

Keep: verifiable, contains references; (invalid): WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:IMPORTANT
Merge/Redirect/Delete/Transwiki: poor references, not verifiable; (invalid): WP:JNN, ignoring WP:POTENTIAL, WP:JUSTAVOTE

Note that I lumped merge, redirect, delete, and transwiki together because they used similar arguments; this grouping has no bearing on the validity of the arguments presented.

I find that there really is no consensus. If the article should be kept because it is verifiable by reliable sources, where are those sources? If the article should be deleted because reliable sources cannot be found, why are all existent sources invalid? I feel that no side really "wins" this crucial point of the debate.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pwn

No reliable sources that significantly cover the term (I just plucked out Urban Dictionary), consists only of original research and a dicdef. The sources include what appears to be a thesis, a PDF that shows up blank for me, and two slang glossaries. I can't find a single source that discusses the term "pwn" in detail. Last AFD closed as keep on merit of nothing but WP:ILIKEIT votes. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - common slang; or transwiki to Wiktionary. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE, buddy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, open to Merge or Move to Wiktionary, but not open to Delete. Nominator argued "not sourced" but in order to argue deletion, you need to demonstrate "not sourceable". [8], [9] show that it's certainly verifiable. I think a discussion of possibly moving to wiktionary could be fruitful (not sure how I feel about that) but I would not support deleting the material. Another possibility would be to merge into some page about related slang terms, with the content on "PWN" as a section. Cazort (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary. Word doesn't haven't sufficient significance for article. There's nothing to say about it. No-one know the origin of the word, so it'll be rife with speculation or original research. People will want to know what it means if they look for it, a job which Wikitionary has been assigned. I can't really see the argument at the moment for a full article here, though I am welcome to here ideas. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 19:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is full of similar pages detailing gaming slang: Griefer, Frag (video gaming), Team killing, Gibs. "Pwn" and its variants are among the most commonly used Hairhorn (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- The fact that other stuff exists has no bearing on this article's notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly what I said. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew this would happen. Have you even read other stuff exists lately? There's a valid way of citing other stuff (sutff that's relevant to your argument), and there's a bad way. Citing other articles is not always irrelevant. Try reading it again. Hairhorn (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "relevant stuff", then? The only arguments you've put across so far are that this subject is notable because "Wikipedia is full of similar pages detailing gaming slang", most of the examples of which you cited lack the necessary reliable sources anyway; and that the word is "among the most commonly used", which, even if cited, wouldn't be sufficient alone to justify the subject's notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I worry this article is getting grief just because it has a juvenile background. Sources are plentiful, if you care to look for them, even in Google News, although most results are general articles about gaming and internet slang, rather than an entire article about "pwn". Hairhorn (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree that there are other wikipedia pages concerning gaming slang, they treat them in a different way than this article does. Those examples you linked read to me like an encyclopedia entry. This article reads like a dictionary entry, very similar to the one on Wiktionary. As per nom, I don't think this as it currently stands should be a full article as it is doing Wiktionaries job. Taelus (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Internet slang or move to Wiktionary, considering the lack of sources with which notability could be established beyond a dictionary definition. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Wiktionary. There is already a detailed article regarding it there. I'm unsure if its possible to redirect outside of Wikipedia, but if not surely a link to it could be placed on the article page? Taelus (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to leet where it is already covered as it is significant but not notable. And close this AfD, drama, drama, drama. Drawn Some (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as perhaps the key concept, not just word, of its genre., with a specific meaning, which needs explanation and discussion. The article has plenty of room for expansion. DGG (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion from what? Urban Dictionary? Encyclopedia Dramatica? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; where are the sufficient reliable sources to show its notability? If it were a "key concept", the sources would exist to verify this. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Internet slang or move to Wiktionary per Haipa Doragon. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wikitionary, or to Internet slang, definitely not notable enough to have its own article. No real world information can really be obtained on this. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if some in the delete camp (and maybe merge as well) are conflating two issues: this subject's potential to be an article, and the fact that "pwn" has a vague or unverifiable history. Having an unverifiable history isn't fatal to an entry about a word: dictionaries all full of words with uncertain or unknown origins. There is lots of room to improve the article, deleting is not the only solution for a bad article. There is room for at least brief discussions of usage, some history, uses in popular culture (it's in at least one South Park episode). Even Google scholar has results for "pwn", although, as usual, always contained inside larger discussions, no articles solely covering "pwn". This would be at home merged into one of the internet slang or leet speak articles, but only if you're truly convinced there's no potential for anything more. Hairhorn (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, we don't base articles on "potential"; if these potential sources you claim to exist exist, where are they? Articles are based on reliable sources, not predictions of the existence of such sources. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential is important: see "Arguments to avoid". I haven't cited any sources because (1) it's trivial to verify that pwn is in common use in a particular culture, used in a consistent way, etc etc, so pick your own source, there are lots.... and perhaps more fatally to the article (2) there are none that deal soley with pwn, and dozens that deal with pwn in the context of leet speak. The sources are not great, that's for sure, that may be enough to kill the article. Hairhorn (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are so many sources, why aren't you citing any? WP:GHITS and the like show nothing towards notability. If so many sources exist as you say, show them, or other editors cannot verify your claims. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it's not trivial to verify something that is, thus far, unverified, especially when it needs to be verified for the article to continue existing. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Internet slang and consider merging/redirecting/deleting the other terms that Hairhorn mentioned above. Whatever is in that page that is verifiable could be included in the Internet slang article. MuZemike 05:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, let me change to keep as I think there is enough there to explicitly establish notability. However, if someone wants to merge, discuss on talk, and I probably won't oppose. I stand by the remainder of my above statement. MuZemike 06:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leet. No reliable sources in sufficient non-trivial quantity to attest to anything more than the fact that it exists, doesn't warrant a standalone article. Leet already covers the neologism, add a transwiki link to Wiktionary and we're done.--MLauba (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still undecided. Widely used but rarely subject of serious discussion. Alexius08 (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least three issues here, and it's important to distinguish between them: notability, verifiability, and the potential to be a good article.

The nominator is correct in saying that no source discusses "pwn" in detail. It just isn't out there. So there may not be enough for a good article, and for some of you this may bring up notability issues. (It also means that any detailed pwn entry will probably have OR issues as well).

However, "pwn" is easily verified, stop asking me to cite references, you can find them yourself. I've found a Wall Street Journal article, academic papers, slang dictionaries, books for worried parents, and so on. I have to think that people asking over and over for citations are confusing verifiability with the other issues. Because if you can't find "pwn" on the internet, you really haven't tried. Hairhorn (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep claiming to have found sources, so why can't you cite them? If the existence of these sources is as obvious as you say, prove so, otherwise your claims just boil down to "it's obviously notable". Articles are based on verified evidence of notability, not mere assertions like yours. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Sigh - you don't really read what I write, do you? Where did I say "it's obviously notable"? I said it's easily verified. Hairhorn (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so easily verified, as you say, why can't you verify it? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there are many sources, but none of them discuess pwn in detail. So I'm not gonna play the game of citing souces and then being corned into defending them.... because they aren't that good. If you think "pwn" doesn't exist and isn't used in a consistent way, no amount of research on my end is going to change that. Hairhorn (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What point are you trying to make, then, if said sources you claim the existence of aren't even "that good"? The mere existence of a word isn't enough to justify a Wikipedia article on it. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you don't seem to read what I write. I've been making a point about verifiability - its existence, usage, and so on. I've hardly touched the other issues. I don't own this article. Hairhorn (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not getting what point this is. All these claims that "many sources" exist are meaningless unless you can show us examples. This is entirely the point of WP:V, that information should be based on direct citations of sources and not just allusions to their existence. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Leet Outside of Leet, there is no notability to the term. WP:DICDEF Eauhomme (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you havent noticed, it's reached pretty far into standard language by now. DGG (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, where are the reliable sources to show this? Notability can't be based on one's subjective perception that something has entered common usage; the sources must be shown to exist to prove this. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICT. No need to merge - the content is already in Wiktionary. There's just not enough reliable secondary sources to include this in an encyclopedia. Orpheus (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People are going to type this in as a search term; there needs to be a redirect and material somewhere, at the bare minimum, even if it's just a sentence or small paragraph. There are certainly reliable sources documenting enough for a paragraph's worth (or more). Cazort (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is material somewhere - at wikt:pwn. Orpheus (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as above. I agree this term has no independent notability - just another piece of internet slang. Eusebeus (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Etymology, pronunciation - obviously fails WP:DICDEF. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a pure hunch, but I am inclined to believe that sources for this can be found. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How widespread its use is, and the degree to which plenty of people have focused on describing the subcultures in which the term is used makes me think there are probably sources. I do not have a good guess on how to search for them efficiently, but I strongly suspect that they exist, and per WP:N, this suggests to me that deletion is inappropriate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, it's certainly going to have to be verified if it's to stand any chance of passing the notability guideline. It's hardly going to stand on the weakly-verified claims of "widespread use" it has at the moment. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, this seems to me exceedingly likely to be possible. I mean, do you really doubt the term's widespread use? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, but without reliable sources I very much doubt its notability—widespread use doesn't necessarily equate to something being notable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed. However, as I pointed out, the subculture it is in wide use within has been the subject of extensive study and commentary, making me doubtful that a particularly iconic piece of slang from the subculture is going to be ignored by the sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People keep mentioning Widespread use, but really, outside of internet gamers, does anybody use this term much? I think it has frequent use by a small segment of the population and will soon go the way of valspeak. Eauhomme (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A small but oft-commented on segment. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few more sources now. The discussion of the term is brief in these sources, but non-trivial, and it allowed some verifying of some of the content as well as adding a little more. Per the general notability guideline I would recommend keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd still go for a merge; it's still little more than a stub. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just looked at the previous AfD (not sure why I didn't do that sooner), and found that other sources were brought up there, including this article in The Detroit News which would provide some more useful content for the article here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! - I wanted to know what it was; I turned to trusty Wikipedia; there it was.71.101.53.18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- That's little more than an WP:ILIKEIT !vote; how is that at all relevant to the article's notability? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, maybe it doesn't count; I'm not a Wikipedia member and don't entirely know the rules. But it was a significant gap in my knowledge and my ability to understand things, which Wikipedia filled in for me, which is as I understand it the purpose and function of an encyclopedia. And it's not just online culture -- I've heard people pronounce it too, so I had an "aahhh" moment. I mean, I don't know what the checklist is to qualify an article, but from my point of view Wikipedia would be better if this article were brought up to snuff and worse if it were snuffed.(71.101.53.18 (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    - Everyone's input counts, the WP:ILIKEIT page just says that unreasoned arguments have little weight. You did have some input, so do not worry about the rules and whether you "count", the closing sysop can weigh up everything to find concensus. Don't worry about being bold in contributing! Taelus (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (see below). As a mere slang neologism, it fails WP:N and WP:V and unquestionably falls under WP:NOTDIC and WP:NEO. — Rankiri (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it has to be considered that users will type this into the search box. It is important for users to see something useful and relevant when they do this. Whether it's a merge or a pointer to dictionary, or a small dedicated article (which is what I'd prefer), that's debatable. But just outright deleting it would create a void for an important subject. As I have demonstrated above, this the use of this word is verifiable in reliable sources. That means it belongs somewhere on wikipedia...thus we should be arguing whether or not to merge. This deletion discussion, in my opinion, is misguided, and the recommendations to delete should be interpreted as recommendations to merge. I would rather see this discussion closed as a keep, and then we can discuss whether or not to merge later. Cazort (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but I don't see anything in your comment which couldn't be covered, properly, under a redirect to leet, which provides basic coverage of the term AND points to wiktionary for further explanations. To suggest that delete votes are in reality meant to be merge votes is a novel approach, however. Not sure it will fly though. MLauba (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge/redirect to leet would be perfectly reasonable, even though I would (weakly) prefer keeping this its own article. But I think an AfD is not a place for a merge discussion...it's a place to discuss whether the material should be outright deleted and I think that is too hard to argue for this term. Cazort (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- While there is an article on Valspeak, there is no article on Grody to the Max, Gag Me With a Spoon, or Gnarly. Likewise, I can see the need for an article on Leet, but not Pwn. Eauhomme (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. Specific slang words have generally no place in Wikipedia, due to their constantly evolving nature, it's a WP:V nightmare and drawing fire from WP:NOTDIC and WP:NEO. The views of Hairhorn, Cazort and DGG reluctantly made me change my mind WP:IAR. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the three sources[10][11][12] provide is extremely limited and conflicting definitions. TIME's peculiarly-looking (is it someone's blog?) Dashboard page says that it means "to destroy (own) a foe", CNet's photo commentary refers to it as "a hacker slang for "own," meaning getting complete control of someone else's system", and the PCMag definition remarks that in gaming, it means "to trounce an opponent. To be "pwned" is to be defeated unmercifully." I just don't see any encyclopedic notability here. Does "definately" [13][14][15] deserve its Wikipedia page as well? Again, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary and I see nothing in the mentioned comments that could convince me in keeping the article in question. If it's only a matter of possible user searches, I think it will be more sensible to just redirect it to an appropriate slang page (e.g. Internet Slang) and use the already existing {{wiktionary|pwn}} to guide the searcher to the commonly accepted definition. — Rankiri (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than just those three sources, however. I mentioned this one above, which had been brought up in the previous AfD, and added some others to the article. There are multiple non-trivial sources already, and room for expansion based on others. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source you mention itself contains the following quote: "This word is just an overly used Internet typo. It has been overused to the point that people who play online games are using it in everyday speech." In which way is it definitive, nontrivial, or even relevant? And what possible room for expansion are we talking about? If it's a simple WP:NOTDIC slang term that doesn't represent any distinctive entities or unique concepts, the only expansion I can imagine is in an expansive list of synonyms and links to slang-related websites. — Rankiri (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of finding slightly more comprehensive sources, I'm changing my original position to redirect/merge to Leet#Owned_and_pwned. I still strongly disagree with the idea that the term merits its own article. As mentioned earlier, it has insufficient individual notability and little potential for any future expansion.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB118679550023894850.html

http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2008/01/11/news/local/doc47871f54ecfe6705836093.txt

http://forthright.livejournal.com/212704.html — Rankiri (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leet#Owned_and_pwned and merge useful content there. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leet as above. While some sourcing exists, it would seem to support it better as part of l33t than as an independent term.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The entries of DHowell and cipher_nemo in the first deletion discussion show the proof of concept is valid for not just as a definition, but how it is related to its uses beyond its definition. I suggest a WP:CLEAN tag to make the article more encyclopedic.--Red3001 (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Other Internet slang/1337 words have their own page and have survived deletion based on definition only articles. O_RLY? (2nd nomination) and Internets_(2nd_nomination) deletion discussions should be used as reference before making a decision.--Red3001 (talk) 20:58, 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 speedy deleted, CSD A7 no indication of significance or importance, or that the subject might meet guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Rage

Non-notable band with zero mention outside of MySpace and forums. Fails WP:BAND Astronaut (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - more pop culture people who are unable to distinguish between wikipedia and myspace. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 WP:BAND epic fail. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:33, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Dorri Nowkoorani

Subject is non-notable soccer player with no professional experience, fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE JonBroxton (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable player. Giant Snowman 18:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find anything to show he passes WP:ATHLETE. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. John Sloan @ 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Plus why is his religion notable? Spiderone (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Angelo (talk) 13:48, 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 no consensus. After the sources were presented, one user !voted to keep and another to delete. Although "delete" had a greater headcount, some of them were WP:PERNOM or WP:JNN arguments. However, this debate is in no way a "keep" decision, so the result is no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minister for Men

Non-notable political movement. The current article lists a reference about a single student lobbying the government. A google search shows a previous attempt (in 2007) that garnered fewer than 400 signatures on a petition. Hardly a groundswell of support for this idea. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. Google News UK turns up only this single incident. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do an archive search (click "all dates"). This turns up 53 hits, some of which are good, detailed sources that I show below. Cazort (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as an aside there is no "minister for animals" - this is publicity for a nn fringe idea. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The publicity already exists in the form of coverage in places like the BBC, New York Times, and The Daily Telegraph. The article may have been created as unsourced publicity but there are good sources available as I demonstrated below. Cazort (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did anyone look for sources? [16], [17], [18], all results: [19]. And that was without trying. Some of these articles discuss this topic in detail. Cazort (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources are out of date (three years old or more). Clearly, the debate fizzled without making much of a splash. And yes, it may have garnered a few headlines, but then, many crackpot ideas do precisely because of their fringe nature. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be be written to reflect this. Fringe views and dead political movements have a place in wikipedia. See the debate on Seasteading...that's an article I (wrongly) nominated for deletion. Personally, I find the concept, and the issues raised in the sources I gave, rather interesting. And they are certainly reliable sources. I'm not really seeing why this should be deleted. Cazort (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re. fringe views and dead movements -- however; this went it seems little further than some letters and the like. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if any content is to be retained, it should be merged with something like Men's movement. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yintaɳ 21:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable as indicated in the nom. Eusebeus (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do the two of your have to say about the sources I found? There are reliable sources written about this topic in detail. Yes, it's an idea that died...but it generated some attention. Merge? Maybe...but I don't see any justification for deleting the material as it is verifiable and there's a fair amount of it. Cazort (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Cazort shows, there are WP:RS. I'm concerned that the other !votes do not pay sufficient attention to this, and to the merits of the information in the article, discussing less relevant fringe issues (absolutely fringe), no "minister for animals" bordering ridicule. There are many crackpot ideas on Wikipedia, their inclusion is determined if there are multiple independent RS - this is a pass. I found an additional one from the The Independent and The Observer source has found way as a reference in scholarly research (sse Reeves, R) Power.corrupts (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - i have deleted the false "Minister for Animals" claim in the article so that issue is now moot. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered the sources, but am not inclined to change my !vote - this is not a serious idea, not even a fringe serious idea, it is something that has been raised in a WP:POINTy way on a couple of occasions. Could have a mention under Men and feminism or Anti-feminism, but I don't think it rates an article. JohnCD (talk) 11:34, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Padh

Non-notable slang term for flatulence in foreign language. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 16:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so be BOLD and redirect to flatulence. Drawn Some (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why though --- this isn't even an english word. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if redirects in other languages are allowed. Even if they are you first need a source. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 20:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to flatulence. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suppose it really doesn't matter but why the re-direct. Surely a dicdef of a non-english word is a straight delete. One doesn't, after all, create redirects from other non-english words for fart (Furz for instance). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggested redirect for a combination of WP:NOHARM and WP:IAR. Don't really know if this would survive an RFD or CSD per {{db-r1}} though. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As I said, it doesnt really matter. I've noticed some Hindi-slang or Hindi-based-slang articles turing up. Interesting. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a Hindi/English dictionary. Yintaɳ 11:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable non-English dictionary entry. No justification for redirect either, unless we want a few thousand contextless redirects for fart and many other articles. Abecedare (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above resasons. Would have been better if it was just speedied. A redirect is of no use because there are no articles linking to it Special:WhatLinksHere/Padh. --Deepak D'Souza 05:09, 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 no consensus. The two arguments were a bit vague; either claiming he is notable or that the article's all gossip, without proof. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Pearson (businessman)

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable living person. A few newspapers repeated his unsupported claim to be a billionaire interested in buying out some troubled Irish companies. It's an amusing little cautionary tale for journalists, but the man himself is not notable — fantasists are not rare — and coverage was limited to a few investment-speculation pieces and local-news coverage. The Wikipedia article itself may originally have been started by its subject as part of his self-mythologising; though, to be fair, the news coverage in Oct-Dec 2008 predates the article creation in Feb 2009. I replaced the uncited claims with cited ones, but since the cites are to credulous articles, that's not much better. The article risks being a magnet for vandalism: either continued fantasies by the subject or jokers, or spiteful mockery of him or those he took in. jnestorius^(talk) 16:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're right that he's not notable as a billionaire (because he isn't), but he may be notable as an eccentric/news item/fabulist. And lots of good pages are vandalism magnets. Hairhorn (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept that vandal-proneness is not itself a reason for deletion; but in a borderline BLP I think it might tip the balance. In this case I think the balance is clear enough: he's not notable in that he didn't fool many people, he didn't fool them for long, there was no fallout from his stories, and there has been little publicity about his unmasking. jnestorius^(talk) 16:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources for ntoability. The coverage seems to include national newspapers.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that the sources are suitable. There is even mention in The Independent which includes a mention of this Wikipedia article. ISD (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the problem is not with the sources. I know this, I added them all myself. The problem is that the subject is not notable. Not everything reported in a newspaper is worth recording in an encyclopedia. And the mention of a Wikipedia article is grounds for extra caution, not for extra notability. jnestorius^(talk) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he is clearly notable for the fact that he's conned so many newspapers. The Independent article is in my opinion definitely a reason for the article to be kept. It's quite a good lesson in the fact that there aren't really any reliable sources! The article does certainly need a lot of work in light of the fact that he is clearly not a multi-millionaire. I'll try to do some. Smartse (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Newspapers get things wrong every day, and other newspapers mock them the next day. What's so special about the Independent article? It's largely a repetition of the current Wikipedia article. If Pearson makes it into journalism textbooks as "a good lesson", then we can have an article; till then, it's original research to regard him as such. jnestorius^(talk) 20:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCollection of rumors. The only solid facts are that he ran a small business, but pretended to have money. Neither part of that is notable. BLP violation, reporting gossip. DGG (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC
DeleteMmm this is an interesting one. There is some notion that it should be kept as he has become part of the idea of fame for fame's sake. It's a mad tale and good fun. But, I'd have to agree that being a fantasist probably shouldn't be enough to qualify somebody for a entry in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurcher2k (talk • contribs) 20:26, May 24, 2009 — Lurcher2k (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Where is the beef here? This is tabloid flavor-of-the-day rumors stuff. Potential BLP issues concern me, and if we prune that out, nothing is left. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:18, 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 Speedy Delete G1 (nonsense!). Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flash the gash for cash

