Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 29

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 28 July 30 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PAIW

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

Non-sourced neologism mhking (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxamundo

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

reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Spartaz Humbug! 10:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

David Baszucki

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

Non-notable person. The game is notable, but I see no notability for this person. No gnews hits. Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Roblox. I agree that he doesn't seem to have enough notability for an independent article, but redirects are cheap, and while the sourcing in the Roblox article itself is not great it seems to be adequate. (Disclaimer: Roblox co-founder Erik Cassel is a close relative.) —David Eppstein (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably also disclaim that I am an everyday user of roblox. Obviously no
conflicts of interest. If I did have a COI I would probably not be bringing this article to AFD.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MySims Underwater Fantasy

MySims Underwater Fantasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I run a fansite called SimOperations.com which specializes on The Sims series by EA so I have good knowledge of this subject. Electronic Arts have made no official announcment of this title, nor has it even been rumoured! [1] [2] The only other reference of this title is on the MySims Wikia which in turn has no citations or references. ConnorJack (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V Drive

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

A version of this article was speedy-deleted as being advertising and two PROD tags were removed without apparent improvement. There are no

WP:FRINGE Accounting4Taste:talk 22:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep . Furthermore, a brief perusal of Google News shows multiple recent mentions, calling into question the accuracy of statements regarding searches for sourcing. As the book is a recent release, the assertions of lack of coverage are uncompelling and ignore the fact that there will be more mentions by the time the AfD was scheduled to close. Yes, the article was a POV mess when nominated, but that is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catastrophe (book)

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

Article does not assert notability, references are self-refs and book website listings. Fails every criteria of

WP:BK. Tarc (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

1, Interview with the author, likely discounted per "..or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book" of
WP:BK
2, google books. Are these user-submitted reviews? No critical analysis or review, just a straight re-telling of the book contents.
3, Newsmax, discounted per
WP:RS
4, same
5, a blog noting placement on a best seller list. As noted previously, # of copies sold is not an indicator of notability.
6, same
The additions to the article by MichaelQSchmidt are not the magic bullet he seems to think they are, as they run counter to established notability guidelines. This novel simply does not reach the criteria set, namely "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." #1, the interview published by USNews is perhaps on the fence, but even if accepted, that is far, far below the threshold of "significant coverage". Tarc (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood... but then my additions were only the work of a few minutes of
guideline allows other considerations of notability beyond immediate coverage. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Though it looks like a chance of
snow I ask that any early closure be put off for the moment, as I have asked for some input over at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Tarc (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Drown

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

Fails

WP:BIO. I'm in favor of including major-party nominees for U.S. Senate who lose the general election. But losing a primary is different. In general, candidates who lose primaries are not inherently notable. Drown falls under that category. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Topic meets

WP:ORG, sources supporting notability and background have been added since the beginning of this AfD. Please keep in mind, Google searches are handy for getting a start on looking for sources but in themselves shouldn't be cited for their raw numbers, given that a search item with but 4 or 5 hits leading to peer reviewed academic or steadfastly edited trade journals might show notability, whilst 10,000 hits on a MySpace member or online product could be next to meaningless. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Tekserve

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

After a search at Google News, only 4 passing mentions and 2 press releases were displayed. Additional references has been requested since April 2009, but, for lack of news articles that discuss the subject, delete. Alexius08 (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this shop resided in Kansas City, there would not be a SINGLE mention of it online. The coverage in the New York papers does not constitute notability because these are in no way significant articles. "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage." This article is both a clear conflict of interest and its subject is in no way notable. Motobasura (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, based on "the largest independent single location Apple Specialist in the United States." However, this has enough qualifications to make my Keep weak. If it were "largest Apple Specialist in the US," I'd be less equivocal. But apparently there are non-independent Apple specialists that are larger; and even independent multi-location Apple specialists that are larger. That last one in particular bugs me. The whole idea of "it's the largest, as long as you exclude those that are large enough to expand to a second location" seems artificial to me. TJRC (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough, and I took the liberty of depuffing the claim of "largest." Collect (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Colleary

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

Delete, both as creator of article and for, in retrospect, non-notability. [email protected] (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The extradition case is notable, as are the criminal charges and fathering a child, if perhaps less so. I see plenty of mainstream news coverage in Arizona, Britain, and a mention in the New York Times. Hairhorn (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A cursory Google news search turns up articles in reliable sources — Arizona newspapers ([5], [6], [7], [8]), an Irish newspaper ([9]), the New York times ([10]), and US News & World Report ([11]). The articles span several years (2002 – 2006). The subject meets the
    general notability guideline. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep a notable individual. Reliable sources establish same. Crafty (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep News articles, associations and legal precendents are notable. Lattefever (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E3 (text editor)

E3 (text editor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability, no citations to third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Notability isn't even claimed, much less established, which used to be cause for speedy... dunno if it still is. -Miskaton (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails
    talk) 00:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of endorsements for Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race

List of endorsements for Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list was originally split off into its own article back in August 2006 when the list of endorsements was apparently unmanageably large in the main article, and editors could not agree on how to deal with the problem. Three years later, it seems pretty clear that this article ought to be deleted, as it violates

WP:LC, the deletion of this list article seems appropriate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete largely per nom, adding the point that the article on the Senate race has a

similar list. If there is some information we need to transfer from here to there I'd be okay with a merge, but I'm not sure that's necessary. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete (merge if required) per nom and Bigtimepeace -Miskaton (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suffrage Hike

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

How is this notable or memorable? I say that is it no different than any of the other myriad women's rights caterwauling that's been going on for the last several hundred years. No different than an article on "Molly's bra burning at the Bush second inauguration party, 2004, Salem, Mass." Sourcing seems a bit suspect as well. Rubbish. Torkmann (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's a New York Times source in there from 1913...and google shows the existence of a non-trivial Chicago Tribune article from 1913. Considering it's 2009...and I found those on the internet...chances are there are more than that. But the fact of the matter is that the article was created mere hours ago, is in stub form, is already sourced...and sources do exist to show this meets
    WP:N. --Smashvilletalk 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
comment. is it legitmate to take ONE old archived newspaper article and then write a wikipedia article around it? If so, I am wrong eh? Torkmann (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the event and the article.
-- Banjeboi 02:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. Sources exist and likely more can be found if the Times covered it. A notable enough event with sources.
    -- Banjeboi 02:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Keep - A quick search of Google News turned up eight New York Times articles, three Chicago Tribune articles, two Los Angeles Times articles, and one each from the Hartford Courant, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and the Syracuse, New York Herald, all dating from 1912-1924. A quick Google Books search showed me thirteen books that mention the topic. That's an amazing amount of information online about a subject that took place almost a century ago. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You listed this article for deletion 78 minutes after it was created. It is still under construction. Since you listed it two additional sources were added and an additional photograph. There is no reason to believe that this wouldn't have happened if you hadn't listed it, and there's no reason to believe that the article won't continue to be improved. (Even when you listed it, 78 minutes after construction, it was sourced.) APL (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above, numerous sources are out there. It seems easily notable enough. Think we can
    WP:SNOW this? Dismas|(talk) 08:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy keep. Misogynistic pointy nomination. Torkmann deserves a block for this kind of behaviour. Fences&Windows 22:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus needs to be based on policy not headcount. Policy is quite clear that notability is based on specifi references discussing the subject in non-trivail terms. In this case there is no reliable sourcing provided and notability has been asserted rather then demonstrated. I therefore see the policy based consensus here to be delete. (including atrout to Torkmann for dissing the Beatles)

Spartaz Humbug! 10:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

List of The Rutles fictional albums

List of The Rutles fictional albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable list of fictional albums for a fictional band. Fails