No notability. gordonrox24 (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this is obviously nonsense. JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Speedy delete--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 16:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get the rat out, as the article says, WP:OR. Drawn Some (talk) 16:24, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Alkire

This may be a complete hoax but I'll assume that it's not. The only claims to notability seem to be the awards the subject has won. The awards don't exist. There is no NCWC Awar for "best fable" (see here). There is no "Federation of Literature" to give an "award of excellence." There are three links provided. One is to a very simple under-construction page for the non-existent Federation of Literature, another is a home page that's under construction, and the third is a link to some of the author's writing. It seems obvious from the writing that this may be a young student which is carried into the prose of the article which seems to be written by someone is either young or not proficient in English. As the awards are fake, the subject fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. I'd wait on the "under construction" tag to be taken down by the author but this seems to be a hoax. OlYeller^Talktome 15:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Odd that both the website of the author of short stories and that of the Federation that grants awards to "leeser-known (sic) writers for their short stories" are both under construction simultaneously on free web hosts. Let's just say say that there is a whiff of self-promotion and it is absolutely unverifiable and leave it at that. Drawn Some (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I would say that one link to a 'free host' is OK, three links making up the sole basis for this article just isn't what I think Wikipedia articles need. Additionally, as Drawn Some has already mentioned, these sites are under construction, so I think this needs to be deleted as per WP:VERIFY. JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though Alkire's "The Articles of Confederation" is a pretty good and quick read. Hoax. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please remember this part of the wiki deletion guidelines "...please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template..."Chet50 (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC) — Chet50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Non-notable at best. Edward321 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above...--Travis Thurston+ 00:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good article 208.106.62.32 (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC) — 208.106.62.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Heh. Sort of funny you commenting here... having only made one edit ever and coming straight to AfD to comment. Crazy coincidence. Care to elaborate on why it's a good article? OlYeller^Talktome 03:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think they call it "IP sock puppetry"? --Travis Thurston+ 04:09, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yuval Bronshtein

Non notable poker player. Makes claim to notability via winning 3 FTOPS tournaments thus avoiding CSD, but barely. FTOPS is not a major tournament and only has significance insofar as Full Tilt Poker gives is such credence. In the real world, people don't really care. ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified WP:Poker about this AfD

Speedy delete. Only three Ghits: this article, a link to this article, and a site that only mentions his name in passing. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It might end up being a SNOW close, but there is a claim to significance/importance---won a record three Full Tilt Online Poker Series (FTOPS) tournaments.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Did you even look for sources? [20], [21], [22], without even trying. There are more sources out there: [23]. I'm getting kind of annoyed at how readily some people nominate articles for deletion when there are easy-to-find sources covering the topic in detail. Cazort (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And did you bother to look at most of the links listed in 4? Having 37 ghits is not proof of notability, if you looked up my real name, I have over 200 different ghits, and I am not notable. Half of them are from Bodog (where Yuval is part of their professional team thus the website tries to hype and cannot be considered a RS)[24][25][26][27][28][29] or are dead links[30][31][32] . Most of the rest are dealing with other events simply citing starting chipstack[33][34][35] or providing commentary [36][37][38] on the status of a tournament which might give a sentence such as Boatman was the next elimination when he bricked out in Razz against Yuval Bronshtein, leaving in 12th place for £6,562 or The eight players who made the final (Jennifer Harman, Gary Jones, Joe Beevers, Kirk Morrison, Thomas Bihl, Yuval Bronshtein, Alex Kravchenko and Chris Ferguson) had a combined nine WSOP bracelets among them. (Yuval did not count towards the count, he was simply one of the eight.) In other words, there is no interest in this guy except for his one accomplishment---winning back to back FTOPS events (as cited in your examples 1-3). Winning an FTOPS event is not something that people are going to remember or care about. We are talking about $200 and $500 dollar buy in's in an online tournament. Winning two back-to-back is a side note, but does not establish this guy as notable. There are a lot of non-notable poker players who win 200 and 500 events online. At best this guy deserves a mention in the FTOPS article, not an article on his own. Oh Wait, the FTOPS is not a notable enough tournament to warrant an article on its own, it is merely an entry on the Full Tilt Poker page. ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that if he is on Bodog's team, those sources would not be independent and should not be counted. What about the other sources? I also agree that the articles just showing him in a list don't establish much. But here's another article with significant coverage: [39], and a brief mention in ESPN: [40]. The ESPN source I presume is reliable. Another source with some coverage: [41]. I am willing to discuss more. I see significant coverage. In order to be convinced to delete you would need to convince me that the www.gamingalerts.co.uk, www.pokerlistings.com, and www.cardplayer.com sites are not reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only claim to significance is that he won back to back events in the FTOPS. That is what got people to write some articles on him---Full Tilt undoubtably sent out a press release in an effort to garner attention to their non-notable tournament. Those sources, in turn wrote short blurbs about the accomplishment. I mean, the tournament where he placed isn't notable enough to warrant an article. If an article did exist on FTOPS, I would suggest merging this into that article, but can a person be notable for winning something that is non-notable? I mean, this is much less impressive than many non-notable bands/groups that might get a press release. It is less notable than the pig farmer who gets a press release for winning the county fair and then the state fair! Basically everything out there is A) a drive by mention (including the ESPN article which isn't about Yuval, it just happens to mention him) B) by Bodog Poker (or an obvious Bodog Poker release) C) a dead link or D) about this single accomplishment---which got a press release and a few sources wrote short articles about the accomplishment. None of them are about Yuval. None of them are substantial about him. ALL are minor and/or about the event. There are scores of 200 and 500 dollar online tournaments every week!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your reasoning that if FTOPS is not notable, then this guy is clearly not notable. Also, your concerns of these sources originating as press releases are valid and I think they convince me that these are not reliable sources for arguing notability. On these grounds I change my recommendation to a delete. Thanks for being patient with me and thoroughly explaining your points! Cazort (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge FTOPS is plainly notable, whether it has a separate article or is part of the Full Tilt article. Whether this guy has enough independant sources or not is an open question (though he very likely does have enough coverage). However the bottom line is at this point the coverage relates to a single event, so since the coverage involves a single event and is not overwhelming, per WP:BIO1E the article should redirect to the FTOPS section of the Full Tilt article, and content from this article added there. It clearly is notable in the context of the FTOPS that someone won events back to back. 2005 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear-cut per WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and thanks for the exhaustive and civil answers to Cazort Power.corrupts (talk) 09:22, 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 G3 as hoax, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Round the corner

Complete and total hoax. No such television series ever existed. "Title" image is someone's personal picture from the Commons with text badly tacked on. ELs all go to pages at those sites for different series. There is not a single reliable source to confirms this series ever existed. Fails WP:V. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The use of Comic Sans in the "title card" was a dead giveaway :D Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax although it was Patrick Duffy's greatest role. Drawn Some (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minimally altered copy/paste of Step by Step (TV series). Hoaxalicious. Possible G3 speedy. Deor (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The author of this page has practically admitted to making a hoax by claiming on the image description page for the image on that article as 'own work'. Obviously a hoax. JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3 - blatant hoax. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Kuyabribri. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 18:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to be "speedy", and I have done so, but it can't hurt to have someone uninvolved (admin or not) make the call on closing this AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 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. On the keep arguments: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:INHERITED. Also, just because the list is well-defined doesn't mean that it's notable or sourceable in third-party sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities on South Park

Purely trivial list with little-to-no potential for being placed within the context of real world information. Article serves more as a repository for a die-hard fan to view who has appeared on the show, and as a long cast listing. It's one stand-alone trivia entry after another, and whatever notability can be established about a celebrity's appearance on the show would be better suited on the show's main article, or an article for the episode in which they appear. This could only be accomplished with a minor percentage of those on this list. SoSaysChappy (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I though a list of celebs who have guest starred on the show might be useful, but this is a list of of both celebs who have been on the show and celebs that have been drawn on the show (but voiced by Stone/Parker). I see no value in the list. TJ Spyke 15:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs refs adding. Compare with The Simpsons article that does the same thing. SIMPSONS DID IT! SIMPSONS DID IT! Ahem. Lugnuts (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These two articles are completely different. The Simpsons article is a list of celebs who have guess starred on the show. This is a list of celebs featured on the show whether or not the celeb voiced themselves (the overwhelmingly majority of the people on the list are just Matt Stone and Trey Parker voicing them). TJ Spyke 04:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TJ Spyke, poorly defined list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? Delete Antonio Banderas from the list, it was an iflatable ... toy. Keep the rest. I don't buy nominator's stand-alone trivia hook; this "definition" applies to any list. The list is nearly perfect, apart from rubber Antonio... NVO (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article basically reads "xxxx was depicted in South Park" over and over. If the appearance can be supported by notability, such info can be integrated into said celebrity's article or the appropriate SP-related article (read above). If by "perfect" you mean it is a complete listing of each celebrity who has been depicted, then that it is true. But how is it encyclopedic? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are following your own logic that is hardly comprehensible for outsiders... Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lists of people is not applicable here, because the list is not selective, it's purportedly all-inclusive, thus there is no need to justify inclusion of every Joe and Jane through their notablility. Bare fact of appearance need not be "supported by notability", it just exists, confirmed by actual footage and sounftrack. Or maybe you are questioning the topic of the list (portrayal of real-world notable people in a notable show)? NVO (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to clarify myself then... If the article is "all-inclusive", I feel it is an inappropriate repository of sorts because the overwhelming majority of those on the list (possibly 100%) are not most famous for having appeared on the show. Of course the show is notable. Of course the celebs are notable. Yes, the show spoofs celebrities. But how many celebs on this list fit within the scope of having been subject to a significant parodying within the show's larger scope of addressing themes and issues (rather than just a simple portrayal, i.e., having their name mentioned, being subject to mere ridicule, or being depicted on screen for 5 seconds)? I don't see it as enough to warrant an entire list article, but in essence that's what is for everyone else to discuss and decide. Hopefully I'm not being more incomprehensible, but this is the best way I feel I can explain my thoughts on this. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"How many?" As many as fit the declared scope (each list begins with a scope). A single mention of Helen Hunt's private parts does not count. Barbara Streisand or Phil Collins as "chief antagonists" do. All the gray areas can be sorted out within the article, not here. NVO (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er...for the record, I was being rhetorical. Don't wanna give the impression that I was suggesting that such an additional discussion be started here. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list of notable real world people on a series is pretty much the definition of the sort of thing that is real world information. DGG (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ex: Helen Hunt (ep. 701, Cancelled); she was simply mentioned. Where's the potential for information regarding info on the cultural impact? Author's intention? Description of her mentioning as an essential piece of the narrative? Too many other names on this list face the same problem. A good, rare exception would be Kanye West, whose appearance is significant and already well-explained from a real-world perspective in an appropriate article (Fishsticks) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it does not belong there, fix it. Best way, through redefining inclusion rules and a general cleanup accordingly. Unfortunately, as long as AFD is running, few folks will seriously invest their time in an overhaul. NVO (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though if you delete it, there are versions on the French and Russian wikis that should come up for deletion talk as well. JB82 (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nergaal (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a word of advice, admins will ignore what you said as AFD's are discussions and NOT votes. You have to give a reason for why you think a article should be kept. TJ Spyke 04:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question shouldn't this list be moved to "List of celebrities portrayed on South Park"? If that is the case, then the point of this AfD would be to debate weather portrayal of celebrities on South Park (which IS one of the biggest recurring themes on the show) is a relevant enough entry for wikipedia. Yeah, the format right now is close to horrendous, but leaving that aside, I believe that the scope of the article (as I understand it) should justify the existance of the article. Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - most are indeed portrayed (or pissed off), the one actually providing voices or otherwise credited are a minority. NVO (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — well-defined list, but not about a notable topic. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ship it to some fan-wiki dumping ground. I like south park, but procedurally these sorts of lists are OR and, well, simply not independently notable from the show (and the endless episode summaries).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refocus. The problem with these "List of X" articles is that all they do is become a mindnumbing list of every X. The solution is to build in their place articles such as Celebrity depictions on South Park (or a better title), which would discuss - using reliable sources - the topic of celebrities having the piss ripped out of them by South Park, which is certainly a notable topic. It wouldn't need to list each and every one. Some quick examples of sources:[42][43][44][45][46] Fences and windows (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mere trivia. Such information can be noted elsewhere. Eusebeus (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of trivia and cruft. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-defined list, real-world people, Series highly popular. Nominating this for deletion is like trying to sweep the waves back into the Ocean, attracting all the usual Cruft and Trivia arguments and their opposites - and Oh, all the Dramah. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly uncited to naught but primary sources. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep every item is sourced actually, see those Ep:112 notes? Those are cited to the original episodes which makes sense. The rest is clean-up issues to move this from trivilizing content to being a helpful list. These are not reasons to delete or complain but to fix and offer constructive solutions. -- Banjeboi 16:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this was reply to my comment immediately above, I said that it's only sourced to primary sources, ergo lacking any evidence of having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (as per the Notability guideline). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you tried looking for secondary sources discussing the depiction of celebrities on South Park? I don't think you have, as there are hundreds of sources. I linked to a handful above. Fences and windows (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actuall it was more for Lugnuts but your point is well taken that non-primary sources would help and as Fences and windows points out, they too exist. -- Banjeboi 20:01, 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 Keep as per consensus. Outside of the nominator, there is no call for the article's deletion. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moll Dyer

No reliable sources, tagged as needing them since 2007 with no improvement. Only sources that turn up show extremely trivial mention of a nonnotable local legend. Would need multiple RELIABLE (not some random local ghost website) sources with NON-TRIVIAL coverage to establish any sort of notability at all to even be mentioned in another article. Clearly does not deserve an article of its own. DreamGuy (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's not much in Google [47] but there may be something in Weird Maryland. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Keep - see Matt Lake, Mark Moran, and Mark Sceurman, Weird Maryland, (2006 Sterling Publishing Co. Inc.), ISBN 14-02739060, found at Weird Maryland at Google Books. Accessed May 19, 2009. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So a short mention in a book series that's not known for being particularly reliable is enough for you to justify having a full Wikipedia article? That's arguably enough to be mentioned (briefly) in an article on a broader topic, but having a whole article to oneself requires a lot more than just one source. DreamGuy (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears that bearian has found suitable evidence of notability, although I'd be happier if there were a bit more. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep or merge~~. Keep. Some more sources:[48][49][50][51][52]. There's a suggestion the Blair Witch was based on her:[53]. Her legend has some notability, but not much outside Maryland. ~~I'd say a definite one to merge, but I'm not sure where to merge to.~~ Fences and windows (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added another link to a book she is mentioned in, Google books having a preview of those three pages dedicated to her. She has enough notable references. Dream Focus 01:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in some sources, which I believe now properly assert the notability of this legend. Fences and windows (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blair which project and good references are enough to assert notability. Licit Ivy (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Licit Ivy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. ;) Licit Ivy (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "some of the worst edits on Wikipedia are dedicated AFD Keep voters putting garbage info and unreliable sources/link on pages -- cleaning up)". DreamGuy made this edit summary when removing much of the information I'd added. I am not a "dedicated AFD keep voter", and what I added wasn't "garbage". This kind of attitude and personal attack is not acceptable. You've completely failed to assume that my edits were made in good faith, and you've broad brushed me as an inclusionist. If you care to check my contributions to AfD you'll see that the majority support deletion, but I also make an effort to rescue some pages. Why is Witchcraft in American culture not an acceptable source? Is Chesapeake Family Magazine a terrible source for reporting the interesting variation in the legend, when it gives its own source? I don't see any reason for such an aggressive defence of your nomination. Fences and windows (talk) 16:58, 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. I have considered the proposed alternative approach, but it would still violate WP:SYNTH. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Functional states index

The term has zero Google hits, which probably means it's the brainchild of the editor who created the article. While not an uninteresting idea, it is clearly in breach of WP:NOR and should be deleted. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like an obvious original research claim - as the nominator said, there are no Google hits for this. JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No ghits so fails WP:OR Computerjoe 's talk 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Complete non-sense. South Bay (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed alternative approach

The article probably does need to go because it is indeed original research. However, it is not nonsense, as stated above by one of the editors. It suggests the interesting and important idea of comparing existing international indices. I have proposed on the article's talk page an alternative approach to presenting the information behind the article in a way that does not include creating a new index and should not violate NOR. I hope an interested party (such as the author of this article) will consider the suggested alternative so as to allow the information to remain in Wikipedia.

WagePeace (talk) 18:08, 24 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fight of Characters

No assertion of notability whatsoever in any way, shape or form, under any policy, guideline or essay excluding WP:BOLLOCKS. It would be long gone except the author contested a previous prod, something I've always considered a tiny flaw in the system (in the same way that the Titanic had a tiny flaw in her hull). Anyway, here it is. Ironholds (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable game mod. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obscure offshoot of an offshoot of a (notable) game. Hairhorn (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Yintaɳ 22:15, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mirage (Aladdin)

Character is not notable, and the article is essentially just a plot summary with some fancruft. SilentAria ^talk 14:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons, as well as the fact that some of them have already been tagged for their lack of sources since 2008:[reply]

Delete These were at AfD last August as part of a larger batch of characters. The AfD was speedy kept; mostly because Aladdin, Jasmine, and Iago were also in that batch and they were deemed major characters. While I agree that they should stay I can't ascertain the notability of these minor characters as there's been little to no independant in-depth discussion of them in reliable, thrid-party sources. Them From Space 15:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do like Mirage a lot, but none of these characters meet the notability criteria as they haven't been covered in sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of this information into the existing part of the main article. If it gets too long, split out the characters portion. The redirects will always be appropriate, so a nomination for total deletion is out of place. And even if you thing the one line descriptions already there are adequate. I am not going to defend keeping character articles like these, and I really hope people will similarly not try to delete the material.DGG (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source and consider a merge as a last resort. Minor characters can be notable, and if they are too stubby they can be merged. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. There is no reason not to let characters from a notable series have their own pages, if they have enough information to fill one. Any merger would result in the lost of a significant portion of the article. Dream Focus 19:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And such loss is a good thing, as those details do not meet Wikipedia's criteria. Please see WP:NOT and etc. DreamGuy (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT was never passed by any reasonable number of people, there no wikipedia wide vote. Its just a gang of people who got together one day and changed things, and argue nonstop against any reasonable change, until others simply give up in frustration. Of course its just a guideline, not a policy, so you can ignore it. It is a suggestion to help people determine what to do, not an absolute law. Dream Focus 01:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, massive failure of notability and reliable independent sourcing. DreamGuy (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least two of them, which are more notable than the others (the two that have toys, for example), but all of these are at least redirectable if not mergeable per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Remember, deletion is considered a last resort for hoaxes, copy vios, and libel, i.e. things that cannot be redirected anywhere or that contains damaging information that we don't want public. We don't delete based on WP:JNN or WP:ITSCRUFT. Nominator has said, “I am not really opposed to merging/redirecting the articles.” Please note that if I merge anything we cannot delete per the GFDL. Otherwise, subjects can't really fail WP:NOT, which lacks community consensus as evidence by the dispute that resulted in its protection to resolve the dispute as well as a recent RfC in which more editors (over sixty!) opposed it. Anyway, due to the overwhelming notability of the characters as confirmed through reliable independent sourcing, we should either keep and continue to improve or merge and redirect per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please take a closer look at what I said in that link provided. I said that I am not really opposed to merging/redirecting, "should the consensus deem it so". I also said that "I don't see anything that can really be merged from them". Perhaps I'm not very good at explaining things clearly, but those statements do not mean that I believe that merging/redirecting is a better solution for these problematic articles than deletion. I still stand by my nomination and firmly believe that the articles should be deleted based on WP:NOTE (as well as WP:V and WP:WAF), and WP:PLOT, disputed or no. Please don't use your interpretation of my words to justify a "Keep" vote. --SilentAria ^talk 00:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They pass WP:NOTE as well as WP:V, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT, however. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, extremely minor characters from a film. Fails WP:N, WP:NOT, and goes against WP:WAF. Would not be acceptable within the main film article(s) either per WP:MOSFILM, so no place that it can/should be merged. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are actually from multiple films and some are not just in the film, but also made as toys. Moreover, they meet WP:N due to their multiple appeareances in toys and films as verified inr eliable sources, pass WP:NOT due to the out of universe information in the articles as well. There is absolutely NO valid reason why even at worst we would not redirect. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. Notability is not established by being in the television series. Significant coverage is what establishes notability. These are all very minor characters, within any of the series. Having a toy from a series that had toys of everything in it doesn't make it notable either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Collectonian here. As per WP:NOTE: "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." --SilentAria ^talk 01:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they are discussed in multiple reliable sources, in addition to appearing in a multifilm franchise and as toys is what makes these major characters notable. We don't outright redlink things unless they are hoaxes, copy vios, or libelous. Now, looking at Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Cast, it gives the example of brief prose paragraphs for the characters. I cannot imagine any reason why we would not merge the cited information that I added to nearly all of the above to any or all of the following per that guideline: The_Return_of_Jafar#Cast, Aladdin_and_the_King_of_Thieves#Characters, and/or Aladdin_(television_series)#Characters. Obviously editors come here searching for this information, so they are legitimate search terms and I can't imagine why we wouldn't want to merge the references to these sections of the main articles that are currently unsourced. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:The Walt Disney Company, Aladdin (TV series), and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disney page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
weak keep or merge needs sourcing regardless. Really hard to find sources because of the very common names. Ikip (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge into List Of ... Characters. No need for separate articles on these minor characters. SpikeJones (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - in-universe fancruft with no assertion of real-world notability whatsoever. Eusebeus (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion, especially when the articles contain out of universe information that asserts real-world notability. Please be honest. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These characters are featured in movies, television series, and books, coloring books, and comic books, as well as toys, stickers, posters, and other merchandise. They are notable, and there is enough information on the article pages to warrant their own articles. Dream Focus 16:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to the series. In the realityverse no reliable soruces establish independent notability for this fictional being apart from the work of fiction it inhabits.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is not true if you look at the articles that cite reliable sources, such as reviews. Please be sure to check references before commenting. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I sure did check. As i said, trivial name-checks in plot summaries et al do not make fictional characters worthy of their own encyclopedia articles. Please don't make assumptions about what others have read or not read.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you did check then you would see non-trivial commentaries in not just plot summaries but about who played as these main characters in some episodes and films and about how they were made into toys. Anyone even remotely familiar with this subject would know that we have at worst mergeable information. Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article is entirely unsourced. Therefore, nothing to "merge." If you want to write sourced info and place it into the article on the series, or some "list of characters" then go ahead. I accept that we disagree but leave off on telling me what i saw or what i "would see". I checked, i saw, i drew my own conclusions. You did likewise and came to a different conclusion. Fine.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        We are not only discussing Mirage, which I agree needs more sources, but the other ones listed above, those of which actually do have sources from secondary independent sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        To be clear: None of these articles have sufficient reliable sourcing behind them that would establish these fictional persons as independently notable from the works of fiction they inhabit. That's my take. Again, I accept that you disagree.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That's just not true, because they appear in both films, a television series, and as toys and are covered as such in reviews of these. You can make a case that the information is limited enough to justify merging the sourced information per the MOS cited above to shorter character lists and redirecting, but there's no reason, no pressing need to delete the edit history per WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stating an opinion that characters in a mass-marketed multi-million dollar franchise are not notable, and then quoting an essay as a reason for deletion, is perhaps not the best way to approach article improvement. Per the editing policy WP:PRESERVE and the essay WP:POTENTIAL, ongoing efforts are being undertaken to meet the nom's concerns, as improving the project is the goal of every editor. Though some feel that "improving" requires the removal of every article that is not yet up to code... it is far better if one accepts an understanding that such articles eventually do become improved. And it must be remembered that policy and guidelne do not mandate that it must be done within some arbitrary timeline... only that there is a reasonable and common sense presumption among contributing editors that it can be done. Though AfD is not intended to as a bludgeon to force cleanup, it improves Wikipedia to allow the process to continue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your ability to link so many times in one paragraph, but do you have anything to say about the articles in question? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply offering my opinion and suporting it with policy and guideline. I link to guideline for those editors who seem sometimes to forget that they are meant to exist as a coherent unit acting to improve the project and promote growth of an encyclopdia. About the articles specifically... and in simple terms... alowing continued improvement improves wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge in the manner DGG suggests above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge, keep as redirect per DGG. I know some people hate per responses, but DGG's reasoning is so clear, I could not have said it better. I would go on to say that this is a topic within a greater subject, and that coverage of that subject is more complete with the merger w/ redirect than w/o it. Dloh cierekim 23:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep essentially per DGG. An omnibus list with short entries is the way to go here (either as part of the main series article or spun off). These characters don't need there own articles, but they are potentially useful redirects to the (small amount of) content that Wikipedia should have on them. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even with the cleanup effort, I don't see any real-world notability established in these articles, which is required by WP:WAF. If this doesn't get shown the articles should still be deleted. I think this should be the number one priority for anybody trying to "rescue" these. Them From Space 21:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, WP:WAF does allow "when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article" as "completely normal Wikipedia procedure", and grants that such spin-offs "may lack demonstration of real-world coverage through sources dedicated specifically to those elements." It recommends that the spin-off should be concise... and THAT is a matter for cleanup, not deletion or a merge back... both being opitions that do not require an AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which have been refuted. "Too many articles" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please stop trolling AfDs and instead consider the actual merits of the individual articles under discussion. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the information, merge it or whatever, but deletion is totally out of line. The constant deletion nominations of fiction are turning Wikipedia into a warzone, divisive cr*p, is somebody making a WP:POINT? All this energy could be spent constructively, improving whatever articles people find worthy but lacking, advancing the project. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once characters have toys that are mass marketed at McDonald's - the world's largest resteraunt chain complete with advertising campaigns - we can be rather assured they have met a certain threshold of notability. Obviously it would help prevent future noms if the real world impact was spelled out a bit better but I hate to see articles degrade just to serve as deterents to deletion. The lede could subtly point out these issues with notability spelled out in the text below. -- Banjeboi 17:11, 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. Flowerparty^☀ 03:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biker's bell

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Biker's bell

Non-notable topic based upon completely unreliable sources: The article says: "There are many websites that describe the legend of the biker's bell." (first, note that it's just websites, no printed documentation). "Some of the pages are of private enthusiasts," (i.e. just some person) "others are of online community representatives," (some person with a website) "and yet other web sites containing the legend are of retailers of motorcycle equipment and accessories.There are even companies that specialize in selling these curious artifacts." (places trying to sell you stuff). No indication from any reliable folklore sources that this is actual folklore, let alone enough to have its own article. Person who created this article basically only showed up to make this article. DreamGuy (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced copypasta. Hairhorn (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a citation following a simple search. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copying and pasting the same stock text you put on lots of AFDs doesn't mean that the article in any way deserves to be kept. DreamGuy (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're just getting started. I have done a little work to bring out the facts of the matter so that we have more than just the fanciful stories. The items go by a variety of names and so trawling through the sources takes time. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The added in citations prove it is notable. Dream Focus 15:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non notable urban legend of dubious provenence. "added in citations" do not show any notability whatsoever. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks to be the extension of a word-of-mouth marketing campaign. I'd need to see something pretty solid showing notability for this one before I'd argue to keep. Right now, I'm on the fence ... the sources aren't very good, but they aren't patently horrible, either.—Kww(talk) 20:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The alleged "reliable source" added by User:Colonel Warden via his "simple search" is a book self-published through LuLu.com, a notorious vanity press outfit which means it's no more reliable than a mere personal blog. If this is his idea of showing notability, he's proven that it isn't notable. DreamGuy (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the cites which utterly failed RS: a geocities source and the sales catalogs. There are now two "sources" left, neither impressive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll go for delete after KillerChihuahua's scrubbing. He fails to note that of the two sources that are left, one is an unattributed cut-and-paste of the other. So, we are left with one source, and the article fails WP:V and WP:N.—Kww(talk) 21:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sake, it is a copy in its entirety? I scrubbed based on RS and only glanced at the content. Ok, one source then, either a letter column in a bikers mag or a vanity blog site - I'm going to guess the vanity blog site is the copyvio. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have it backwards: the letter column admits they copied it, they just don't say from where.—Kww(talk) 22:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the whole article is based on a piece of vanity fiction which has been used to sell bells for bikers? ye gods. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and ask for assistance in improving the article from it's author and earlier contributors. As this AfD is only a day old, it would be prudent to encouage User:Colonel Warden and others in their attempts at improvement to meet the nom's concerns. Even though AFD is not for WP:Cleanup, it usually forces such to happen, and the article's format or sourcing can and should be addressed through CLEANUP, per WP:POTENTIAL and WP:PRESERVE since Wikipedia does not mandate a WP:DEADLINE for improvement, as long as there are efforts to do so. He has his week... let's let them work as the clock ticks and then judge the results when they are through. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for God's sake, there's nothing TO improve. It's just nonsense fluff made up by some nobodies to sell crap. DreamGuy (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for God's sake, pleae try to offer at least a pretense of civility. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it's a "known neologism" in biker communities, my attempts (and others) haven't been able to find reliable sources for this. If some semi-reliable sources are found (which is probably the best that could happen), it might be worth bringing out the razor of ignore all rules to keep this, and I'd change my delete opinion. (I've never suggested IAR before- but it seems this might be a good case, and I'd be willing to elaborate if required). tedder (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Gremlin Bell" in use on motorcycles is written of in Star Tribune and Lowell Sun. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first one mentions the Gremlin Bell, then says "The bell is said to ward off evil road spirits." But no more- it is an article about "bike blessings." The second one didn't appear in my database source, so I wasn't able to see if the full article talked about it any more than the excerpt said. tedder (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a large body of work on modern folklore, and anthropology on biker subculture. Yet it isn't mentioned there? Maybe in 10 or 20 years this will grow in stature, but not now. Or maybe it will be forgotten without Wikipedia to keep it alive. Why not add one or two sentences to an article like Superstition or Amulet or Evil eye as an example of a modern talisman? But delete this page.--Dbratland (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources in the article, and there seems to be none available, to show that this is anything other than made-up. Not just the supernatural incident, but the whole concept of the "biker's bell". pablo_hablo. 12:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator and another editor have removed various sources in the course of discussion. One, for example, was a newspaper article which indicated that Harley Davidson have not only made such items, but that they have been counterfeited. Such action tends to invalidate the discussion by removing the material which is under debate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q @Col. Warden — do you mean this one? pablo_hablo. 13:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope not.—Kww(talk) 14:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CW, are you kidding me? The article you added was to support a claim you put in the article that Harley Davidson made a silver bell that was the equivalent of a biker's bell per this AFD, and that article makes NO CLAIM at all about such a bell. There's NOTHING in there remotely similar to the topic of this Wikipedia article. If I am going to give you any good faith at this point I can only assume you did a search for Biker AND bell and that caught the fact that this article was about bikers and was written by someone with "Bell" in their name and that you completely slipped up by not paying attention. Otherwise it would appear that you are intentionally lying about the content of the article. Either way you only go to prove why your claims cannot be taken at face value. DreamGuy (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad, but it's not that bad, DreamGuy. The arrests were made at the Ride Bell company, which presumably makes rider's bells, although that is never explicitly said.—Kww(talk) 15:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Along with my mention of articles on talismans and charms above, there is an appropriate place where knock-offs of Harley-branded items could be discussed. There is no reason to make the Harley brand so special or the "biker's bell" product so special as to have it's own article. It is just an unremarkable example of a common thing.--Dbratland (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some ideas too about articles into which this might be merged, such as Motorcycle#accessories. But merger isn't deletion. As some of our biker readership may want to search for our content on this topic, it seems appropriate to retain this article title to assist them. Why are you !voting delete rather than merger? The outcome of this discussion should be constructive rather than destructive. The original author of this article appears to have created it in good faith and we should respect his initial contribution even if we choose to transform it. No? Colonel Warden (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is deleting a whole page and then adding one or, at most, two sentences to a sub-section of a different page the same as a merge? (You're right, btw, that there are a ton of motorcycle articles that overlap and should be merged.)--Dbratland (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything of the article is retained then this is a merger and the licence requires that we respect the contributing editors by preserving the edit history. Performing deletion in such a case is an additional, unnecessary step and I am not aware of any good reason to do so. Please see our policy which explains this, "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.". Colonel Warden (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean you have changed your !vote/opinion? Merges and redirects, whilst not requiring an AfD, are often the outcome of AfDs. There are many possible targets for this article to be merged/redirected to. Some have been mentioned above. Urban legend would be another. pablo_hablo. 00:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at AFD is whether someone presses a delete button to make the entire article and its history go away. Redirect, merger and other imaginative suggestions are different ways of keeping the article. My preference remains to keep the article separate as we have several possible destinations and this would avoid the need to choose between them. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that, of which you should be extremely well aware, is that redirecting articles like this one without an AFD to delete the underlying article frequently results in an edit war when people keep undoing the redirect. This way, the bad article gets deleted and, if someone later installs a redirect, it's likely to stay stable.—Kww(talk) 01:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not such an edit war. The author of this article wrote it as a writing assignment. He indicates that he uses Wikipedia but is quite intimidated by the process of editing. By going out of our way to utterly eradicate his first effort, we would be sending an unwelcoming message. This would be contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understand why people even try to argue that we should keep bad edits just to be nice. New editors need to know how to make articles that meet our standards... they either learn from their mistakes and do better or they go away. Either way is better than just sitting back and accepting crap just for the sake of encouraging people to happily add more crap later. DreamGuy (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the effort expended in this debate is evidence that the author's work is taken quite seriously. Hardly unwelcome, even if this article is deleted.--Dbratland (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - noteability established by good secondary sources added by the Colonel. Some of them had been incorrectly removed, as explained on the articles talk page. Page view stats show close to two hundres views per day over the last few months. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources did not meet WP:RS and they were properly removed. Page view stats have absofreakinglutely nothing to do with notability. Please reread our WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS standards to educate yourself. DreamGuy (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about viewing stats not directly relating to noteability. Theyre more a secondary argument showing that folk likely to come to the encyclopedia for information on this topic. With respect dreamguy, on the articles talk page I've quoted some of the applicable policy showing the sources are valid, whereas you seem to be assuming they say something they dont. If you can quote me a policy passage that clearly shows Im wrong Ill happily apologize and withdraw my keep vote. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a stub to Motorcycle accessories. No way this deserves its own article, but we can verify its existence with a few sources. Fences and windows (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a reasonable result - good find. Note that the article Motorcycle accessories has just been spun off from Motorcycle and currently only has one source. It could use an infusion of sourced material, such as this article. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:22, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by British immigrants

What is the point of having an article about the numbers of Britfаgs living in other countries? We don't do this for other nations. NavyDrinker (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be valid information but surely not significant or notable enough to deserve its own article. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Was interesting and notable to me (which is why I made the article). Indeed, the fact that the BBC did a special report on the subject seems to indicate the interest of many people in the subject. I think this is a useful companion to articles about British demographics as well as British history (ie highlighting countries where Britain retains a significant, if unofficial, presence). TastyCakes (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just found this very useful information, wish there was some for more diasporas. Merge with British diaspora perhaps? Dex1337 (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ya I talked to a guy on the article's talk page about that. I guess it could be merged or renamed but to me it doesn't seem to be a diaspora article since it's not about the descendants of British people but rather people with British citizenship living outside Britain. It also seems a little long to merge into the British diaspora article... However, I agree the article doesn't have a very good name, but I couldn't think of anything better. TastyCakes (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, Navy drinker please be civil. "Britfags" isn't acceptable language around here. TastyCakes (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Britfаgs" is what people call them on 4chan. I just like speaking like that.--NavyDrinker (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - This isn't 4chan and if you keep using insulting language like that you'll be blocked. TastyCakes (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Good list. Well referenced. Would like to see such a list for a few other nations. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge. This list could be trimmed down to say, the top 10 and merged into another article. On the other hand, there is an article called Immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922, so shouldn't we delete that one too? JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename - it is primarily list of Britons, not list of countries. Merging with British diaspora is a second option, perhaps, if someone takes care to expand it into an article, rather than a pileup of lists. NVO (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a new article, British emigrants, could be made and the British diaspora article could be merged with this one into it? I kind of thing a list this long would look strange in an article... And I don't really support cutting it down into a "top 10 list" or something like that. TastyCakes (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge: information is relevant but is totally based on one primary source, so it sounds like original research and should not be a standalone article. It could be merged to another article. Lechatjaune (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary? A census questionnaire is primary. A compilation of these papers in the original census stats is primary. But numbers report by BBC is at best tertiary, unless they actually did the count. NVO (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result of a statistic research is obvious primary, right? If BBC reports that, it is yet primary. If BBC had carried out a deeper analysis taking in account several different primary sources, it would be secondary source. Tertiary source consists of very well consolidate information. Lechatjaune (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am not saying the source is not reliable, I am just saying it is primary, since the all information is original. BBC didn't improved the quality of the study by doing further research. Nor am I saying the list should be deleted but better organized. The article might be renamed to British emmigration in order to motivate other editors to expand it. Lechatjaune (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appropriate information for an encyclopedia. There are multiple sources available, and they should be included.It would be good to do this for other nations also. DGG (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. "British Diaspora" is a totally inappropriate merge target because this article is talking about British expatriates and emigrants in the 21st Century, while British Diaspora is talking about a historical phenomenon (and actually there were several diasporas, each of which could probably merit its own article). I dare say the majority of Wikipedians originate from a British diaspora at some point in history, but this is a much more focused and defined article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with Marshall. A look at BBC source somehow persuades me that they did in fact list British nationals, so the terms emigrants is not applicable, and a diaspora is by definition a far wider terms. Unless more sources are involved, emigrants and diaspora should be avoided. NVO. P.S. Aren't majority of wikipedians from India? (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and block the nominator for his utter lack of civility. We don't need him and his unrepenting behaviour [54] on Wikipedia. Equendil Talk 01:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is actually encyclopedic content that has been split off (for apparently good reasons) the parent British people. Nergaal (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... Could we close this AFD? TastyCakes (talk) 21:30, 25 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Bergman

This guy is a Richmond VA ad agency owner trying to sound more important than he really is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiffyspiffy38 (talk • contribs) 2009-05-19 14:22:53

Comment - could the nominator please not vandalise the article that is up for deletion? This edit is certainly not constructive.
Delete - obviously not notable, but see my comment above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JulieSpaulding (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Julie, and I second the comment toward the nominator. And by the way, nominator, next time please remember to put the proper AfD template on the article. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable under criteria either for biography or creative professional. Can find no reliable/independent sources for any of the biographical information. Think assertions such as being the account manager for Campbell and having $20 million in billings definitely need to be backed up by verifiable sources. Feel that this is simply a case of self-promotion (subject is in advertising).Kubotak (talk) 22:25, 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. The central problem, which the "keep" opinions mostly don't really contest, is the lack of independent reliable sources covering him in any detail, which are required not only per WP:BIO, but also for verifiability, which is especially important with WP:BLPs. Sandstein 06:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Beltzner

~~I'm not sure on this one.~~ It's like, he should be notable, but he's not. #3 guy at Mozilla, it seems, but he's not discussed in RS that I can see. 32nd google hit brought this, but I just don't think we've got enough to go with here. Current references in the article are mostly unimpressive. لenna vecia 14:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking that I'm not sure. Having read the discussion and looked more closely at sources, there's nothing of substance discussing the subject, merely commenting on the company and quoting him, thus I believe this article surely needs to be deleted. لenna vecia 04:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The position is almost certainly notable, and the sources are enough to show that he holds it. Lack of more formal sources is usual in this area, and it's appropriate to adjust our interpretation of RS accordingly. DGG (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some sources DGG about his activities and position - [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63] etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first 3 are not in fact about Beltzner or his activities or position. They feature Beltzner talking about his company. Therefore, they seem to be of no use in building this article. After the first 3, I got tired of checking. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per notable position and work. Unfortunately developers in open source don't get quite the same individual press coverage that others (such as minor politicians) do. Their work is often less public and controversial, and most interviews are deliberately with smaller, independent blogs if anyone. However, there's coverage around. Beltzner gets 147 hits on Google news, including [64] [65] [66] (will add more in a bit). Flying Toaster 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Keep votes say his position is notable. He's the director. What does that mean? What, exactly, is his position? It's not explained in the article, but if he's notable for his position, it should be. لenna vecia 18:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Director means that he's responsible for the successful planning and operations of Firefox - includes things like managing developers, setting priorities, creating & implementing development plan. Flying Toaster 18:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant for the article, not here. I wasn't asking literally. This information needs to be pulled from RS and put into the article. That's where I was going with it. لenna vecia 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG and FT have unfortunate cases of notability-itis. As Jenna seems to recognize, it's ultimately independent sources (that are actually about the subject) that make an encyclopedia article possible to write. That's why Wikipedia defines notability and includability in terms of RS's, not the other way around. To declare someone or something "notable" just because s/he/it sounds big and important, and then to "re-interpret" the RS requirement to accommodate one's baseless declaration, is the tail wagging the dog. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "dog" is someone having done notable things. The "tail" is the default guideline that 2 RS shows they are notable. It's the actual notability thats important. DGG (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Divorce notability from 2RS, and any argument for a subject's notability stands on quicksand. (Why is Beltzner, or what he has done, notable? "Zomg #3 guy at Mozilla" is quicksand.) Divorce notability from 2RS, and you beg the question: why should Wikipedia's inclusion criterion be notability as you define it, and not 2RS? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep notability dependent on 2RS, and you';re at the mercy in both directions of the errraticness of coverage and the incompleteness of online search for sources. Base it on what people do thats notable, and you're on the firm ground of human accomplishments. DGG (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - A resume recounts human accomplishments. An encyclopedia article summarizes research, reporting, or opinions that have been published on its subject. Wikipedia does not and cannot correct for "erraticness of coverage." If you think Beltzner is so important that he should be the subject of careful inquiry and study, feel free to write a book or article about him or get someone else to. And surely you don't think that FUTON bias is a problem in Beltzner's case? He is, after all, the #3 guy at Mozilla :). 160.39.213.97 (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BIO notes that the person should have been the subject of published secondary source material, and in most of the news links above Firefox is the subject, with Beltzner receiving nothing more than a passing mention. Many of the news articles are republishing the same story, so even the trivial coverage is less broad than would seem at first glance. Finally, none of the sources would allow us to write more than "Mike Beltzner is a director at Mozilla", as none have any biographical information with which to write the article. Kevin (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject does not mean primary subject, nor does it mean as you apply it. It is clear from the wording that it refers to "being discussed in secondary material". Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which sources is he being "discussed"? There is definitely a difference between being discussed and being mentioned. If you are the subject of the article, you are being discussed. If you are mentioned in the article, you're not the subject. Kevin's interpretation is pretty much spot on. لenna vecia 05:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption moved to talk page. لenna vecia 17:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Subject does not mean primary subject" ← Huh? Yes it does. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it "clearly" does then it would say so. It does not. Have you read Wikipedia:Notability (people)? "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". That line right there is there because of people not being the -primary- subject but a cursory subject. The "multiple" sources would be a handful. There are over 30 provided so far. That is more than enough. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being third guy at Mozilla and director of Firefox means he is notable. Coverage in secondary sources is a useful criterion, but it's not perfect. Notability is not the same as media fame. We still need sources to have an article, and there are, just not independent of Mozilla. Mozilla-related and primary sources are reliable enough for basic biographical information. Here is one, a blog but Mozilla-connected. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability may be satisfied. What you are forgetting is NPOV. And no, NPOV doesn't just mean neutral tone. Constructing an article from information published by one's employer represents the POV of that employer, and lacks the POV of anyone independent of Beltzner. Please don't help Wikipedia host a company's profiles of its employees. Let Mozilla's website do that. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - NPOV is not much of an issue for a basic biography unless he is extremely infamous for something. Not every articles needs a "Criticism" section, even if some Wikipedians seem to think so. If his Mozilla bio says that he is widely considered the best programmer in the world, then we should not include that as a fact, but it is reliable enough for facts like his position at Mozilla, his age, educational background, etc. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google News search is not lacking for coverage [67]. The article needs a solid rewrite, but I don't see the point in deleting it. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage of Beltzner? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. As I stated above, it's just him being quoted. Perhaps one is notable if they say notable things. لenna vecia 14:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources simply mention him when discussing software and other topics. Unless we can find primary third-party sources that discuss the person, it should be deleted. Willking1979 (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary should have said "delete", not oppose. My bad. Willking1979 (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that what you say is actually part of you, right? And coverage of your words is a primary component of notability, right? Notability is proven once there is widespread mention of -importance-. That does not mean that it has to have biographical details in that, only justification for why they are important to write about. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No substantial notability. The man works for a web-based corporation. Obviously you'll be able to prove he exists with simple web searches. And you may even be able to find basic biographical information about him. That doesn't mean he has lasting notability or significance. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per obvious notability according to WP:CREATIVE and their work at Firefox falling under "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" and "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I've just argued to keep below, I have to say I don't think this particular criterion applies. What, exactly, is he known for originating or creating? He didn't create Firefox - Dave Hyatt and Blake Ross did. He currently manages it, but that's hardly the same thing. Robofish (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. As observed above, passing references do not amount to demonstrable notability. Eusebeus (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Essentially per Ottava Rima. Wikipedia, unlike Citizendium, uses notability rather than maintainability as the article inclusion criteria; that is, Wikipedia has in addition to maintainability a secondary concern of including "famous people". This makes things complicated for people that are obviously notable, especially in a given field, but lack significant third party coverage in mainstream media. Fortunately, most articles about famous computer geeks don't come under this kind of scrutiny, as long as the articles are neutral, not overly self-promotional, and most importantly, not created by admins under scrutiny. Vesal (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm really not sure about this one, and spent some time thinking about it; but ultimately I'm convinced by the claims that, despite the lack of RS, he is (just about) notable. There's little available in the way of coverage from reliable sources; there is a blog interview, and he also apparently gave an interview to the Inside the Net podcast, but pretty much nothing from major media. On the other hand, I agree that the position - Director of Firefox - 'should' be notable; so I just have to go with my gut instinct here. (I realise WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't much of an argument, but for comparison, we do have articles on various various other Mozilla employees, who seem to be less important than him. All have marginal notability, but I don't think any of them are problematic enough to delete.) Robofish (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, he can't be seen as having created firefox, and the abysmal quality of biographical information is astonishing (unless we can include that he is an "optimist by nationality" and his job is to make sure "there is enough love in each release".) If I cared very deeply about procedure, I would change my vote to weak keep as well. Vesal (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having written my essay below, I've looked at the other people Robofish listed.