WP:N andWP:LIST. Only "sources" are a blog and a fansite. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. I don't see how the article fails WP:N or WP:LIST. While the band is fictional, the parody act was not and its activity is notable. I am not a particular fan of the Rutles, but many readers are. I agree it needs more sources, but that's a separate complaint. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Hard Day's Delete This seems to fall under the adage that "Wikipedia is not a joke book". Aren't all of these simply parodies of the titles of The Beatles non-fictional albums? Apparently, there were real Rutles albums, and someone felt that it took away from The Rutles if there was a mention of any of the humor that made them famous in the first place. No, if The Beatles can take a joke, so can The Rutles. Mandsford (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John Cardinal and in complete bafflement re: Mandsford's meaning, above (no offense, I might even agree, but I can't make it out). Torkmann, on the other hand, seems to have dubbed the Beatles non-notable circa 1972, so I'm pretty sure he has some reading to do. -Miskaton (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Together: I would argue for
    WP:Here comes the Fun. Or something like that.
    --Shirt58 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Taking a moment to distance myself from the humor (much to be had, and well done too), I want to be clear that articles about fictional persons or events are perfectly legitimate. It's, perhaps, not typical for the WP:MUSIC crowd, but such is the nature of genre-busting. This article is no more or less reasonable than Magical objects in Harry Potter. -Miskaton (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't quite see how the band is terribly funny but ... whatever, to each their own. The fictional band is notable and this is an appropriate child article to the main. It certainly could be improved but no reason to delete even though it's not my thing.
    -- Banjeboi 16:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Pickering

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

Non notable model, fails

WP:BIO. Paste Let’s have a chat. 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic count

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

Contested prod. Totally lacking in references, more like a definition for Wikitionary Jezhotwells (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination. I hope that between them the people voting keep can bring the artcile up to encyclopaedic status. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to insufficient amount of articles to justify a list. However, points to Torkmann for the use of "simian rampages". Smashvilletalk 21:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chimp attack

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

This "list" was created out of an inappropriate disambiguation page that was being deleted. There is no need for a list this small and particular that will never be larger and the topic is not notable per se. Drawn Some (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: We do have articles on several other types of animal attacks, so a notable article is likely possible. (The current version isn't it, obviously.) Also there are a few more notable attacks that could be added to the list, but probably not enough for a legitimate list. I would suggest a combination article that talks about the concept in general and then lists specific cases in summary style, if anyone is so inclined to write it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, although it was tagged as a dab by the author, I thought it was more of a list than a dab which is why I added the intro statement saying it was a list. This was not in an attempt to avoid deletion. (Page was originally listed on
WP:RfD, but I closed it on procedural grounds after the page's original creator changed it from a redirect to a list). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • That may be so, but the article does not deal with it.
    talk) 12:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @857  ·  19:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @888  ·  20:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient number of articles to justify a list at this point. DGG (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the two articles on chimp attacks can simply link to each other, and I'm sure the article on Chimpanzees mentions them already. Oddly, the 2005 attack in California somehow doesn't have an article. Abductive (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is nothing wrong with the topic in concept, but any number of valid article titles might be consumed by deletable articles. This is just one example. -Miskaton (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has great potential for expansion. Chimp attacks seem to be inherently notable due to their graphic nature. While there are only two attacks listed so far, there possibly may be thousands of notable simian rampages that should have their own articles on Wikipedia. Torkmann (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was RESULT: Merge and redirect. Editors will have two weeks to find appopriate destinations for merge-worthy content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

AfDs for this article:
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Yes, I know this has been nominated for deletion before, but it's been a few months since the last try, so let's see if

WP:BLP. We don't (and shouldn't) have a Praise of Bill O'Reilly article, and I don't see a "criticism" article as any better. Yes, I know that "criticism" can technically refer to either positive or negative reception, but that's not how the term is used here, it's not what the article contains, and it's not the case for any other Wikipedia article that begins with "Criticism of...". In my opinion they should all be redirected or deleted. *** Crotalus *** 19:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