Christopher Blizzard. Fails WP:BIO – working on notable things that others conceived doesn't make you notable. Talking about these notable things in the press (instead of talking about yourself!) doesn't make you notable.
Dave Miller (software developer). Maybe passes WP:BIO as page says he was "one of the main original developers of the Bugzilla bug tracking tool"
John Resig Probably passes WP:BIO as creator of something and an author.
Johnny Stenbäck Possibly passes WP:BIO due to list of publications.

So actually, most of these are more notable than Beltzner. But I might put them to the test next week...! Bigger digger (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The position of "Director of Firefox" is not notable. Sorry, to get a bit WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it does actually help to make my point. Is the Director of IE notable (can't find his article)? How about Chrome? The CTO of Opera has a page, Håkon Wium Lie, but he's notable for his work on CSS. By suggesting that the Director of a major software product is notable the inference is that all his compatriots in the industry are notable. How about the Director of MS Office? And why restrain it to software? Where are the pages for Ford's Director of Commercial Vehicles, the director of Coca-Cola's Fruit juice business? What about the head of HR for ExxonMobil? I use firefox, I love it, but the current director of its roll-out has no place in an encyclopedia. I'm afraid most of the keeps are suffering from systemic bias: "I use firefox a lot, so the person who makes sure it gets to my desk must be notable" (obviously, I'm simplifying to make my point..). The firm which does X probably is notable, but the person performing that task at a specific moment in time is not notable unless they do something amazing or something terrible that gets the required depth of coverage.

(cont...) Have another look at WP:BIO. Beltzner did not originate a significant new concept nor did he play a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, it was already created when he came along to look after its refinement post-release. He could be notable if there was some decent coverage of him. While looking at the Google Chrome article I came across Lars Bak (computer programmer) and clicked him. He seemed like a small cog in the wheel, but he has patents to his name and the Financial Times ran an article on him. Beltzner's page does not meet WP:BIO, nor does it meet WP:GNG due to a lack of decent coverage. By those standards, set down by community consensus, the page should be deleted. Maybe he deserves a mention in the Firefox page due to all his quotes connected to it, but once he is replaced I would expect the next person to get a mention. Oh, but I'm sure he's a nice guy and I like ultimate frisbee too :-) –Bigger digger (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is fairly convincing, and I guess the most relevant stuff that don't exist is Mike Connor, the former Firefox Director. I really should change my vote to delete, but then, he likes ultimate frisbee and this article isn't harmful to animals. Vesal (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bigger digger. I don't use WP:PER a lot, but he's basically said everything that needs to be said. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Close but no guitar, the sources aren't quite enough to get him past WP:GNG. All of the keep arguments seem to be baseless, assuming that he's notable just because of his position. Inherent notability is pretty much a crock. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:29, 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 merge to an article about the sisters. The article has been improved, but reading the discussion as whole the consensus still appears to merge. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Tremaine

Character is not notable, and the article is essentially just a plot summary with some fancruft. SilentAria ^talk 14:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, per WP:Cruft "use of 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) 02:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Cinderella (1950 film). Non-notable fictional character. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge this and the other into an Ugly Stepsisters article of some sort. Good work done on them both since the AfD began, but would be better served by one article on them both. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ugly sisters which seems more notable but could use some help. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as the Colonel suggests. There's really no reason to have separate articles. It's reasonable to group characters like this as a compromise. A motion to delete rather than redirect would be absolutely wrong in any case, because the characters are certainly important enough to have a redirect to the film at the very least. There probably are additional sources, as Disney has become a significant academic topic. Even though we could justify separate articles, the combination still makes sense as a matter of reasonable editing to prevent fragmentation. I do not agree that it's good editing policy to always break up articles as far as WP:N would permit. It's a little absurd to bring such merge questions here, but at least they do get some attention. DGG (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm against destroying 90% or more of the article, for a merge. There is enough information here to warrant its own article. Dream Focus 19:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect -- not notable enough for a separate article. Needs sources demonstrating independent notability separate from film article, which it does not. DreamGuy (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve further or merge as nominator has said, “I am not really opposed to merging/redirecting the articles.” Please note that if I merge anything we cannot delete per the GFDL. Also, the wicked stepsisters have been in quite a number of marketing products associated with the films and there is good reason to believe those can be expanded further if not merged into an article on Wicked stepsisters (Cinderella). They are unquestionably notable characters. Anastasia and Drizella Tremaine are essentially the wicked stepsisters from Cinderella. These could easily be merged into a Wicked stepsisters (Cinderella type of article. If you check Google Books doing a search of that nature, they are discussed in academic books in an analytical and out of universe manner, because these characters' have origins that go back to at least the early 1800s with the Brother's Grimm. Their transformation from the original literary characters to the Disney film appear in such books as this. Whether their role in the individual film is notable, their place in a centuries old literary and then film culture is something that has indeed been covered in academic resources and in this case, a merge to a new article on the wicked stepsisters together seems appropriate, because these are characters that certainly at least English teachers/students as well as those studying folklore and its reception in modern culture have written on and have an interest in. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the three lines of real world information the film article and redirect there. Unnotable fim character, with only minor real world info that is not really third-party beyond the one phrase mention in one review. Bulk of the article is just a repeat of the plot summary. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT, and violates both WP:WAF and WP:MOSFILM as most of it would not be appropriate content in the main film article either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing nominator please note the article has gone though signifigant improvement since it was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep or merge well sourced article, meeting notability guidelines. Ikip (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:The Walt Disney Company, Talk:Cinderella, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disney page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip

Merge per Collectonian's recommendation above. SpikeJones (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better, it is too big for a merge. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There aren't enough reliable sources for anything except plot summary to support a separate article on each of these secondary characters. Powers ^T 01:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:Heyman improvements. The character is well-known and spans many Disney product lines albiet in a supporting role. However several films and many real life depictions would suggest the benchmark for notability has been met. Although the character is alwas associated with Cinderella the opposite is also usually true, Cinderella is usually shown in context of her "evil" sisters. -- Banjeboi 17:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above: this is mere trivia gussied up in encyclopedic clothing. Eusebeus (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the GNG for want of reliable sources. Deor (talk) 13:47, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davidson West and Nobert Streets Roundabout

Nothing to suggest this particulaer item of street furniture is in any way notable. . . Rcawsey (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of importance or significance nor is there likely to be any to anyone not living within a few thousand meters. Drawn Some (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Average streets are not notable, and this seems less significant than average! Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - wow, that's so unnotable it's not funny! JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete may count for WP:FREAKY. and reporting accidents like this is not for WP "Car hitting the back of preceding car because it was yielding to opposing-direction traffic, when turning (from Davidson West towards East, turning on Nobert towards North);Sports-model car hitting the concrete in the middle of the roundabout - cause unknown, no injuries" LibStar (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of probably millions of roundabouts in the world, only very few are notable and this is not one of them. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 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 delete. Flowerparty^☀ 02:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarian Wednesday

Non-notable website / meme; Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Outside award cited - website unavailable. Local newspaper coverage cited - link invalid. Even with the local news story, I would call that only trivial coverage. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. a little insignificant 20:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of importance or significance and no reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every source and external link referenced in the article is either to a blog or non-notable website, and after doing a Google search I can see why: that's all that comes up. Also, while the Google search initially shows 1,300 results (enough to conceivably contain at least one WP:RS), if you check to the end with similar results omitted, it's actually 178 results. Orbital Delegate (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a stub to Environmental vegetarianism or Semi-vegetarianism. It was mentioned in an article in Singapore's Straits Times: "In the United States, a movement called Vegetarian Wednesday is slowly gathering steam as more people warm to the idea of abstaining from meat at least once a week."[68]. Wherever it is merged to, we can also mention that the Belgian town of Ghent is going veggie on Thursdays:[69] Fences and windows (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *^YES! 13:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Relist to give people time to consider the reliable source found by Fences and windows, and to include it in the article if appropriate. While The Straits Times is Singapore's highest-selling paper, the topic is only mentioned in passing. However, added to the Straits Times source are multiple internet sources. The internet sources are more substantial, but by themselves are not reliable. However, it is the mix of multiple internet sources and a passing reference in a reliable source that needs to be discussed to get a fuller feel for consensus in this case. SilkTork *^YES! 13:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this were somehow significant in the U.S., wouldn't U.S. papers have picked up on it rather than a Singaporean one only? Drawn Some (talk) 13:51, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Morrow

Non-notable. Not discussed in any reliable sources that I can find. Current sources in the article are mini bios or his name on a list. Google news (his name + "producer") gives three hits, all of the merely quoting him. لenna vecia 13:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The positions held are possibly notable, and the sources seem to be sufficient to show it. DGG (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable fails WP:BIO as nom states I can only find cursory mentions at best. BigDunc^Talk 17:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources that discuss the subject of a BLP in any depth at all. Well, that means no notability established and, worse, makes verification of claims and expansion all but impossible. It is a bad thing to have poorly sourced BLPs on individuals of no demonstrable notability and we should delete this one.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete bali ultimate pretty much said what I was going to, and more. Viridae ^Talk 21:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, as founder of a television production company. Although not a lengthy bio this article is independent of the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable as the founder of a company and also a council representative of a producer's trade union (PACT). The article does need a few more sources, though:

Director Magazine: "Rising Star Phil Morrow" [70]
Guardian Article, partial interview about Constant Comedy [71]
PACT council: "Phil Morrow reports from Northern Ireland" [72]
Financial Times coverage of Just for Laughs [73]
The Times, Introducing Get Smarter in a Week [74], and from the Guardian [75], and from the Daily Mail [76] (some of these are just quotes from Morrow)
Chortle, UK Comedy Guide: Introducing Constant Comedy [77], and from The Hindu [78]
BBC Review Informed Seminars, Guest Biographies (warning: PDF!) [79]
Northern Ireland Television and Film Commission: "Northern Ireland lures back talent," first page (warning: PDF!) [80]

- Flying Toaster 09:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Once again, better in the article than in the AFD. لenna vecia 14:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I was leaning towards that already (commissioning editor for entertainment at C4 is a pretty big deal), and the sources have convinced me. Thanks FlyingToaster. the wub "?!" 09:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added to the AFD. The article has yet to be improved. لenna vecia 02:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources provided by FlyingToaster seem to be sufficient to demonstrate notability. The coverage isn't very in-depth, but there's enough there for a brief biography at least. Robofish (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wild Rover Productions - the good thing about being new around here is that I have to go and read everything before !voting. He doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:BIO nor WP:GNG (not remarkable in his field, no non-trivial coverage, only incidental, except for the single Director's article). Moving him to Wild Rover would allow all the sourcing about him to be included, and remove imdb trivia such as "worked on Space Precinct", whilst also reinforcing Wild Rover. There's no reason a well sourced section on a firm's founder can't be included. Bigger digger (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per factors all considered show him as meeting WP:N. Good job to FlyingToaster! Any other concerns cam be met through WP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 25 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 Deleted G11, non admin close. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axiom Education Pvt. Ltd.

Blatant advertising, speedy removed by a "3rd party" with no other edits Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real clear assertion of notability. Could be that no clear sources are showing up because it is an Indian company - but I doubt it. Note: the IP who removed the speedy resolves to Mumbai. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 13:57, 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 Rephlex Records. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Wilson-Claridge

No notability asserted. No sources. Unsouced crap-stub since July 07. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of importance or significance for the subject of the article. The related record label may or may not be notable. Drawn Some (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I searched for sources for this guy, I saw that the label is notable for having mutliple reliable sources with significant coverage and releasing music from a lot of notable bands. Iowateen (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the record label. I can't find any reliable sources that show that he passes WP:BIO. Iowateen (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The individual himself is non-notable wrt WP:BIO, even if his business partner and their joint endeavours are. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is an interview with him:[81] and here:[82][83]. Brief mention in Village Voice:[84]. The record label definitely is notable, that article needs more sources. Fences and windows (talk) 03:39, 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, SilkTork *^YES! 13:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relisted to give people time to consider the sources noted above by Fences and windows, and to build the article with those sources if appropriate. Currently the consensus is not to keep this as a standalone article, and a deletion or redirect would be appropriate given the lack of reliable sources in the article itself. SilkTork *^YES! 13:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the sources. The first is subscription so I can't evaluate it but the 2nd and 3rd by no means constitute significant in-depth coverage of Grant Wilson-Claridge, one is about him but trivial and the other is not even about him, it's an interview with him about something else. Deletion or redirect is still appropriate. Drawn Some (talk) 13:33, 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Slow speedy IAR keep. Why? Becuase this isn't going to be deleted even if it runs four more days. "the article does not deserve existence" attempting to validate a non-valid entity" are not reasons for deletion. While the article may have issues, these are issues that can be resolved by fixing it, not by deletion of the entire article. StarM 02:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory

This page exists solely for the purpose of attempting to validate a non-valid entity calling itself by the name of the article. Like the so-called "Chikamaka", it is group of "wannabes", white people playing Indian and using the name Cherokee. The information is spurious, self-serving, misleading, and nearly all "sources" comes from persons directly connected to it (the NCNOLT), and the article does not deserve existence. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If not federally, it does appear to be a state-recognized tribe. Booksearch and scholarsearch for exact phrase: "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory". Certainly the question of recognition ought to be a part of the article, and it needs a re-write and better sourcing, but that is not a deletion rationale. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly completely ignorant of U.S. law regarding Native Americans. ONLY the U.S. government has the right to recognize a tribe or nation, therefore only federally-recognized tribes have any validity. The sources for the article nearly all are from articles written by members of said organization for the purpose of attempting to prove its pretended validity. The organization is fraudulent, the information spurious, and the presence of such an article on Wikipedia opens it up to legal action from the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not if we rely on reliable sources. A Cherokee encyclopedia, Robert J. Conley (UNM Press, 2007) p.227; this also looks useful, if someone could get there hands on the complete copy. You are right - only federally recognized tribes are validly federally recognized tribes ... however, others may also be considered notable - which is not a definition of law but an observation of the interest of others. Indeed, the very debate about whether or not this is a tribe, and the interest that debate has generate, speaks to notability. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are three, count them THREE, federally-recognized Cherokee tribes, and only three. Groups such as the "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory" and the "Chikamaka" are analagous to groups of Trekkies (Star Trek fans) who "live the life"; i.e., dress up in the costumes all the time, use Starfleet ranks in discussions, in general live outside of reality. Adults playing pretend are not noteworthy, just sad. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chuck, existance here on Wikipedia does not necessarily make them federally recognized. They just have to be notable per the guidelines. It appears they are. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, since the only reliable standard for judging the validity of a tribe is whether or not the tribe is federally-recognized and so-called "state recognition" has no legal standing, you are incorrect. You are arguments are nothing more than seeking validation of "state recognition" of Indian tribes, something completely invalid under U.S. law. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for the dialogue. However, you misunderstand me. I have no interest in arguing about the legality of any group's claims. My only interest is the WP policy on notability, and I have not heard anything to convince me that this group does not meet that standard. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since the sole purpose of the article is to support the validity of the group in question, then the validity of the group in question is most definitely relevant. Furthermore, it's established Wikipedia policy that such articles--those written purely for such purposes as this one--have no place here. Wikipedia has been striving for the past year to be a reliable source of valid information, not a catch-all for evey nutjob group in the USA. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Chuck, while I understand your ire here, I repeat: we aren't here to validate an existance. We're here to post things notable. I'm in agreement that they're not federally recognized, but it is not by this alone we measure notability for any given tribe, nation, offshoot of tribe, et cetera. Be that as it may, perhaps WP:GROUP should be reviewed. Likewise, I suggest you review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, and for this article, WP:GROUP. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, per my comments to the nominator. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck vote per my speedy keep/close below. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being yet another of the hundreds of wannabe groups using the Cherokee name, this group also claims descent from Jewish Survivors of Masada. The hyperlink has already been blacklisted by Wikipedia. The NCNOTL is not a valid group and this "article" should be removed. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found another instance of the article, one with the complete text, which includes information about Gov. John Ashcroft's veto of state recognition; that's in Missouri, the state in which the NCNOTL is headquartered: http://israelinsider.ning.com/forum/topics/missouri-cherokee-tribes . Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chuck, this is great, but you have yet to provide a valid rationale for deletion. What I see is somebody who's doing a lot of POV pushing and is doing this because he doesn't like these people. I see you bringing in plenty of resources. In short, I see you providing a great case of how notable these people really are - which tells me you want them deleted because of just how notable (or notorious, as the case may or may not be) they are. Do you really not see how foolish this is? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep = weird but notable. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This so-called "article" is written by a member of the "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory", not by a third party, is full of factual errors, and deals with an organization of people falsely claiming to be Cherokee but who are recognized as such by no valid entity. There are serious POV problems also. Perhaps you haven't heard of the joint resolution of the CNO and the Eastern Band "Opposing Fabricated Cherokee 'Tribes' and 'Indians'", passed by both tribes in 2008; the text can be found at: http://taskforce.cherokee.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=y%2bJcRrV4oDc%3d&tabid=106&mid=2118 . There is zero historical evidence that this group is anything other than one of the hundreds of such groups that has sprung up over the past couple of decades, and the continued existence of this article only serves to validate the fraudulent claims of the "NCNOTL". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory" has already had, by its own admission thru what its members have written in the article, two divisions resulting in two more self-styled "tribes", and since all three of these are just a few among hundreds of groups like them, there are no grounds for claiming notability for this group in particular. And maybe those who suggesting this article should remain ought to look at the cited works, at least half of which are to "articles" written by the "chief" of the NCNOLT herself. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources cited, especially the source shown by the nominator. Notablity is based on independant sourcing, not the accuracy of a group's claims, otherwise there'd be a lot of pseudoscience and conspiracy theory articles getting the ax. Edward321 (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HALF of the citations are from self-published sources of members of the NCNOTL, chiefly from the book written by the purported "chief" of the organization. As for notability, why is the "NCNOTL" any more notable than the two "tribes" which have "seceded" from it, or any of the other hundreds of pseudo-Cherokee groups? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the article in depth, and come to a conclusion - this AFD is bogus. I cannot spot any copyright problems on the page. It is not vandalism, spam, a fork of content, a live biography, or in violation of WP:NOT or WP:NFT. To me, it appears to not fall afoul of WP:GROUP, which is the relevant notability policy for this context. Per the first !vote in the discussion, there seem to be reliable sources to this effect. On the other side of the coin, we have the nominator, who has stated numerous seeming problems with the article. His initial stance is the legality of this group - to which I can only say that, while the US does not recognize them, there is no law expressly forbidding their existance in the United States of America - or more correctly, there is no law expressly forbidding any tribes outside of those recognized by the US government. He has come off as remarkably uncivil and accusatory, has responded to holes poked into his arguments with new arguments, and is generally coming off in such a way where I can no longer assume that he has put this forward in good faith in the slightest. I have become convinced that, despite his long standing on Wikipedia, he is pushing an agenda. I am accordingly calling for a speedy keep and close of this AFD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether this entity is deserving of federal recognition as a legitimate tribal nation is the responsibility of the U.S. government. Our purpose is to determine the notability of an encyclopedia article, which appears to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. I would also urge the nominator to please be careful of his choice of words -- using "ignorant" and "nutjob" spoils the debate and does not strengthen his argument. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While you are accurate in your characterization of my use the word "nutjob" in a pejorative sense, I used the word "ignorant" in its classic meaning of "lack of knowledge", in this case regarding American law on tribal recognition. The article is not notable because it was written about one of hundreds of groups usurping the Cherokee name with no grounds to do so, and was written by a member of that group whose sole purpose was to confere an undeserved validity of that group. Within the text of the article itself, in that author's own words, is evidence that the NCNOTL is neither unique nor notable. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respect to the article's sources, the ones on general Cherokee history are valid, even if the conclusions drawn therefrom constitute "original research", but those specific to the "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory" come soley from self-published, unverified "reasearch". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a headcount of the number of persons requesting "Keep" who are members of the "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory"? The level of interest generated by my recommendation for the deletion seems rather contrived for such an inconsequential article, as well as an instant enough response to be an orchestrated effort.

The question here is this: is Wikipedia a valid reference tool for useful information about legitimate subjects, in this case established, historical, legitimate Indian tribes, or is it a catch-all forum for all kinds of spurious, unverifiable misinformation that allows inclusions of "Indians" who are that in only a self-described and imaginary sense.

What's at stake for Wikipedia here is its credibility.

Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- We have five keep votes. Why? We're not a vote here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the accusation is that the !votes / comments here are all members of the NCNOLT. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - ROTFL! I've never even heard of these people until he mentioned them! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether they have any historical basis is completely besides the point. They;re an organized group of some size, that has gotten some notice. That;'s sufficient. Our job here is not to decide who is and is not a Cherokee, or whether the names people use make sense. Doing so is POV and bias. DGG (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Wrong. Keeping the article legitimizes an illegitimate group. Your comments conveniently ignore the other points about lack of sources, using self-published material as sources, etc., all of which cause further problems such as the fact that we only have the NCNOLT's word that is does, in fact, have the numbers it says. The information on Wikipedia is supposed to be reliable and verifiable; none of the claims made in this article meet that standard. Furthermore, the United States government has already decided which groups are legitimate Cherokee tribes--the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma--and it is not the job of Wikipedia to attempt to overrule the American government, which is essentially what you are suggesting. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where's it say that it legitimizes this in Wikipedia policy? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is a LIE. The information is UNTRUE. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - ...so the article is a WP:HOAX? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why does the so-called "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory" deserve an article more than any of the following:

THE CHEROKEE TRIBE OF NORTHEAST ALABAMA • Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama • CHER-O-CREEK INTRA TRIBAL INDIANS • UNITED CHEROKEE ANI-YUN-WIYA NATION • CHEROKEES OF SOUTHEAST ALABAMA • The Langley Band of Chickamogee of Cherokee Indians • Eagle Bear Band of Free Cherokees • CHEROKEE RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY • Chickamauga Cherokee of Alabama • ECHOTA CHEROKEE TRIBE OF ALABAMA WOLF CLAN • United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation • United Cherokees of Alabama • Arkansas Cherokee Nation Lost Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri • Arkansas Band of Western Cherokee INC Western Cherokee Nation of Arkansas & Missouri • Chickamauga Cherokee Nation White River Band • The United Cherokee Nation (UCN) Western National Office • United Cherokee Nation • The Cherokees of California • Chickamauga Cherokee Indian Creek Band • Tuscola United Cherokees of Florida & Alabama, Inc. • Wolf Creek Cherokee Tribe, Inc. of Florida • Cherokee Indians of Georgia • Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee Cane Break Band of East Cherokees • S.E. Cherokee Confederacy • BROAD RIVER BAND OF CHEROKEE • The United Cherokee Nation (UCN) Eastern National Office • Uganawvkalvgv Kituwah Ayeli • Chickamauga Cherokee Band of Northwest Georgia • Southeast Cherokee Confederacy • Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indiana • RedNation of the Cherokee • Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky • SOUTHEASTERN CHEROKEE COUNCIL, Inc. • Amonsoquath Band of Cherokee • Chickamauga Cherokee Nation • Dogwood Band of Free Cherokees • Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indians • Cherokees of Hoke County • Cherokee Powhattan Indian Association • Cherokees of Robison and Adjoining Counties • Osprey Band of Free Cherokees • North-Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians • Deer Council of Free Cherokees • Tallige Cherokee Nation • Southern Cherokee Nation • Northern Chicamunga Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri • Northwest Cherokee Wolf Band • Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy of Pennsylvania • Eastern Cherokee, Southern Iroquois & United Tribes of South Carolina, Inc • Free Cherokee-Chickamauga • Chikamaka Cherokee Band of the South Cumberland • TENNESSEE RIVER BAND OF CHICKAMAUGAN CHEROKEE • Chickamauga Circle Free Cherokee • Elk Valley Band-Council of Chickamauga Cherokee • Free Cherokee Tennessee River Band Chickamauga • Red Clay Band of Southeast Cherokee Confederacy • Etowah Cherokee Nation • SOUTHERN CHEROKEE TRIBE AND ASSOCIATED BANDS IN TEXAS • WOLF CREEK CHEROKEE INDIAN TRIBE of VIRGINIA

And that was a very short list; why is the "Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory" any more "notable" than any of these other pseudo-Indian groups? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - We have already explained it, so because you are not reading it, I will tell you yet again: there is demonstratable notability. It proves it. They provide evidence. If you have a problem with it, then please take it up with the policy people for notability on Wikipedia. This is the place to discuss whether they should be deleted, but as I point out above, I think you're pushing an agenda. Now please, stop ignoring the rules, because you will not win by this. A further point, your attitude isn't helping your arguments. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - You have not explained anything to me or anyone else. This group to which you belong is not notable just because you say it is. The ONLY evidence your group provides for its alleged notablility is self-published material written by your "chief". My agenda is the credibility of Wikipedia, which is lessened by the existence of this "article". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        ...and to what group do I belong, sir? If you think I belong to NCNOLT, then you are delusional - like I said above, I've never even heard of this group until you brought this up. I'm now more convinced that you're not reading the discussions. Pay attention, man! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, if not this wannabe group, to which one do you belong? Your arguments are irrational and you are not making any sense. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furry fandom and the Unitarian Universalist church. And, I'm wiccan. Deal with it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Forgot to mention, I'm also a member of The Lumber Cartel (There is No Lumber Cartel(TINLC)(TM)). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the extent the above groups have sources for notability there can be an article for each of them. If the article is accurate, the reader will be able to judge correctly their significance. The present article would appear to need considerable editing, and will probably be a great deal shorter after non-specific material tis removed, but that is not the same as deletion. DGG (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have yet to see why this group, the NCNOTL, is notable. Other than persons such as yourself proclaiming that it is notable, there has been nothing written here to provide evidence of that notability. Relying on the article itself is invalid because that itself was written by members of the group relying on self-published material written by the group's "chief". I notice, btw, that you did not deny belonging to another one of these wannbe groups. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe Natty4bumpo is suffering from "I didn't hear that" in that he is ignoring explainations by several contributors about why this group satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It is not because it is a federally recognized tribe; no one is arguing with you that it is federally recognized. If the article claims that it is when in fact it isn't, remove the claim. If you can provide a reliable source to show that the group is not a recognized tribe, insert that information in a neutral manner. If you believe there is a conflict of interest with the primary author, do what you can to make the article neutral, or point out concerns. None of you complaints address the notability issue, and none of them are helpful to this AFD. Keep this article based on the notability demonstrated in sources above and because there is no policy-based reason to delete the article. All of Natty4bumpo's issues with the article can be solved by editing, deletion is not necessary. (And no, just so you know, I am not associated with any Native American group or "wannabe" Native American group, nor do I have any particular interest in them personally) The Seeker 4 Talk 17:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He also seems to be coming dangerously close to personal attacks. He's come short of actual accusations of belonging to this group. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - given circumstances, I suggest that Chuck check out WP:CABAL. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a little more perspective, check this out: http://www.powwows.com/gathering/native-issues/42092-list-fraudulent-cherokee-chickamuagas.html . It's a list of 246 pseudo-Cherokee "tribes", demonstrating the level of specialness and notablility the NCNOTL truly possesses. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, check out: http://tracingthetribe.blogspot.com/2006/12/judaism-in-appalachia.html; not the original blog post but the single reply. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck, neither of those seems to change things. User:Theseeker4 (who comments above) is somebody you really should listen to, especially because it really does look like you're being disruptive in this process and doing the I didn't hear that thing. Trying to prove they should not be here when consensus and policy states they should is kind of like saying that Los Angeles, California does not exist. Look, you've been here about as long as I have - you should already have an undertanding of this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 13:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, no one has given a single reason why the NCNOTL is notable. Outside of its own claims, there is zero evidence for any of its claims. Even the part about it being "state recognized" (which is about as valid as being given a "key to the city" or an "honorary doctorate") is a lie (Ashcroft vetoed the bill). If Wikipedia allows such an article to remain merely because of "concensus", then it has no crediblity. Five hundred years ago, there was a concensus that the Earth is flat, so "concensus" is not a valid tool of logic. It is you, rather, who are not listening by refusing to check the links provided to put the NCNOTL in its proper context: that of being merely one of 204 (according to the current list of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma) or one of 246 (according to powwow.com) fraudulent organizations. NCNOTL is a spurious, fraudulent organization and does not deserve mention, except in a line of the forthcoming joint lawsuit of the CNO and EBCI. The existence of the article only serves to support the repuatation of Wikipedia for being a joke. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Cardiff Giant. AfD? JohnInDC (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why ask here? Has nothing to do with this. Review WP:AFD and be bold! =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry; I was too obscure. I was making the point that "legitimacy" and notability don't correlate, and that even a perfect fraud like Cardiff Giant plainly warrants a Wikipedia article if it is notable. JohnInDC (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from the discussions above that none of you have any idea how truly offensive and racist actual Indians/Native Americans find these groups. It's not enough to rip off their lands, slaughter their people, and herd the survivors onto tiny reservations, but then people with no credible shred of connection to actual Indians organize themselves into groups calling themselves Cherokee (others rip off the identities of other tribes, but the overhwelming majority of such groups usurp some version of "Cherokee") and stealing their very identity...and entities such as Wikipedia validate that with articles such as this. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a general article on entities such as the Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory, the Tennessee River Band of Chickamauga Cherokee, all three calling themselves Georgia Band of Eastern Cherokee--either an rewriting and/or expansion of the existing Cherokee Heritage Groups article, or a new one entirely--but none of them deserves or merits its own individual article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* Chuck, I am disinclined to think you're an idiot. You're clearly intelligent, in fact. Unfortunately, that leaves only one option - you're ignoring consensus and just being disruptive. My !vote stands. I wash my hands of this otherwise, there is just no telling you. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is a concensus does not mean the concensus is correct. In this case, concensus is dead wrong. I'm not going to say the world is flat nor support the continued existence of an article that has no factual basis simply because I'm in a minority. This article is not factual, its subject is not notable, and it should not exist on Wikipedia. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also take issue with Dennis' repeated assertions that I am arguing just to be disruptive. In fact, I hate having to argue. True, I have had several bad experiences in the past with such groups as the one with which the article deals, and yes, such groups attempting to usurp Cherokee (or other Indian) identity for themselves, and who use forums such as Wikipedia to do so, are one of my few pet peeves. But the reason I have not ceased arguing is that the continued presence of such article about such dubious entities on Wikipedia weighs against the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. If I didn't care, I wouldn't bother since I have better things to do with my time, such as valid research from reliable sources. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:16, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hasanain Alhaydari

This article is about a 15 year player for an amateur football club. Clearly not notable. Grahame (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article, notability not established. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:SOURCES. WWGB (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he plays professionally as WP:ATHLETE. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. The Iraqi U17 thing is unsourced, and it's generally established that playing in the junior international levels of a sport is not sufficient for notability anyway, in case anyone wants to bring that up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:30, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grooner Micro blog

Completely non notable software, and article created by a contributor to the code of the software. Prodded and supported, but then removed with no reason. No claims to notability. Canterbury Tail talk 12:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Un-notable Twitter clone. See Google. No sources or verifiability. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No 3rd party refs to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 00:20, 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 speedy Keep/withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Teena

Notable only for a single event; WP:COATRACK for violence against LGBT people. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Sorry, I think that having a movie made about the events of your death probably gets you over the bar of notability. Notability is an odd thing. Veronica Guerin, for example, is notable and IMO warrants inclusion because of her journalism work, her murder, and the two movies made about her...but one could say that her article could also be a coatrack for drug-related crime in Ireland. Shall we go delete her article too? Syrthiss (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with Teena's, Guerin's murder had more wide ranging impacts on politics/society. Clearly not coatracks imo. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is the single event? Her death? The trial? Her courtship? Her life? Drawn Some (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noteworthy due to the movie as well as news coverage at the time and after. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a documentary listed in IMDB about this person. I think it's notable. JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say successful Hollywood biopic is enough evidence of notability. If people are entering POV material, that can be dealt with in editing; there's nothing instrinsically coat-racky about this subject. Hairhorn (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - plenty of non-trivial coverage, a film etc. I think coatrack claims are misplaced for this person Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the Pet Shop Boys song -- all in all quite notable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep Brandon Teena was the subject of two widely seen motion pictures, and the circumstances surrounding Brandon's murder helped to raise national attention to the disenfranchised state of the transgendered Americans. I am extremely surprised to see this subject considered for deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Unbelievable that this has been proposed for deletion. Among the filmgoing public, the subject is a household word. Rivertorch (talk) 03:27, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micro Bucky

Completely non-notable software with no claims of notability. Seemingly created by software creator. Advertising. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micro Bucky is one of a handful of server-side micro-blogs available for download on Google Code and other Open-Source source code web sites. The recent rise of Twitter, a 3rd party micro-blog, has prompted individuals and organisations to look for an Open-Source alternative to this type of service that they can host on their own servers. Micro Bucky is a legitimate, server-side, and functional micro-blog available for the popular Apache, MySQL, and PHP frameworl that a large percentage of people use everyday. It is currently hosted on Google Code and has a promising start to becoming a major competitor in server-side micro-blogs.

Micro Bucky is an active and evolving project that is indexed in Google, Google Code, Yahoo, and Ask.com .

This project is advertised and indexed at the above search engines and referenced and externally linked locations. The article follows the formatting and information density as [Grooner Micro Blog]. The Micro Bucky entry should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbucky (talk • contribs) 07:51, 19 May 2009

Other stuff existing is not a reason for inclusion. The software was available two days ago. And the links you'd posted above aren't valid. If you search with quotes you get entirely different results as here. I also notice from the hosting page that it's been downloaded a grand total of 3 times in the 37 hours it's been available. Completely non-notable and simply self advertising. Canterbury Tail talk 12:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Canterbury Tail. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, non-notable. A google search is not a reference. Creator should review reliable sources for acceptable references. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 22:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No 3rd party refs to establish notability Dialectric (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of multi-racial national football teams by player eligibility

Just an unsourced list of players with second nationalities that is unsourced. There are too many of these types of pages by this user User:Indigenousfootballdevelopment Spiderone (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; completely non-notable and indiscriminate list. Giant Snowman 12:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, indiscriminate, unsourced, unverifiable. --Angelo (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced, although it's worse than that. If there was ever an article that needed some context, this would be it. Written in the form of notes, this is from the department of "you know what you're talking about, but the rest of us don't". The meaning of statements like "Cyprus -Diaspora - Wales - Jason Koumas" would be open to all sorts of different guesses-- Does Jason Koumas play on the Cyprus national team? Was there some type of diaspora of the Welsh people where a lot of them emigrated to Cyprus? Or maybe his family left Cyprus and he grew up in Wales and he's moved back? Even if this were sourced, which this isn't, do we really need to classify players with the labels born, foreign-born but raised here, mixed parentage, diaspora, naturalised, eligible for naturalisation? "Born", in this case, means that "this person was born here, but doesn't look like us". Not just original research, but original racial classification. Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I second Mandsford's doubts as to the purpose of this article and its many problems. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't all european teams multiracial these days? This is perhaps the vaguest list I saw here. Delete per Mandsford, utter lack of context. NVO (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable list. Per above. John Sloan @ 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Overly cryptic list with irrelevant reference to "multi-racial"ness in the title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. What Angelo said plus almost infinite (nearly all players can become eligible under the "eligible to be naturalised" clause, as they only have to meet some residency criteria and apply. Title is mis-representative (nationality and eligibility has nothing to do with race).--ClubOranje^T 11:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Struway2 (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the list itself. It begs for deletion. Punkmorten (talk) 17:14, 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 - 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 [85], [86]. There are even books dedicated to the subject, it seems: [87], [88]. 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 Speedy Delete as G11 by Ale jrb. (NAC) Pastor Theo (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

008523

Contested prod. Tourist magazine with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 09:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, references, etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Promotional spam for non-notable tourist magazine with no assertion of importance or significance, no sources. Drawn Some (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Drawn Some. 4 GHits on the Chinese name. About 30 coincidental hits in Roman numerals for "008523 Hong Kong" in Chinese [89]. No reliable sources among them. No evidence of notability. Author is spamming links to this into tourism-related articles. cab (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete should've done a csd. Dengero (talk) 12:58, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High low chicalo

Contested prod. Made-up playground game. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 09:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete things made up at school one day F (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no idea if its real, but who cares -- its nn. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:43, 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. A number of comments had merge as an alternative choice, so that probably is the trend of the discussion. It falls short of actual consensus, however. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drizella Tremaine

AfDs for this article:

Character is not notable, and the article is essentially just a plot summary with some fancruft. SilentAria ^talk 09:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, per WP:Cruft "use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Nominator deleted another page with the exact same wording.Ikip (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete major notability problems. Also seems to be entirely original research. In the unlikely event of reliable sources being found concentrating on her, then there might be some point in allowing recreation, but I doubt that there'd be any point keeping any of the current article's material. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Cinderella (1950 film). Original AfD closed as redirect, and that seems a perfectly reasonable end result for an article on a non-notable fictional character. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 18:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge this and the other into an Ugly Stepsisters article of some sort. Good work done on them both since the AfD began, but would be better served by one article on them both. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ugly sisters which seems more notable but could use some help. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as the Colonel suggests. There's really no reason to have separate articles. It's reasonable to group characters like this as a compromise. A motion to delete rather than redirect would be absolutely wrong in any case, because the characters are certainly important enough to have a redirect to the film at the very least. There probably are additional sources, as Disney has become a significant academic topic. Even though we could justify separate articles, the combination still makes sense as a matter of reasonable editing to prevent fragmentation. I do not agree that it's good editing policy to always break up articles as far as WP:N would permit. It's a little absurd to bring such merge questions here, but at least they do get some attention. DGG (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The character is a notable part of two different films, and that makes her notable enough to have her own article. Dream Focus 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. You should read our policies on notability before makin claims about them. DreamGuy (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It passes those by any reasonable interpretation. Seriously now, one of the wicked stepsisters of Cinderella, a story that has been retold in literature and film over nearly two centuries? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect -- not notable enough for a separate article. Needs sources demonstrating independent notability separate from film article, which it does not. DreamGuy (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve further or merge as nominator has said, “I am not really opposed to merging/redirecting the articles.” Please note that if I merge anything we cannot delete per the GFDL. Also, the wicked stepsisters have been in quite a number of marketing products associated with the films and there is good reason to believe those can be expanded further if not merged into an article on Wicked stepsisters (Cinderella). They are unquestionably notable characters. Anastasia and Drizella Tremaine are essentially the wicked stepsisters from Cinderella. These could easily be merged into a Wicked stepsisters (Cinderella type of article. If you check Google Books doing a search of that nature, they are discussed in academic books in an analytical and out of universe manner, because these characters' have origins that go back to at least the early 1800s with the Brother's Grimm. Their transformation from the original literary characters to the Disney film appear in such books as this. Whether their role in the individual film is notable, their place in a centuries old literary and then film culture is something that has indeed been covered in academic resources and in this case, a merge to a new article on the wicked stepsisters together seems appropriate, because these are characters that certainly at least English teachers/students as well as those studying folklore and its reception in modern culture have written on and have an interest in. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please take a closer look at what I said in that link provided. I said that I am not really opposed to merging/redirecting, "should the consensus deem it so". I also said that "I don't see anything that can really be merged from them". Perhaps I'm not very good at explaining things clearly, but those statements do not mean that I believe that merging/redirecting is a better solution for these problematic articles than deletion. I still stand by my nomination and firmly believe that the articles should be deleted based on WP:NOTE (as well as WP:V and WP:WAF), and WP:PLOT, disputed or no. Please don't use your interpretation of my words to justify a "Keep" vote. --SilentAria ^talk 00:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It passes WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT, though, which is why this notable film and literary character with mergeable information has appropriate inofrmation, especially the out of universe information that is worth keeping in some capacity. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to film article (again), and lock the redirect. Unnotable fim character with no mergeable information as it is all a repeat of the plot summary. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT, and violates both WP:WAF and WP:MOSFILM as it would not be appropriate content in the main film article either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and article can be written here. Whether or not it will, I don't know.[90][91] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep or merge well sourced article, meeting notability guidelines. Fisher has some potentional sources. Sections of the book fisher mentions state: " Studies in American humor‎ - Page 69 by Southwest Texas State University. Dept. of English - Humor - 1994 Drizella and Anastasia's bustles are so big that they facilitate the clumsy women's ... The same comic exaggeration occurs the next day as Drizella and then" Ikip (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:The Walt Disney Company, Talk:Cinderella_(1950_film), and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disney page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Merge keepable info into main article or "list of... characters page per nom. SpikeJones (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge either standalone article or on Ugly sisters article. notable in several media. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There aren't enough reliable sources for anything except plot summary to support a separate article on each of these secondary characters. Powers ^T 01:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge pernom. Mere fancruft that has no real world significance and clearly fails the GNG. Trivia with a footnote next to it is still trivia. Eusebeus (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither WP:PERNOM nor WP:ITSCRUFT are valid reasons to delete something with real world significance that clearly passes the GNG. Calling one of the wicked stepsisters of a classic work that has been adapted multiple times in various media "trivial" is about as off base as it gets. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom".
  - Which would make sense if the nomination wasn't a disproven claim of WP:JNN followed by a claim of WP:ITSCRUFT that was addressed through article improvement. A character who has appeared in multiple major works of fiction and as such has been written about in reliable secondary sources is neither "non-notable" nor "cruft." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could be wrong, but I think "Drizella Tremaine" has appeared in only Disney's film version of Cinderella and its sequels and adaptations. The character is a specific version of one of the ugly stepsisters, but it is not really accurate to count every version of the Cinderella story as featuring the character "Drizella". Powers ^T 19:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete i find no sources, certainly not any in the article as it stands, that establish independent notability for this fictional entity apart from the works of fiction it inhabits. As far as the character's role in the disney films, i leave it to the wisdom of the editors on those articles whether it needs greater mention in those articles, but i suppose if they agree, any additional sourced information not already present in those articles (does not seem to be any) could go there.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please look harder, because I found and added sources with ease that clearly and decisively establish independent notability for this fictional entity apart from the works of fiction it inhabits. Anyone with any real knowledge on fictional characters, film, etc. knows this subject is notable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial trivia. Some fictional characters are notable in and off themselves because they are discussed at great length in a great many sources (i.e. Hamlet, Bilbo Bagins, Bart Simpson). A mention in "a guide to disney animation" or whatever that "she is the sister with the black hair and is ugly" is not that sort of non-trivial coverage. Again, for the fifth time this week it seems, please stop telling me that i haven't looked hard enough, or didn't try, or whatever your next speculative accusation will be. I accept we disagree -- but i looked at that source (and the others) and find them wanting. This is a content fork from the articles on the works of fiction themselves. Bali ultimate (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you actually think appearances in a major film series, multiple novels, play reenactments, on a snow globe, as live action performers at perhaps the most notable theme park in the world, etc. is "trivial," then this is not a subject for which you know about. That may sound harsh, but it has to be said, because some of these deletes are so either false or off base that they cannot be replied to in any other way. It's not a matter of subjective opinion. The facts are this character has major appearances in major works of fiction and is familiar to millions of people and relevant to students of popular culture, film, etc. We can verify its content in reliable sources. These are indisputable facts and I have gone to lengths not just commenting in the AfD, but actually working to expand the article. I don't mind people holding our content to scrutiny and challenging us to improve it. But I do mind arguing with those who are not helping to improve it and are unwilling to recognize improvements or factual presentations when they come up. The bottom line is the article has improved to demonstrate that is notable and covered in multiple reliable sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think encyclopedia's should cover everything from a real world perspective and not every fictional character ever is worthy of inclusion. I believe substantial real world coverage beyond plot summaries that name check a minor characters name is needed for inclusion. I feel that you have no business around such articles, since you're ability to assess the nature of encyclopedia topics is poor. Very poor. I think that's an undisputable fact. I understand that this is something we just have to live with on wikipedia and that you think poorly of my judgement. Believe me, the feeling is mutual.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your personal opinion of what Wikipedia should be is irrelevant. Years of consensus backs up this article's inclusion, because Drizella is the subject of substantial real world coverage beyond plot summaries and is hardly a minor character. I strongly urge you to focus on content for which you have a degree of expertise or even amateur knowledge, because you have demonstrated a lack of familiarity with elements of fiction in this and other discussions. I am confident that there are areas for which you can contribute constructively, but here, it is just unhelpful as we obviously have a notable subject verifiable through reliable sources and we need help for improving it, not dismissive remarks that interfere with that improvement; however, I do appreciate and acknowledge that you amended your stance after discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know what? Just this one time, for you. Let's assess the three sources in the article.
1. "The Animated Movie Guide" [92]. Section on Disney's Cindarella, there is a listing of voice actors that goes "tktktk Eleanor Audley (Lady Tremaine), Rhoda Williams (Drizella), Lucille Bliss (Anastasia), tktktk". That's it. No mention of this character in the plot summary at all.
2. "The Trades.com DVD review of Cindarella III." Two mentions: A. ".... Fairy Godmother fumbles the wand, she grabs it up and makes off with it, straight to her sister Drizella, and their mother, Lady Tremayne;" and, B. " Russi Taylor turns in a dual performance for the Fairy Godmother and Drizella."
3. "Studies in American humor By Southwest Texas State University. Dept. of English". 1. "...and Drizella provide obvious counters: Their exaggerated feet, shown naked much more than cindarellas, overtly emphasize their (the ugly sisters) physical nature, underscoring Julius Heuscher's point that unlike Cindarella, they..." (end fragment).

Yes, I deem this all trivia that does not establish this fictional character is notable independent from the works of fiction it inhabits. The only substantial stuff at all appears to be (i say appears because, like you, i don't have a copy of the book and the free preview is out of context fragments) in the last source, which is about the counterpoint between cindarella and the ugly sisters.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - There are eleven sources in the article, not three and collectively they present non-trivial coverage that establish this fictional character is notable independent from the works of fiction it inhabits. It meets a common sense or logical standard of notability in any event. Per WP:PRESERVE, there is simply NO objective reason for deleting sourced material concerning a subject that is relevant to various other articles that we currently have. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's polish off the rest of them, shall we?

1." Disney A to Z: The Official Encyclopedia (Third Edition) (Hardcover) (Disney Editions), 2006" Non-rs for notability.
2. "UCL Union LGBT Society (2009)" website listing for this apparently amateur theatrical groups dramatization of cinderalla. "Drusilla (Sam Brearley) is the eldest of the vile, scheming sisters of Cinderella. She loves to dress in the latest fashions and taunt Cinderella – when she isn’t busy clawing her younger sister’s eyes out." that's it.
3. "Multiculturalism and the Mouse: race and sex in Disney entertainment." The word "Drusilla" appears in 1 page of this 260 page work. "...(the) sisters, Drusilla and Anastasia, are bitterly jealous of the girl's charm and beauty. Disney turns his back on the source, where the sisters were themselves "beautiful and fair in appearance." The Grimms' Cindarella appears non-descript until a magical makeover." That's it.
4. "Disney Princess #2: Once Upon a Princes (Disney Press, 2003), 201." Non-rs for establishing notability.
5. "Lara Bergen, Walt Disney's Cinderella (Hyperion Book CH, 2005)." Brief note on page two about Drizella's being a character in disney fiction.
6. "Disney Storybook Artists, Disney Princess Collection (Disney Press, 2006), 63. " Non-rs for establishing notability.
7. "Disney Princess Ultimate Sticker Book (DK CHILDREN, 2003), 8. " non-rs for establishing notability. just has stickers of disney characters for kids.
8. "^ Julie Neal and Mike Neal, The Complete Guide to Walt Disney World 2008 (Coconut Press, 2007), 314." text for families going to disney world: "Everyone will love Anastasia and Drizella, Cinderella's evil stepsisters, who wander the room with Lady Tremaine..."[11]

Yes, this is all trivial coverage.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- No, it's a blatant mischaracterization of non-trivial coverage. The fact she appears in so many sources is non-trivial in its own right. Of the perhaps billions of fictional characters, only so many receive this many appearances and out of universe commentaries. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Bali ultimate for taking the time to demonstrate the patent falsehoods peddled above. Well done! Eusebeus (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is indeed patently false that the wicked stepsisters of a multi-film franchise which are covered in numerous reliable sources are "cruft" or "trivial", which is why I am pleased Bali has amended to a merge potential, which is far more defensible of a stance than to delete, which is indefensiable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the WP:GNG for want of reliable sources. I'm flabbergasted that A Nobody actually referenced a snow globe (with an external link to a commercial site, no less) and a children's sticker book in the article. That's going a bit far even for him. Deor (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It passes the WP:GNG due to the WP:Reliable sources added and readily available through online searches. Any honest read of the article and source availability would show as much. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:34, 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 merge to Polymancer. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mojo Rules System (RPG)

Non notable ~~video~~ game. All sources appear to be primary sources. Non notable. Shadowjams (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, it's a system for dice roleplaying, not a video game. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible, if not likely, that Shadowjams's allegation of non-notability is based on Shadowjams not knowing what kind of a game Mojo is, even. It is recommended that more people,w ho are actually familiar with non-computer RPGs, examine this article in order to evaluate its notability because in all likelihood, this person is not qualified. — A lizard (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The subject matter is no more, and no less, notable than any other RPG rules system. The fact that it is published in print makes it more so than many (e.g. Reign); that it is unique for being published as a serial of magazine articles actually makes it unique among RPGs. If the "no primary sources only" limit was applied to every article about every RPG in Wikipedia, then the only RPG with a Wikipedia article would be Dungeons & Dragons. Most RPGs, if they are discussed at all, are only discussed in forums, in blogs, in podcasts, and in wikis. Based on this, any allegation of "non-notability" of an RPG is based more on the personal subjectivity of the individual who makes such an allegation, rather than facts. Non-primary source have added to the article since the deletion tag was added. — A lizard (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think you'd struggle to justify just D&D remaining if this article were deleted. It strikes me that there are numerous systems with some notability (Call of Cthulhu, Traveller (impact on Elite for example), MERP etc...) as well as a lot with little or no notability. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Polymancer as that's where it seems to have originated from, unless substantial notability can be shown. At present I really don't see this notablity: it strikes me that this is a product that came out of their zine. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lizard's right, I don't know much about the game, but I also know I'm not able to find any WP:RS on my initial search. If there are some available, please include them. Right now I see quite a few primary sources, including its announcement, and then links to rpg.net and a few other similar websites. I'm unsure those sources are WP:RS or are separate enough from the subject matter to count as third party sources. Shadowjams (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete while there's some evidence of secondary coverage, the only independent coverage seems to be from the sort of inclusive directory that doesn't usually count towards WP:N. A merge would be acceptable. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion is certainly not warranted as a merge/redirect to Polymancer is certainly viable. Hobit (talk) 13:07, 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 no consensus. To clarify, the consensus in this discussion is strongly against deleting this article, however, there is no consensus as to whether it should be kept as a stand alone article or merged. Since that is a matter for the normal editting process, I simply will note this as a default keep, with no prejudice to a future merge if there is agreement to do so. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anya/Anastasia (character)

Character is not notable on her own, and the article just contains a reiteration of some of the film's plot and a compilation of some fancruft. SilentAria ^talk 08:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per nom~~ Merge or conditional keep. The film's decently notable, but this article seems entirely redundant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobody's work HAS improved it there's an awful lot of unreferenced fancruft. If he intends to improve it further, I'm happy to wait and see what happens. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Normally the heroine of a film is a suitable separate article, but in this case the content could well be merged as an exception. It's really a question of style. DGG (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this its own article instead of merging the sourced material into the parent article? Anastasia isn't inordinately long for a film article, certainly not so long as to need a separate article for what is effectively material about itself. Merge and redirect. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is the main character in a notable film, novel based on the film, and game. Enough information here to fill her own article. Dream Focus 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete emberrassing content fork from the film more-suited to some fan-wiki. There are simply no sources that establish this fictional entity as notable aside from the work of fiction in which it appears.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to availability of sources that establish this fictional entity as notable aside from the work of fiction in which it appears (based on a real historical figure and titular character of a film, novel, and game as well as having been made into multiple dolls) and as you can see, I have been working pretty hard to improve this one. Given the historical basis for the character, the titular appearance in a film, video game, and novel as well as having been marketed in about a half dozen different dolls, I am coming across a number of sources from which to construct an out of universe article. I next hope to see if I can find any interviews for a production section, but anyway, I truly believe we have the basis for something here. As an alternative, the nominator has said, she is “not opposed to merging the information from the sources you cited into the film article, as I believe it would really help improve the film article's quality.” Please note that if I merge anything we cannot delete per the GFDL. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please take a closer look at what I said in that link provided. I was referring to the information from the sources you added and not the article itself. As you can see, I said "The articles you cited seem to talk about the film, and not the character alone (they would actually be much more useful additions to the film article than a separate article about Anya)." I also eventually said that I am not really opposed to merging/redirecting, "should the consensus deem it so", but that "I don't see anything that can really be merged from them". Perhaps I'm not very good at explaining things clearly, but those statements do not mean that I believe that merging/redirecting is a better solution for these problematic articles than deletion. I still stand by my nomination and firmly believe that the articles should be deleted based on WP:NOTE (as well as WP:V and WP:WAF), and WP:PLOT, disputed or no. That being said, please don't use my words to justify a "Keep" vote. --SilentAria ^talk 01:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly passes WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT, however, which is why it will be kept. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not agree that it's good editing policy to always break up articles as far as WP:N would permit. It hampers usability to have fragmentation to that extent. But since at the very least it would be a merge, a true merge preserving content, we can discuss matters of style at the talk page. I hope those proposing deletions of articles such as this will learn to understand that deletion is the last resort only. DGG (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep good sources in article, more than establishing notability. Ikip (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:The Walt Disney Company, Anastasia (1997 film), and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disney page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Merge. I'd say "delete" if only because Ikip thinks the article is Disney-related. Which it's not. That aside, the current article is filled with fancruft and unnecessary trivia not related directly to the character herself. Cut all that out, and what you're left with can be merged back (with its valid sources) into the main article. SpikeJones (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Anastasia. plenty of room there. no need to seperate. flesh out the film article. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:Heyman improvements. Generally has been de-"Fancruft"ed and shows path towards a good article. Sourcing exists and likely more can be found, good work. -- Banjeboi 17:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Almost no content here and what has been derived aspires to mere trivia. Eusebeus (talk) 18:03, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania–Malta relations

another completely random combination. non resident embassies. media coverage of these 2 countries only in a multilateral context.[93] . Lithuanian govt lists 5 minor agreements [94] LibStar (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge despite pleas of helping merge these articles, nominator continues to noiminate new articles. I have already collected all of this information to merge, so this is a pointless empty gesture, an argument over a redirect, not an article. Ikip (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ---- these mindless combinatorial articles are just too much. Can not a mass delete for the nn ones be done. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the problem was one editor mass created 100s of these, and most were not notable at all. and we're left to clean up the mess. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the are notable, the problem is so many of them aren't that people are getting sick of it and are ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I commend you, though, for actually bothering to check google news and bringing the crap here- there are some that can be salvaged but not this one:

Makes sense --- some of them are nuts. But some (clearly) can be made into good articles (eg. Finland-Russia, UK-Ireland, Belorussian-Russia). Some peoples' good intentions (creating 100s of articles) can be damaging in the extreme. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no real relationship. I suppose it could be merged if there's any salvageable content but, frankly, I doubt it's worth the effort. HJMitchell You rang? 00:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, random X-Y article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Lithuania which now contains the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:04, 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 delete. Jamie^☆S93 00:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nial Ring

Non notable local election candidate and businessman, main claim to fame is that he is an associate of former Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern. Snappy (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of an established claim to fame. Alexius08 (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable politician. Hasnt held a statewide post.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vintagekits, has not held national or first level sub-national office and therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. No significant coverage in 3rd party sources that I can see. Valenciano (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete closest he gets is being a director of IDA Ireland. Doesn't cut it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:46, 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. Notability is not inherited. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Person

Non-notable person; Google News Archive Search solely shows the website on which he reviews films and no secondary reliable sources with significant coverage of the person himself. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article was proposed for deletion, but the IP who removed the template (and also spammed the person's LocusMag.com review at Watchmen), saying in the edit summary, "11,000+ Google hits for author, including 79 hits within Wikipedia itself." This ignores the threshold of significant coverage for notability purposes and also the fact that not all the hits belong to the author, and that intra-Wikipedia hits do not count. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your own reasoning is flawed too. While googlehits themselves do not mean something is notable and while wikipedia hits aren't reliable sources, the fact hits exist and the person is mentioned in Wikipedia can indicate they're notable. You say there's no significant coverage, but what is significant is different to different people. It would be more productive to discuss what you found and why you didn't consider it significant. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is clear about significant coverage: "Sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." While he may have written for publications considered notable, this does not by extent make him notable. If the publications are notable, his work can be cited in whatever articles the works address. The writers of content in reliable sources are not always themselves notable. With that said, here are the hits: Google Archive News Search with LocusMag.com (where he reviews) and Google Archive News Search without LocusMag.com. Furthermore, the regular Google hits are unreliable with some seemingly extracted from Wikipedia itself: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. It seems that Nova Express (fanzine) may have its claim to notability, so Lawrence Person can be mentioned there as a key editor; there is no significant coverage from reliable sources that give him his own article. Additionally, judging from the intra-Wikipedia links such as his review at Clover (creature), I highly doubt that people with no conflict of interests would have cited him. More likely that there is an interest in soliciting his opinions throughout Wikipedia; will have to clear out these COI contributions. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That the article has survived since 2002 is an achievement, however Mr Person does not meet the threshold for an article. I'm sure this could have survived for another seven years had some editors not drawn attention to this article by linking it to an article with a couple of thousand watchers. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question So we consider critics from notable magazines reliable sources, but don't consider them potentially notable as a result? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, they still have to pass WP:BIO. Drawn Some (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition notability is not inherited. You may be editor for the New York Times, and the New York Times is notable, this does not make you notable. The sea of bluelinks on the article seems to be attempting to show notability by inheritance. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually, many or perhaps most of us think that it does depend somewhat upon the position. If the publication is notable enough at a national level, it does count--but then there generally will be references. Additionally If it were an academic peer reviewed journal , for example, it would meet WP:PROF as showing the notability in the subject as long as it could be verified. In this case, the most likely way of demonstrating notability would be as an author, if his pieces were reprinted in anthologies of criticism, or something of the sort. DGG (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Looking around the internet, Lawrence Person would seem to have a number of criteria that meet the notability threshold:
- He’s a published science fiction writer, with work in Asimov’s and Analog (two of the top magazines in the field)
- As a literary critic, “Notes Toward a Postcyberpunk Manifesto” seems to have been referenced in a number of places, inside Wikipedia and without.
- His movie reviews are indexed in the Internet Movie Database. (For example, [[95]]
- He edits a Hugo-nominated fanzine that lots of professional writers seem to have written for.