That's something of a false dilemma. The choice isn't limited to a separate article or merger into the parent article. This is Articles for Deletion, after all, so deletion is an option, also. Granted, there's a conceptual difference between articles and content, but the content ordinarily goes to the grave with the article. It doesn't follow that if the fork article is deleted, the content must go back to the mothership in part or whole (cf. my comment at
WP:LAW } 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
While some of the content might not deserve weight in light of his biography, much of it would. We're talking about matters that have received coverage sufficient to merit their own article, at least per WP:N. Much, if not all, of the content is both verifiable and illuminating enough that it deserves weight in the encyclopedia. When so much of the coverage in reliable sources deals with criticism and controversy, attempting to reduce that to "O'Reilly is sometimes criticized" has the effect of whitewashing the record, which is not neutral writing. Croctotheface (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're alleging that this AfD is
talk) 17:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
When did I say "censorship"? Where do you get that from; is it just easier to argue against me if you try to paint me as crying censorship? My argument is that getting rid of the content would not be neutral writing because so much of O'Reilly's significance comes, as you acknowledge, from dealing in controversy. And we could fill an entire encyclopedia, not just one article, if we detailed "every time" O'Reilly was criticized, so that straw man is not convincing in the least. The article details the highlights, and they're very illuminating about O'Reilly's character, the way he's perceived, and so forth. They belong in WP one way or another. Croctotheface (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down. I tend to associate "whitewashing" with hiding pertinent facts, which is censorship. I wholly disagree that these are important topics for wikipedia to cover, but then again I feel that way about most pop culture articles.
talk) 05:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see any lack of calmness there, but if there is, it's because I don't take kindly to having my words and views misrepresented, which you did twice. As far as "censorship," I'd never use that term for what another editor does. I suppose it would be possible for an admin to engage in "censorship" by abusing the tools, but without some kind of official power, there really can be no censorship here. There can certainly be whitewashing, which is what would happen if we ignored or minimized the degree of negative reception that O'Reilly has received. Setting aside the issue of pop culture on WP, if O'Reilly the pop culture figure is notable enough to receive an article, then notable events surrounding him, including controversy and criticism, should go into that article. Croctotheface (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to be so defensive. It's just wikipedia. I simply use a broader definition of censorship. I wholeheartedly agree that some sort of coverage of the criticism he has received is appropriate, but like all criticism it should be covered in the context of the main article, not in a fork.
talk) 17:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment:

WP:CRIT
isn't policy, but it has useful things to say. "'Criticism of ....' articles/sections would seem to inherently advocate the critics' negative point of view," it warns. While there's "no consensus whether "Criticism of .... " articles/sections in general are always POV forks, especially if balanced by an article/section describing positive evaluation and influence. It also a concern that often these articles or sections quickly degrade into POV complaints or condemnation about a topic, known as 'POV magnets.'"

It's unfortunate that the previous AFDs seem to have been battlegrounds with almost no engagement on the merits of the nomination, because there's a case to be made that this article should be deleted either because it inherently a