These would seem to be notable accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.141.234 (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability established Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:24, 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 delete. Jamie^☆S93 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Watts (soccer)

Non notable soccer player with no professional experience, fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE JonBroxton (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, fails both WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. John Sloan @ 23:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - in a nutshell --ClubOranje^T 11:34, 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 Unseen character. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of unseen characters

AfDs for this article:

The article is improperly named, doesn't explain what it means, isn't an actual list and is unsourced. American Eagle (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a list like this is completely sourced, clearly defined in its scope, that scope reflected in the title, and is easily maintained, its of no use. the article or category "unseen characters" is enough. i am biased away from lists when categories will do, because i think the lists are usually too complex to maintain unless they are really simply defined. this is way too undefined a list idea. i will admit its alluring. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete am I the only one who does not have a clue what the list is all about? Perhaps I'm stuck in How Not to Be Seen, but without a clear context and only two entries it must go. NVO (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unseen character 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per American Eagle. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The anon has a good point. The article on the topic lists some notable such characters with a clear definition. When the list gets long enough, we can consider breaking it out. (I'm surprised that Charlie from Charlie's Angels isn't mentioned and partly unseen characters like the parents of Cow and Chicken and Wilson from Home Improvement should have their own section. The list has no real meat to survive AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This belongs in the article unseen character, where a good list can be found-- just click on history and look back to the larger version. Someone made his own personal "improvements" (i.e., erased part of it) a few months back, but it's easily located. Mandsford (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you not recall Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unseen character (2nd nomination)? It was followed by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unseen character (3rd nomination). ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect--this is the second re-creation of the article? One wonders if MGM's examples were to be found on the earlier versions. A redirect seems like the best option for now, and I'm going to browse through the history, looking for MGM's suggestions and the son from Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. Oh, and the parents from Charlie and Lola, the best TV show in the world. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They were. Uncle G (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This belongs in the parent article, and is a like search term for those who are somewhat familiar with Wikipedia. In the future, if necessary, it can be split off. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the deleted material which is hundreds of entries long, almost all of which could be verified, and would not fit in the main article. DGG (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, nothing has been deleted from the article that we're discussing. As far as articles that aren't under discussion, the essay WP:SOFIXIT would be applicable. Mandsford (talk) 12:29, 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 redirect to heteropaternal superfecundation. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Washington

The subject is only seems to be notable for one event and therefore doesn't warrant an article on Wikipedia. The third reference on the page suggests that the subject will have a role in a reality tv show but it's only speculation. OlYeller^Talktome 04:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Superfecundation. WP:ONEVENT Drawn Some (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it probably deserves a mention in heteropaternal superfecundation. We can always recreate it later if she becomes famous for something else. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just went to add it to heteropaternal superfecundation and it looks like there's already a mention on that page (which may have been added recently but I didn't check). OlYeller^Talktome 05:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Part of the notability policy is designed to protect those who have inadvertently been thrust into the limelight. This is a good example of that. A redirect would neglect this portion of WP:N. Redirect is used too often as a kind of middle ground between delete and keep, and it needs to be understood as something different than that. WP:N provides some guidelines to help with that determination, and this is a good example of how a redirect should not be used. Shadowjams (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would note too that "merge" aside (which is in many cases a redirect), the fact that this individual had this phenomenon occur is noted in the literature and in the article page. That should be more than enough. If the reality show is picked up, then certainly an article is in order, but then it will be no problem to recreate the article at that time. Shadowjams (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and or redirect to heteropaternal superfecundation until we can link to the show. Someone who agrees to work on a reality show that shows the heteropaternal superfecundation is hardly shoved in the limelight against their will so even when you consider WP:BLP or other policies to cover privacy in the way mentioned by Shadowjams, this wouldn't qualify because of the show. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 comments 1. Heteropaternal superfecundation redirects to Superfecundation. 2. Someone who goes on a reality show isn't wanting privacy but publicity so "being thrust in the limelight" doesn't apply. 3. This is not as rare as you might imagine, as far as twins go, women just don't usually discuss it. Drawn Some (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. If the reality show gets made, she can go back to having her own article. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am unwilling to trust in the truth of this on the authority of Fox. The mention in superfecundation. should also be removed unless there is a report from a scientific journal or at least a news source of greater reliability in science and medicine. I note the early case there as well is not based on what we would nowadays consider scientific evidence. DGG (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 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. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolph Frederick Stapelberg

Non-notable author of technical books. Article was started by User:Stapelbe and has been edited mainly by a single-purpose account who is possibly affiliated with the publisher of Stapelberg. A Google search, when removing sites like amazon, borders, etc, only gets 33 results. There's nothing at all on Google News about him. Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We are of the opinion that the self-promoted Wikipedia watchdog, Sandor Clegane, is displaying a prejudicial discrimination towards Australian authors. His UTC tag (presumably a university) might explain some of the prejudice, as the author Rudolph Frederick Stapelberg writes technical books. We are also of the opinion that Sandor Clegane has some apparent self-appointed malicious mission against authors featuring on Wikipedia. Perhaps his own muscling-in action should be restricted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acpredat (talk • contribs) 05:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...UTC is "Coordinated Universal Time" Everyone here has it. Including you.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We too? Drmies (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article smells of cut and paste, desperately needs wikification, is centred around the list of books that the User:Stapelbe and / or Acpredat appears to have a financial interest in and has deep COI issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dog of an article; if you strip out the mess and extraneous BS, there's almost nothing left. Hairhorn (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delte basically a resume, spam for a non-notable author. Drawn Some (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We agree with the nominator and, for instance, Drawn Some. We have also restored the AfD notification that users Acpredat saw fit to remove. And we love the majestic plural. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have a right to step into this fray, as I am the subject of the posted article - Rudolph Frederick Stapelberg. While it has been somewhat flattering to see my name posted on Wikipedia, I feel that this fray about who should feature, or who shouldn't, has become daunting indeed. I also feel that the initial presumptions should be set straight. I did NOT initiate this posting, nor did I adopt the account of 'stapelbe'. The content of the article appears very similar to my books' autobiography. The posting DID originate from some book retailer (presumably from a member of the book retailer's assoc. - hence the account stapelbe). In all objectivity, I do find the person 'Sandor Clegane', who seems reminescent of 'Brotherhood Without Banners' somewhat vindictive, but at the same time, I also find 'Acpredat', who appears to be a member of the publishing academy, somewhat hard-headed in prevailing to maintain the posting. For my part, the posting of my name on Wikipedia is not conducive to maintaining any privacy, and I for one, would welcome it to be removed. The Google listing of book retailers under Rudolph Frederick Stapelberg should be sufficient enough for any book retailer's association or publishing academy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RFStapelberg (talk • contribs) 23:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up the confusion. But in regards to Acpredat's accusations, I have no 'malicious' or 'vindictive' motives because you are technical author. My reasons for deletion were solely based on reasons of conflict of interest and notability.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak Delete but a very weak delete, because of the 2009 book published by springer, a very reputable technical publisher. Too early to get a usable library count, or reviews. When there are reviews, the article should be reconsidered. DGG (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN with other issues 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 23:59, 25 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Legion

Non-notable organization. Seems to piggy-back on 501st; GHits don't reflect any significant third-party coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Already has two independent sources cited. Ghits are not necessarily indicative of anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:12, 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 00:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A dead link and a link to a page that contains no mention of the Rebel Alliance are perhaps not the best references to "two independent sources" that one might desire. Deor (talk) 03:41, 12 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 03:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fan group, unsourced accept to "starwars.com". In the real world, this organization simply doesn't even graze the notability bar.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources that point to notability. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 18:58, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of Building Designers Association

Lack of third-party, reliable sources. Fails WP:ORG. Atmoz (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can find no news sources in English, most web sources are blogs. There isn't a real assertion of notability, never mind anything to back it up. pablo_hablo. 12:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article about a trade association sourced only to a personal homepage and to the official site. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MD length

Declined PROD. Apparent neologism; no references. KurtRaschke (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like nonsense. Googling gets me no more information on MDs (not in this sense, anyway). — Bdb484 (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ending up with 9000 matches, I tried narrowing down my searches and gave up sorting out all false positives (such as those for Maryland, USA). The article would be stuck at its current status of "unsourced neologism" if it ever survives AfD. Alexius08 (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the creator to list details for the book they've mentioned. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried researching this yesterday and came up only with one cable that seems to have MD in the name for unrelated reasons. A great idea but a neologism as far as I could tell. Like Alexius08, though, I found the search difficult. MacGyverMagic is taking the right step. Drawn Some (talk) 16:01, 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. Five deletes (incl poster) with good reasoning Nja²⁴⁷ 07:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Lithuania relations

non resident embassies, the bilateral agreements are mostly minor in nature like road transport. almost all of the coverage is in multilateral context especially in relation to the 2 countries joining an expanded EU. [96] LibStar (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the usual reasons and per the new agreement on how to handle these. JJL (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct- to the table related to this article ie. Foreign relations of Cyprus, that way the search term and title remains in tact. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not redirect to Lithuania instead? Drawn Some (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we're back to deleting these then certainly this one should go. (Even if we're not, one a day or so serves as a reminder.) I am questioning what kind of a road transport agreement these countries would have considering Cyprus is an island in the Mediterranean and Lithuania is a Baltic country. Drawn Some (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's gonna be the longest bridge ever built. Mandsford (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia articles are not placeholders. The article doesn't mention any relations, so there's nothing to save. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge despite pleas of helping merge these articles, nominator continues to noiminate new articles. I have already collected all of this information to merge, so this is a pointless empty gesture, an argument over a redirect, not an article. Ikip (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to relevant foreign relations articles- there's enough here for an entry but not an article in its own right. And that would be a bloody big bridge! HJMitchell You rang? 00:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge. Not any evidence of notability for a stand alone article, but what information this article does contain can be covered in the relevant Foreign relations of... article. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:54, 24 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 Slow Sex Movement, deleteSlow sex. Arguments for a merge target not persuasive. Willing to to a history restore for any editor intending to perform an appropriate merge Fritzpoll (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Sex Movement, Slow sex

2 of the 3 references are fine (The Saffire link doesn't refer to this movement), so I declined the speedy deletion, but 90% of this article is promotional and WP:OR, and I think opinions will differ on whether the remaining 10% is notable. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one, Delete one Keep Slow Sex Movement, delete slow sex. Here's another reference: Salon Slow Sex. It meets standards for notability and verifiability but I don't see the big deal about it. The movement is notable, not the sex. Drawn Some (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect: Yikes. That article was a goddamned train wreck. After reading the sources and doing some extra research, it seems like about 1/16 of the content of these articles should be merged into One Taste Urban Retreat Center. The center has received more than enough independent coverage (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), but the movement itself gets only fleeting mentions in any of those stories. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree keep "Slow Sex Movement" delete or merge/redirect "slow sex", a practice of the the slow sex movement. The New York Times William Saffire reference article link [1] doesn't refer to "this movement" but explicitly addressed by Safire is Orgasmic Meditation (a principle practice of the slow sex movement) and Safire also directly references a 2 week prior NY Times article that specifically identifies and features activities of the "slow sex movement"[2] Omed2 (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "A stub is perfectly acceptable. This can be expanded. Give it more time." Three phrases that guys can use in Wikipedia or in slow sex. Mandsford (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the given sources alone do not establish notability. THe NYT article uses the terms just in quotes (for good reasons). We're writing an encyclopedia here - not yellow press articles on sex topics. If better sources were to establish notability, an article might be possible, but that's currently not the case (and imho most likely notability does not exist and hence no such sources can be found anyhow).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Slow Sex Movement and Delete Slow sex, per Drawn Some and Omed2. "Slow sex" is essentially a copy of "Slow Sex Movement". — Becksguy (talk) 06:34, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Pharmacy Buyer Day

Non-notable celebration. Google searches do not confirm its notability. Does not meet WP:N and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's spam for a dotcom. Drawn Some (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable lobbyist fantasy. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a coatrack for some site. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bordering on spam. LibStar (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is indeed spam. I'd suggest that someone should write an article instead about the job position called "pharmacy buyer", which is part of hospital administration. So far as I can tell, we have no article about that particular line of work. Mandsford (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam and self-promotion. Also agree with Mandsford: pharmacy buyer is a needed article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's spam Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:26, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Boffer Games

I always hate to set up a deletion process for a contribution that's fun and relatively innocent, but there are just virtually no one-location shops that qualify under our WP:CORP guidelines, and that usually extends to events they host. I'd like to keep this article, but we'll need to see some independent, reliable sources that establish notability. - Dank (push to talk) 01:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 01:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An event that hasn't happened yet. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sounds interesting, but not notable. Perhaps we'll get some more coverage as the event comes closer. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is, indeed, something that takes place in Limington, Maine then mention it there. I'd say redirect or merge, but the article about the town of 3,400 or so has never made any mention of this event. Mandsford (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now. Currently suffers from a case of crystalballery, but once it gets going, I will have no problem including it. Looks like fun, and hope the con goes well! =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:45, 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 keep. Discussion to merge should take place on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wagmag

Nominating after I mistakenly tagged the article with PROD after a recent PROD nomination was contested. This is an article about a magazine of unclear notability. None of the sources cited even mention "wagmag", let alone discuss the magazine in any detail. Appears to fail WP:N. Mosmof (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I got the images from the publisher and did my best to upload them properly to WikiCommons. The publisher is new to Wikipedia and may be making mistakes but that doesn't encourage deletion. The user above has just come in with a broom sweeping up with no attempt to make the article better; I have. It may go not notable but it should not just be deleted. It's gone prod now three times and also to RM and has always been keep. Articles have to start somewhere and it is doing no harm. SimonTrew (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm really confused. First, what image are you talking about/ And what does it have to do with the deletion debate? Second, I'm looking at the edit history and you've either removed or added the template each time, so, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the article going to PROD three times. And it's not like I'm PRODing and AFDing stubs left and right or I'm out to punish some lowly n00bs for not being able to recite each and every WP word for word - this is a subject that I honestly don't think will ever meet WP:N. So yeah, I'm seriously confused by your response. --Mosmof (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the prod template from my understanding of what you are supposed to do with prod templates. I've not removed them prematurely but when they are done. I thought that is what you were supposed to do.

Similarly I added them because it seemed the article was going nowhere. However in the last few days I have had reception from the primary author and I think, therefore, it should be given a chance. SimonTrew (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't see how this is independently notable. But maybe it can be merged and mentioned somewhere? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC
It probably isn't very notable. I't a local freebie magazine. BUT, I think it should be given a chance to prosper. I would agree with merge if I could think of an article to put it in, is there "New York Free Magazines" or something like that? SimonTrew (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the merge proposal - the magazine and its events get enough mentions in local media to be mentioned (just not enough coverage), I think. But like above editors, I have no earthly idea where it would fit. Mosmof (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn#media would be a good place for a mention. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: Although the article itself needs a lot of work, the publication seems to be reputable and stable enough that it could be considered an exception to WP:N. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:13, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Falco

Unnotable fictional character who appeared in the Law & Order series for all of 4-6 episodes (the character article says one thing, the character list says another). Really too minor to even merge to the character list. Completely fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:MOS-TV. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, regular character, appeared as one of the main character and billed in opening credits for four episodes (not too shabby considering he was only the fourth actor at the time to do so), played by an extremely notable actor. He was replacing Jesse L. Martin at the time so Martin could film Rent so there is no doubt enough news coverage to constitute a pretty good stub. Just in passing there is still an interview archived on Law & Order's web site where he discusses his character and his fifth and final (to date) appearance on the show. As pointed out in the last AfD, deletion is not the way to go here under any circumstances anyways. There is valid information on a regular character who appeared in the opening credits. Redfarmer (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On top of all that, WP:WAF and WP:MOS-TV say nothing about notability, which is what AfD gauges, nor does WP:N give guidelines for fictional characters, which are still extremely controversial. Plus, I would point out that this AfD was only brought in an effort to convince me that Kim Greylek, a regular on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit should not have her own page as I am protesting an unrelated seeming unilateral decision. Redfarmer (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this AfD was brought because you kept saying "well go look at this article" so I did. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said look at the AfD, which is indeed evidence that wholesale deletion of fictional character articles like this is not uncontroversial. That is why it is always extremely hard to pass anything in the way of a notability guideline for fiction, because of its controversy. Even those in the last AfD who agreed with the nom that this shouldn't have its own article disagreed that it should be deleted, but the keeps won. Redfarmer (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wholly unreferenced for 2.5 years. Heyman Standard for this AfD would require reliable sourcing, as well as meeting the "significant coverage" aspect of the Notability guideline. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article should not be judged based on the inability to act by the editors involved. Look for WP:POTENTIAL instead and judge the thing on its own merits. WP:BEFORE says deletion nominators should look for sources before nominating something, so it's reasonable to assume that articles should not be deleted unless such an effort is made, especially when said article isn't causing serious BLP or copyright violations. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added a ref and sources "nick+falco"+law+order&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added another in the external links that can be incorporated in the article. Redfarmer (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The character article is fine. No reason to mass delete every character article out there, nothing gained by doing so. And it now has references too. Dream Focus 01:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Enough out of universe content to pass notability standards. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:N, WP:OR, etc. Take it to the LO wiki. Can anyone really imagine any other encyclopedia saying that this was a good idea? — Bdb484 (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not you think it's a "good idea" is irrelevant. There is no WP:OR in the article and the only criteria that applies to the article in WP:N is that it have reliable secondary sourcing, which it does. Redfarmer (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except that it doesn't. There are no sources that I believe the WP community would consider reliable. There's an NYT link, but it's to a listing of shows that are on that night. It's not an in-depth look at Falco, just a two-sentence blurb about what happens in that night's episode. Then there's the Slant piece, which agains gives Falco a passing mention — and even then only to say how unnotable his characater was. Half of the other sources are LO episodes themselves (and anything cited to the episodes constitutes WP:OR), and the rest are press releases republished by Futon Critic 1 2. If promotion by NBC is the standard by which LO characters' notability is judged, then I'd say we should keep it. If WP:N is the standard, I'd say not. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - A total of two sources are to episodes, and that does not constitute OR, merely quoting primary sources to establish fictional biographical data. If we disallowed sources from episodes, I dare say that many of our Featured Articles and Good Articles would be deleted. You're setting a standard much higher than that accepted to by the community. Redfarmer (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If watching something personally and then writing your own account of what happened isn't original research, I'm not sure what is. Either way, there hasn't been any coverage of the character that satisfies the first four WP:GNG criteria. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        OR would be if I interpreted what I watched, as with the sentence that I deleted that stated Falco was in the same mold as Chris Noth's Mike Logan. OR is not watching the episode and then reporting what happened--otherwise most episode guides would be goners. If you think it's OR, you sure have a twisted definition of OR because, by the same logic, I could say that reading a book and reporting on its plot was also OR--as most articles on books on WP do. You should probably read WP:PRIMARY. Redfarmer (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Summarizing a work of fiction is no different than summarizing a work of non-fiction, which is what we do everytime we summarize a ref without doing a direct quote. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has 4 references to three reliable sources. It contains real world information on why the character was created and how it was received. Meets all the guidelines fictional characters tend to fail. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research/synthesis, no real-world notability. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this OR or syntheis? Everything is referenced and the two sentences which could be construed as OR have been removed. Redfarmer (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even without that, it still has no real-world notability. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sources from newspapers don't demonstrate real-world notability? Redfarmer (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mgm - multiple independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor series character, not even close to notable enough for own article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to revisions since nomination, now clearly notable enough for its own article or at worst for a merge and redirect. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I missing something in that revision? It seems like the only thing it's adding is the NBC press release reprints, which I didn't think were considered reliable or indepenent sources. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep because of revisions showing notability. Ikip (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. notable, referenced etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - when all of the "main characters" on the show have articles, it doesn't make sense to not have an article on one of them. By the way, to clarify the four or six episode thing, he was a main character for four episodes. The actor had previously appeared in a supporting role playing someone else. The character appeared as a suspect in an episode a year after the four where he was a main character. --B (talk) 23:42, 24 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. WP:CSD#G4 (previously AFDed content). This information was part of the posted text then and the repost doesn't address the concerns from the previous AFD. Mgm|^(talk) 08:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Cloud 3

AfDs for this article:

A page about a game that does not exist. Previously deleted because it did not exist then. Re-added because of a rumour from more than a year ago. Only one citation, which links the rumour. This is not a real game. Level 5 have since announced literally a dozen games with no mention of this game. It's not real. Stump (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:CRYSTAL. - TexasAndroid (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in agreement with TexasAndroid. This is not the place for speculation. Showtime2009 (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's all been said above. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:24, 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters Of Art

Notability appears to depend on mention in one article--~~and that linked article was written by the artist credited as the group's founder~~. This might or might not be the largest graffiti group in the world, but there are virtually no Google hits, and little to suggest significance. JNW (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - [97], [98] mnetion them and it is implied they are a significant presence in graffiti but there lacks the in depth coverage from reliable sources to establish notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think JNW is mistaken, Alan Emmins doesn't seem connected to MOA:[99] So that's indepth coverage. There is a mention in NY Daily News and Copenhagen Post, as pointed out by Whpg. Also an Austrian paper:[100] The article on Danish WP isn't in better shape:[101] Fences and windows (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had to machine translate the Austrian article. As far as I can tell, it's similar to the other sources which are writing about graffiti and mention the groups as an example of a graffiti group. Tis additional mention doesn't change my stance on deletion. We don't really have much coverage of any significance. -- Whpq (talk) 23:34, 18 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) 00:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Emmins is a legitimate journalist, and I'd say the other passing mentions of the group give his piece just enough to pass the notability threshold. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There's no indication on the Emmins article as to where it has been published. We don't know that an editorial process reviewed and decided to publish the article. All we nkow is that Emmins wrote the article, and has put it up on his web site. It may be a piece he has tried to sell and has not been picked up by any newspaper or magazine (possibly because they don't beleive the subject is notable). So for me, this puts me on the side of a delete, but weakly so. If we can find any additional significant coverage, or get more information about the publication of the Emmins article, I might be swayed the other way. -- Whpq (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It doesn't strengthen the claim to notability that the artist credited with founding the group gets no Google hits. JNW (talk) 02:48, 25 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 00:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vibe (band)

This is a fairly non-notable band, nothing to establish why they're notable and generally seems on the face of it a small indie group. Also included in this nom is their only album Chena Jogot. treelo _radda 15:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 15:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 15:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as long as no good sources can be found. I find not a single source mentioning the album. It's tricky to search for the band because the name "vibe" is so common, but I can't find any sources. Cazort (talk) 15:33, 12 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) 00:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable source coverage, fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Vibe appears to be notable, but not this band, so 'delete. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scranton Manufacturing

Slightly self-promoting article about a company with no sources other than several self-published ones — can't see how this could possibly be notable. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with your criticisms that this is a self-promoting article and doesn't have sources. But I think you need to argue more than this--that it CANNOT be sourced and CANNOT be cleaned up. This is harder to argue. I think this is an example of an article that could not easily be made into a clean, full article, but could be. A very quick search yielded the following: [102], not all are about the company, but some are. Many of the articles are not public access but some of them, such as this one: [103] are written about the company in detail. It appears to be a notable manufacturer of garbage trucks. The company has a number of mentions in publications like "Waste Age" and "Recycling Today", as would be expected for such a company. These links aren't terribly useful but some of them do establish that municipalities are buying this company's products: [104] Personally, I think articles on topics like this, even if they are difficult to piece together, enrich wikipedia. I would like to see this kept as a stub, at least. I think we could gut the page and write at least a couple paragraphs based on the sources I gave here alone. Cazort (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether this is a notable business or not, this text is so relentlessly promotional in tone that this text ought not to be allowed to stand, and its presence only masks the fact that we still don't have a real article about it: Co-Founder and CEO, John H. McLaughlin has used the philosophy of Henry Ford to surround himself with people who know their job. "I have motivated and instilled my own ethical values, attitudes, outlook and philosophy into the best team possible... a team of highly qualified, educated people who respect God and Country and like the lifestyle and values of small town America." - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely in agreement that the blatant advertising needs to go. But in that case I think the proper response is to delete the offending material, and if there is a problem with it being re-added, contact an admin about banning users, semiprotecting the page, etc. WP:Deletion is pretty clear that deletion of the page is only to be used as a last resort, if the page cannot be improved. Many pages on businesses are started essentially as spam, but then later grow into full pages when editors cut out the spam and write a real page. I think it's important for you to argue here about why this page cannot be improved. I'm open to discussing that. But arguing that the current state of the page is misguided. Cazort (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just gutted the article, removing all promotional material and reducing it essentially to a stub. I also started searching in a bit more depth, for example, searching for Scranton Manufacturing's brands. Porta-vet seems to have attracted some attention: [105]. The K-PAC brand seems to have some coverage but I can't find a reliable source (anything other than the company's site) documenting that Scranton Manufacturing now owns that brand. Cazort (talk) 16:22, 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) 00:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Cazort has done a good clean-up on this, but I still don't see any solid evidence that this company meets the threshold of WP:CORP. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:02, 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. Three delete, with two keeps (one weak). The deletes argued well in line with policy, whilst the keeps did not. Therefore, the result is delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Awake

Queried speedy delete as not notable. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For an album supposedly to be released this month, I'm finding bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The album is due out either late May or early July, so there will be a page for it then anyway. I can assume that the track listing and cover here is genuine, [106], so it seems like enough information to keep the page. It is quite an anticipated release from a well-known Australian band. Demonofthefall (talk) 09:53, 18 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, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Even if it had been released, it still wouldn't pass due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Artwork and a track listing does not an article make. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I just added a lot of information to the article and a link to the page of the first single from the album, which I wrote. Once the album is released, there will be a lot more information to put on the page, as well as pages for future singles. Two songs have been played on air now, one getting a lot of airplay and having a video. It is quite an anticipated release. Rowan5215 (talk) 07:30, 25 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. No consensus to delete as improved; rename and merge can be discussed separately. Sandstein 05:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar matlaus

non notable literature café Rettetast (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only find one source: [107], and can't read it. I've noticed, however, that in past discussions relating to non-english-language topics, people often jump to conclusions about not being able to find sources just because they don't know how to search for them so I will refrain from recommending. I'd say delete, if no substantial sources are found. Presently I see no grounds to keep. Cazort (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its just a trivial mention. "Ta for eksempel Strandveien. Etter å ha passert de karakteristiske veggmaleriene til Ivar Matlaus Bokkafé og reggaebutikken Rotrock, finner du den økologiske bydelskafeen Ramp..." translates to "Take Standveien as an example. After passing the Ivar matlaus characteristic wall paintings and the reggae store Rotrock, you find the ecological café Ramp". Rettetast (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, but I just wanted to make sure no one else came up with other sources. I've seen a number of cases like this where because it's a topic where most of the coverage is likely in another language, it doesn't turn up in searches but people who know what they're doing more than I do are able to find good sources. If no good sources are found, then I say delete.
Delete. OK, it exists - that we can verify. But how is it notable? Eddie.willers (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coment—Your observation about understanding how to search in Norwegian is right on target - there are 10 pages of material found with Google-although much of it is low content. By itself this article is probably, at best, marginally encyclopedic. But researching this proved rather interesting. My reading of background material for this article highlighted the need for additon of one article and upgrade of another article which clearly meet wp:notability criteria:
- Ivar Matlaus or Ivar Mortensson-Egnund (1857-1934) was a Norwegian author, journalist, theologian, researcher, translator, writer, philosopher, radical political activist and advocate of nynorsk who, as a penniless youth, was nicknamed by Arne Garborg as "Ivar Matlaus" (Ivar foodless). The Ivar Matlaus bokkafé plays on this.
- The Ivar Matlaus bokkafé is located at UFFA. UFFA, short for "Youth For Free Activity", is a self-managed youth cooperative in Trondheim; similar to Blitz (movement) in Oslo. UFFA sponsors concerts, has served as the genesis for several Wikipedia-listed bands in Trondheim, publishes an anarchist newspaper, fosters anarchistic and other radical organizations, and is the home for a number of Trondheim's eating places including Kafe Knaillhard and the Ivar Matlaus bokkafé. Collectively it is culturally significant; the article at UFFA is in sad need of an upgrade.
Give me a couple of days to translate the no:Ivar Mortensson-Egnund article and to upgrade the UFFA article. Then I'll try to add some context material to put this article into perspective and I can give you an informed opinion whether it is worth keeping or not. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is Norsk Biografisk Leksikons entry. That is probably a good source when translating. Rettetast (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tusen tak. As it turned out, I'd used Østigaard, Arne Dag (2007). "Ivar Mortensson-Egnund". Store norske leksikon (in Norwegian). Oslo: Kunnskapsforlaget. Retrieved 20 May 2009. already when I found your note, but still appreciate your flagging it - you're right, SNL makes a very sound inline reference. Article mostly done now (although I found the Olav Aukrust article could use a lot of work too as I translated the article on Ivar. Alas, too much to do and too little time. Now off to work a bit on UFFA. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with changes as noted—After working on this for a while, I think the correct solution is:
- Move the current Ivar matlaus article to Ivar Matlaus Bokkafé and retain - I reworded the article to provide a bit of perspective on notability - it's still not hugely notable, but it does speak to an interesting social phenomena and there are other articles of this class. Change the current Ivar matlaus page to a #REDIRECT [[Ivar Mortensson-Egnund]] page since he is Ivar Matlaus. Hа здоровье - Williamborg (Bill) 02:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good save, but since much of the article describes UFFA, would a merge to UFFA be in order? Punkmorten (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first reaction as well - actually started to integrate the cafe-bookstore into the UFFA article. But then, since there is an Ivar Matlaus Bokkafé outside UFFA at Svartlamon, I went to look at that district. Found another article that needs work - there are references, so I've started to improve the Svartlamon article as well as part of this.
And since the bookstore may have started at UFFA but isn't just at UFFA, I asked, are bookstores of this type noteworthy? Turns out they have a fair representation in Wikipedia—which have survived. Examples include: Freedom Shop, Jura Books, Salon Mazal, Centre International de Recherches sur l'Anarchisme (CIRA), Camas Bookstore and Infoshop · Documentations, Informations, Références et Archives, Spartacus Books, Freedom Press, London Action Resource Centre, Bluestockings{ Boxcar Books, Brian MacKenzie Infoshop, Catalyst Infoshop, Civic Media Center, Internationalist Books, Iron Rail Book Collective, Red Emma's Bookstore Coffeehouse, Trumbullplex, Wooden Shoe Books. So it appears that counterculture bookstores or Infoshop, as a category, have been accorded some notability. Hence my recommendation.

Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 14:59, 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. (non-admin closure) «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Orlando

Unremarkable actor/screenwriter. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with Life Goes On (film), since as far as I can tell, that's the only notable work? Symplectic Map (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Cut, Print"? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:36, 19 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, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Life Goes On per Juliancolton, I don't see anything to merge really. Drawn Some (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there's enough out there to go on for notability. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Am currently away from my own computer resources, but will be expanding and sourcing per WP:CLEANUP and WP:POTENTIAL when I get home in a few hours. Did my own cursory search per WP:AFTER, and believe their is enough to make this properly encyclopedic per guideline and properly sourced to meet WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Producing multiple notable creations, makes one notable. Look at the blue links on his Filmography, and what role he played in them. Dream Focus 02:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note A non-admin tried to close this AFD and falsely claimed the consensus was Keep -- I don't know what world he's in, but three keeps vs three delete/redirect votes is in no way a consensus to keep. The rules on nonadmin closures so that they can only be closed for obvious consensus votes, and the Keep votes do not even have the majority, let alone a consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction I believe by looking above it is three "keeps", one "merge and redirect", and one "redirect". As an editor who has voiced one of the ivotes the non admin closer saw, was it wise for you to revert him simply out of disagreement? Note: as an involved editor myself, I did not myself rush to revert your reversion. That is for others... non-involved others. My two cents. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the person who declined the speedy delete. He has some films that appear notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 24 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 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homewood Avenue

Non-notable street or notability not established. It is a 'side' street, has no historical or architectural significance. Alaney2k (talk) 13:52, 12 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, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a brief google news archive search and I found no mention of this street other than references to individuals who lived on it...which I think constitutes trivial coverage. Cazort (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Street isn't covered in sources and there is nothing remarkable or significant about the street itself. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a totally average street, and average streets are never notable. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing special about this street, it is just another residential street. The street I live on is almost as long as this, and it is not special either. Dough4872 (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:20, 24 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 00:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Geenen

Non-notable poker dealer/blogger that has been interviewed by a magazine - however that doesn't make her notable Passportguy (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the general notability guideline. Only one independent published work about her - GNG requires numerous. The second source in the article is a forum post about someone else. Google News has squat, normal Google search gives only the trivial mentions that the article does. Not notable. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Geenen has also dealt two World Poker Tour appearances on TV. And is the featured dealer in Howard Lederer's 'Professor' DVDs and is one of the few people in the poker world to have been photographed with Andrew Beal, the banker from Texas that played the Las Vegas Corporation and lost over 40 million dollars doing it. She was also one of the bloggers featured in the first publication of All-in Magazine's Best of Blogs and noted to be the first poker blogger on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grupnesque (talk • contribs) 03:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC) — Grupnesque (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you provide us references to these sources? Cazort (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then that makes her an accomplished individual, not a notable one. Notability is based on what sources say about the individual, not merely what an individual has done. And might I say how remarkable it is that you found this discussion in your second-ever Wikipedia edit. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 04:07, 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 00:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per previously given reasons. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the person arguing to keep provides reliable sources to justify claims of notability, which seems unlikely as I have been unable to find any. Cazort (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should I feel strangely about having this pointed out to me by a friend? I search Wikipedia all of the time. Is it unusual to have someone find a topic and make a comment on it? Let me proceed. Linda dealt the final table of the Ultimate Bet Aruba Classic WPT in 2005 - this post on her blog has pictures of the WPT table set-up before the event so the dealers could practice around the bubbles on the table: http://table-tango.pokerworks.com/2005/09/30/582/ and this post references the WPT in Aruba in 2003 http://table-tango.pokerworks.com/2003/10/12/ultimatewpt-trip-report/. Freddy Deeb won the 2005 event and Eric Lindgren won the 2003 event. You could verify it by watching the video.

Linda was the dealer on the first videos that Howard Lederer did for his Professor series: http://www.secretsofholdem.com/ please contact Howard for verification if needed - or buy the videos. If you notice all of the posts on her blog (http://table-tango.pokerworks.com/2003/10/24/friday-october-24-2003/)during the time the videos first came out, she carried a link to Howard's videos because she originally put (Rick Bierman the creator of the video project) in touch with Howard and she was offered a percentage of the video sales.

She also carries a section of her blog on Project City Center which has a pictograph from the ground up to approximately the middle of 2007. The link to the pictures was on Wikipedia Project City Center for some time - someone deleted it, without specifying a reason, of course. http://table-tango.pokerworks.com/category/project-city-center/

Delete if you must but Linda is a very key player in poker and its development over the years, including hands-on poker experience and dealing to and knowing all of the big name poker players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.43 (talk) 22:11, 25 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Crazy Bones

Fails WP:NOTDIR point 6. Indiscriminate detail about a notable topic, where all the relevant material is included in the main article. This is just a list of thousand names and numbers, none of them individually notable at all. Not everything that is ever produced or that gets collected needs an entry here. Fram (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It only has little detail because I'm not a collector and thus don't have the sticker books or albums that contain the extra details on each character. Given time this could be expanded like the list of Pokemon character articles. If it is deleted users will continue to either attempt to add it to the main article, or re-create this article again. Oh, and cheers for informing me about this afd, that sure was good of you! --LookingYourBest (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check WP:AADD. If it's deleted, then recreated, then it will be deleted again per WP:CSD#G4. Then if it's recreated, it will be salted. No biggie. --63.64.30.2 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I forsee the Pokemon problem here. I'm leaning towards a delete !vote, but still deciding. --63.64.30.2 (talk) 17:22, 12 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 00:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any value in keeping this list. It seems highly unencyclopedic. LookingYourBest compared this list to the list of Pokemon character articles--but a key difference here is that the individual items in this list are non-notable. Cazort (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally I'd rather see it all condensed in a single list, instead of getting multiple loose and stubby articles, but the referencing needs improvement. The majority of it is not independent. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sourcing (most referring back to the company website) is hardly independent--not to mention listing them here violates WP:NOTMIRROR. Cazort (talk) 16:39, 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. Potentially merge. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Stimpson

Clear WP:BIO1E and apparently not even true. All mention of this guy completely disappeared not long after the furor in 2005 about him. If it was true, surely there would have been something more than just the initial, somewhat dubious reporting in 2005. At best, and it's a real stretch, this article might be merged into HIV test, in the Accuracy of HIV trsting section, since it seems his initial positives were false positives. Age Happens (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the merge to HIV test is such a stretch, but neither do I necessarily think it's.....necessary. Boy it's getting late. Delete or merge as WP:ONEEVENT dictates that we write about the event and not the individual. If it's determined that the event is not notable, then delete. If the event is notable, then merge. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 09:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Simon Atkins (2005-11-17). "Wonders do happen — but rarely". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited.
Uncle G (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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 00:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly Move/Rename with a redirect. I think merging to HIV Test would be too much of a stretch: I think it is hard to argue that the event is not notable: [108] is quite a lot of coverage, and there is discussion of both (a) the possibility that he recovered=us&hl=en&scoring=a] is quite a lot of coverage, and there is discussion of both (a) the possibility that he recovered naturally, and (b) the possibility that the first test came back false, and (c) controversy surrounding his threat of a lawsuit, and then the idea that he deliberately tried to make money from tabloids after changing his story. Not only is this notable, it's highly interesting, and if all sourcable material were included in an article, it would be too big to put as a section of another article. There's a rich story here...and people will likely be typing his name in as a search. Cazort (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly WP:ONEVENT. It was never explained and there was never any follow-up after the initial news blast in 2005. Any discussion of whether or not it was "true" or what was the cause or what-have-you is irrelevant but I can think of at least three very plausible explanations and would expect that if it were confirmed to be as reported it would have been written up in medical journals. At any rate he's not notable apart from these one-event news reports.Drawn Some (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ONEEVENT would recommend covering the event, which would suggest a move, not delete. Can you give any justification to delete rather than move/rename? And there has been some coverage from later dates, it's just hard to find because google news often indexes dates incorrectly: 2007 article from a Chinese source relating a similar case in China to Stimpson: [109], same material in a French source: [110]. Also, if you want coverage in a peer-reviewed journal, you have it: [111]; his case is discussed in the context of false-positives for test. And that was published just this year, in 2009. Cazort (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/expand per Cazort. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a relevant article makes sense then maybe merge but this would seem a reasonble article is possible here. Here's a book mention as the first person to be cured of AIDS. Here's about seven news bits from the Aegis (AIDS) archives. -- Banjeboi 11:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there have been anecdotal reports from Africa of people fighting off the virus, Stimpson's case was the first to have been medically tested. He is the first medically tested person who they can confirm was cured of the AIDS virus! That makes him notable! Dream Focus 03:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/move to a new stub on various notable reports of [alleged] HIV recovery (if possible). This guy is definitely notable, but only for 1 event. It would be better to provide a place to add more cases like his, rather than accumulate more non-notable (non-HIV related) biographical info about him. Wikignome0529 (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if there is much verifiable biographical information about him out there, then this would mean he was notable. But I haven't really found that so I certainly would not object to this plan. Do you have other cases in mind? Two of the articles I show hit on a possible case in China. Cazort (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure there would be any verifiable RS cases to add for cases of HIV being "cured"... A better target for a move actually might be a stub to add any media-mentioned cases of HIV seroreversion (and the topic in general), since cases of people no longer being "detectable" (but without the claims of being cured) are not as unheard of. I am not an HIV expert, but it just seems like it would be more value to readers in covering more of the topic and not the person (since the BLP notability is based on the seroreversion, not on other aspects of the person) -- Wikignome0529 (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violation of BLP1e - and possibly defamtory - says individual contracted HIV, which he may or may not have done. Requires deletion. Hipocrite (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above by another editor, BLP1E would not necessarily require deletion. Article could be merged or refactored to cover the event or topic instead of being a biography of the person. Also, subject was covered in the mainstream media for having contracted/reporetedly recovering from HIV, presumably with subject's consent. Subject in-effect gave up keeping his HIV status private when he went to the media. Wikignome0529 (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, it needs cleanup too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to HIV disease progression rates. The case is very notable, and this is the most appropriate place I can find for including it. Fences and windows (talk) 22:07, 25 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. There is no consensus between keeping or moving but neither the nominator nor anyone else mentioned a reason for deletion. Mgm|^(talk) 08:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha Benz

Non-notable, WP:BIO1E, major article under husband, Karl Benz. Article should be merged as a section only into husband's article. Age Happens (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional content could perhaps be gleaned from the articles in other languages about the subject (I wish my German wasn't so dreadful, it's the only one of those languages I come even close to speaking). Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon inspection, they seem to be translations of our article. Perhaps the Czech, German, Esperanto, Dutch, Polish, Slovak, and Vietnamese Wikipedias don't have a guideline equivalent to WP:ONEEVENT? Merge any useful content. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BIO1E advises "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". The lady's notability is surely established by the verifiable statements that (a) "a festive holiday every two years celebrates this historic trip of Bertha Benz" and (b) "In 2008, a Bertha Benz Memorial Route[1] was officially approved as a route of industrial heritage of mankind". The achievements are quite distinct from those of Karl Benz, who was explicitly not consulted over the historic use of his invention. Bjenks (talk) 11:55, 12 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, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If any action is to happen on the basis of WP:ONEEVENT, a move/rename seems more appropriate. The event involves Bertha Benz more than her husband, and the suggestion to merge into his page seems to have no real merit, the only possible justification being the sexist tradition of attributing all women's significant accomplishments to their husbands or to other men, and this practice has no place in wikipedia.

But in addition to opposing such a merge, I think Bertha is above and beyond the threshold of WP:N: there are very rich sources available: [112], [113]. These sources provide very detailed coverage of this woman as an individual, her personality, some basic biographical info, actions INDEPEDENT of her husband...and she has even been the subject of artwork and events. WP:ONEEVENT reads "...and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted"...this woman hardly strikes me as "low profile" given the coverage I see. Cazort (talk) 01:02, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Williamson Creek Greenbelt

Non-notable park. Fails WP:N and WP:RS (not third party). Originally this started as a non-NPOV article to raise (negative) awareness for an event which took place April 25th. User has not come back to since original posting, and what's left has been improved, but is still not exactly NPOV and is definitely NN. Ghits for "Williamson Creek Greenbelt" = 144, and only a few additional for the park by its correct name of "Williamson Creek Central Greenbelt". 7 ^| talk | 04:44, 12 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 00:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is another document: [114] which documents, among other things, fairly detailed environment issues relating to this park. Yes, the source is hosted on a local government site but so what? Government sources, especially as relating to uncontroversial topics such as parks, tend to be highly reliable. I think it is a stretch to exclude them as sources on the basis of not being independent, unless there is good reason to believe there is some sort of conflict of interest with promoting a narrow agenda. And if you're still concerned, there is good coverage in the Austin-American Statesman: [115] which I think is a very solid source. Those articles discuss, among other things, a bit of the history of the land, expansion of the park from donated land, and trash/crime problems in the park. Enough for a pretty comprehensive article. And, if it counts for anything, I find this topic interesting and think it would enrich wikipedia! Cazort (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient notability once Cazort finishes adding the sources he or she found. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm sure more work could be done based just on those sources but the meat of it is up on the page. Cazort (talk) 16:22, 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. Good rewrite by American Eagle. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeton House (Lib326)

Non-notable, either as a historic building or as a corporation. Unreferenced (except for the link to the commercial site). No updates in a month (this was at the very back of the unpatrolled backlog). Feels like stealthy advertising. 7 ^| talk | 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not especially notable. American Eagle (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Keep – Completely rewritten, source added with more available on Google News (see below). American Eagle (talk) 03:34, 19 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 00:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage in reliavle sources on Google News [116]. Historic.ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I dont see what is notable about this building, it may have history, but sadly thats not WP:Notability. The Cites given in the Article dont give much either. Bykofsky Cite = a directory. Brown Cite = another directory. The New York Times Cite = less than trivial mention. Is it NRHP registered? Sorry, its just not Notable in my eyes. BTW a better GSearch would be [117] (with Bridgeton House in "quotes") Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:46, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Singles Chart

No notability asserted. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 01:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tried looking around for something to prove the chart's credibility and legitimacy, but all I get is just that it's a radio station network chart. There doesn't seem to be anything that says otherwise. :T SKS (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Galgalatz is the most popular music station in Israel, I'd assume their charts would be notable, although admittedly the article is in a bad state now. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:24, 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 00:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to the station. There's simply not enough material to warrant a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:23, 24 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 00:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kessler's

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kessler's

Unreferenced for nearly three years, fails verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with hits from the Atlanta paper, I found nothing that constituted non-trivial coverage of the chain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Childofmidnight's sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:52, 19 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 00:08, 12 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 00:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Here's an integration related story from 1971 [118]. There's a mention in New York Times from 1922 (not free to access). Worth including. Included in this story [119]. Unfortunately archives are generally not free. But anyone visiting a library in Georgia would certainly be able to come up with plenty. Also here [120]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:RS. South Bay (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by ChildofMidnight. This is clearly verifiable contrary to what Stifle suggested in the nom.- Mgm|^(talk) 08:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The integration story is four sentences total under "Georgia News Briefs". The second story it may be mentioned, we aren't sure, but the article is about something else. Number 3 is a court case where it looks like Kessler's was a creditor. There is nothing in any of these sources but trivial mentions, to establish notability requires significant in-depth coverage. Drawn Some (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find a 1922 story in the NYT archive about Kessler department store. The NYT story of 17 April 1962 that is linked, is about the joining of Unishops Inc. with Holly Stores Inc., Butler Shoe Corporation and Alterman Foods Inc. to form a company, Thrift City Southern Inc., to operate two discount stores to be known as Thrift City Stores in Georgia. Bernard Kessler was the president of Unishops. He has the same name as the family mentioned in the Wikipedia article but the NYT article says nothing about the Kessler department store chain. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are lots of other stories that discuss or mention Kessler's. Small-town downtowns becoming an endangered species. Sick, but how sick? Georgia's jobless figures are so unreliable it's hard to tell, officials say. A RIVAL OR A SAVIOR? The store has a long history. It's been notable for its employment history and a discrimination lawsuit, for its failure and redevelopment, and it's history as a major regional department store for decades. So it has historical importance even though the archival stories are not widely available on line and those that are aren't free. There's still plenty to have an article and perhaps someone from that area will avail themselves of a library to expand our coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Perhaps the Georgia (US) WikiProject could help? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 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.