WP:LAW } 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • From
    WP:POVFORK
    : There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but it is a common fault of many articles. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if [it] must be used, make sure that [...] is not entirely negative.
Perhaps it can be renamed into something like
Rankiri (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Wouldn't simply renaming it in such a way instantly create problem under
WP:LAW } 20:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
If you're saying that a page about the public's perception of O'Reilly would skew negative, doesn't that suggest that there isn't a neutrality issue with having negative information? If the reality is that much of his perception is negative, there should be no issue with accurately representing that reality. Croctotheface (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And there should be no issue with representing it while writing about the subject matter -- Bill O'Reilly. Separate entries forking content are not the solution to POV wars on main entries.PelleSmith (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has been nominated numerous times and produced very strong "keep" results each time. (I know consensus can change, but if Soxwon is voting keep, I don't think that's happened here.) There is not a better way to present this content. Most of the time O'Reilly receives mainstream coverage, it's in the context of some controversy or criticism. Whitewashing his biography such that we pretend otherwise would be completely unacceptable. The only other alternative would be to drop all this content in his main bio, and that would totally overwhelm what's there. The current form is the way to go; I'd be fine with retiling the article if that's what people object to. Croctotheface (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily, I think that a previous AFD resulting in a keep provides a very strong presumption against deletion (see, e.g., my comments at
WP:LAW } 13:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete Seeing as there's not a "criticism of" page for any other political pundit, I just see it as a POV fork. If there was one for Olbermann that was just as long, I might not protest this...PokeHomsar (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "If there was one for Olbermann ..." would not be a good reason to keep. Also a political tit for tat with no relation to actual notability of said criticism is likewise undesirable given several policies here.PelleSmith (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:LAW } 13:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Please refrain from using "a**hole" to describe living persons, even in delete discussions. The problem with PokeHomsar's comment is not simply related to an out of context evaluation of the usefulness of "analogical reasoning". For "if X, why not Y" to be helpful here we have to assume that X is valid in the first place. X and Y may instead be equally invalid. Beyond this other problems exist. The criteria by which X and Y are lumped together may be anywhere from dubious to completely meaningless. Likewise, even if the criteria is meaningful, X may be notable but Y may not be. This is what I was getting into in the second sentence. PokeHomsar's comment insinuates the usefulness of a political tit for tat regardless of notability. That would violate a number of policies as you well know. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any criticisms of O'Reilly should be addressed in his article. Obviously as a "shock jock" he has said all sorts of controversial things, but that could be abridged. We should not have articles like this. Put back legitimate criticism into the article and take out the rest. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about your presumption here that some criticism mentioned in the article is not legitimate. I suspect that much (and perhaps all) of the criticism there has received enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the notability guideline. I'm not saying that each item should get its own article, but the fact that there is so much criticism that merits coverage is precisely the reason that putting it all back into the main bio would be unwise. Croctotheface (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that putting the material back into the main bio would be unwise, at least as anything more than a paragraph or two. But that is not an argument against deleting this article. See my reply to Soxwon above (noting that we aren't obliged to find a home for content from a deleted article).- Simon Dodd {
WP:LAW } 13:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm going to assume good faith and not read this as an attempted "gotcha." Your argument is, it appears, that we should not have the content. My argument is that we should have the content (especially considering that all or at least much of it is not only verifiable, but has notability per WP:N) but that it is better presented in its current form than within the biography article. Unless you're going to begin with my premise that we should keep the content, the fact that the biography is a less desirable location than a separate article does not support your position. The fact remains that much of the time O'Reilly is covered by reliable sources, it's because of some sort of criticism or controversy or feud. Ignoring that would, as I said elsewhere in this discussion, have the effect of whitewashing his biography. It's not really the case that this guy is notable as a TV personality and has occasionally been involved in controversies; much of his notability comes from being involved with (and courting) controversy. Reducing the overwhelming thrust of his coverage to "nothing more than a paragraph or two" would not be neutral writing. Croctotheface (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My position is not that the content should be dumped, but that we should not take it as a given that it must be retained. It does not follow that if this article is deleted the content - in part or whole - must be merged back into the main article. I disagree that criticisms of O'Reilly can't be covered in a paragraph or two - as I and other editors have point out, it can be covered in a sentence or two, so a fortiori a paragraph or two. The movie Titanic expends more than two hours telling this story: "the ship hits an iceberg and sinks, causing the deaths of most passengers." We should aim for a happy midpoint between those extremes. Detailed exposition is not necessary beyond the point where adding words stops adding illumination, and in the case of this article, that point can be reached very, very quickly. - Simon Dodd {
WP:LAW } 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge back into Bill O'Reilly and prune to fit. It is, was and will always be a well protected POV fork in the current form. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's tricky, but I don't think this is a POV fork, mostly on the grounds that the subject matter can (admittedly with difficulty) be covered in a NPOV way the same way it can be in an article. In fact, I think a good portion of the article already covers the criticisms decently: saying exactly what each side stated while generally avoiding most
    t / c) 04:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Treated in isolation from what, exactly? From context? On the contrary, I think that the article in many places does a decent job of providing sufficient context, and if it doesn't presently,
    t / c) 22:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The content, which meets all inclusion criteria
Assuming it's a valid split, why not? And one could argue that it isn't a valid split, also. Pedantically, there's no way it could be a "perfectly valid" split, because it didn't conform to
WP:LAW } 14:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
As to merger, I'm not against deleting the whole thing, but we should realize that if we decide to merge, the article could be reduced to a single sentence, "O'Reilly has received significant criticism for yadda yadda yadda," followed by a string of forty footnotes. Something less extreme may also be possible. The point is that no matter what the outcome here, we don't have to find a home for all this content in the main article: we can delete, prune, or more-or-less radically truncate both the sourcing and the article text.
As to
WP:LAW } 16:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, that's a couple of users throwing the issue back and forth on a talk page. It's interesting, but it's not conclusive, let alone authoritative.- Simon Dodd {
WP:LAW } 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree here, and I think it's worth reiterating something Blaxthos says: there is a consensus that everything that's currently in the article belongs there. It's hard to argue that the content doesn't belong when it's so richly sourced that most if not all of the controversies could pass muster at WP:N. There's going to be a major size issue if the article is not kept. Croctotheface (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Just as an FYI-- but this is actually the fifth AFD nomination for this article, as there were two others prior to the name change. They can be found here and here. I am not sure how to get them added to the list at the top. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. —
    Rankiri (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Despite the multiple accusations in POV forking, no one actually presented any evidence that the article's content is biased or factually incorrect. There were some concerns about the name, but
    WP:SPLIT
    , which specifically suggests that [if] a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split is carried out.
Relevant policies and guidelines:
Rankiri (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
None of the relevant policies unequivocally say that this page is not a POV FORK. Of course there is no consensus on whether or not all "Criticism of" pages are POV Forks. If there was there would be no discussion here or at other related AfD discussions. But that does not invalidate the opinions of other editors who believe it is a POV Fork. Consensus or no consensus I personally believe that 99.9% of these entries are POV Forks, and no policy or guideline tells me I'm either right or wrong.
WP:POVFORK is no trump card for keeping these pages. It merely says there is no consensus. Hopefully consensus changes so that we can deal with criticism adequately at main entries pretty much across the board.PelleSmith (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The burden of proof is not on me. See
    Rankiri (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The problem with the third approach is that it literally suggests to truncate the result of five years' editing work into one abstract paragraph without following any of the procedures outlined by
    Rankiri (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
True. #3 wasn't a proposal per se, more like a brainstorming idea. Basically I was pointing out that technically the entire article can be summarized to a few sentences--I didn't mean to imply that it should. I am well aware that on these articles once the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, it's tough to put it back in. Outside of the procedures listed in merge, there are other problems to this kind of minimalist approach. Namely, editors repeatedly asking how come "incident X" isn't in said biography, followed by the usual conspiracy accusations. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're going to have trouble attempting to merge the content back into the article. Although you've made a point of saying that you're not advancing the kind of truncated approach you introduced here, others have advocated doing precisely that. Adopting such an approach would whitewash the record, as the truth is that positive information does not overwhelm negative information about O'Reilly in the sources; if anything, the opposite is true. There seems to be an element that believes that positive information should, by definition, be the focus of his biography. Obviously, this is not neutral writing.
O'Reilly is, I submit, far more notable for the various controversies surrounding him than anything else. If he were less controversial, he would not be so widely known and he would perhaps not even be on the air any longer. Put another way, there is a need to balance criticism of, say, George W. Bush or Bill Clinton against the rest of their presidential biographies. Without controversy, there would be very little of an O'Reilly biography at all. Most of the time he's in the mainstream press, it's because of an episode that might end up on a "criticisms" type page. Croctotheface (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At risk of indelicacy, sometimes people labor for five years and produce nothing of value. Value is not a function of the time invested in the product. If several editors have labored for several years on an article covering their non-notable club at the University of Whoseverherdovit, do you have any qualms about deleting it?- Simon Dodd {
WP:LAW } 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not a meaningful distinction for our purposes here. It doesn't address the point, which is that your appeal to the amount of time invested in the article as a basis for keeping it rests on shaky ground. - Simon Dodd {
WP:LAW } 03:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
If I assume good faith, I must conclude that you're being obtuse. In light of your keep vote, we must conclude that your argument that "[t]here has been extensive work done on the article" is an appeal to the amount of time invested in the article as a basis for keeping it. Which is what I said. If this metaargument must continue, it should get productive fast, or take it to individual talk. - Simon Dodd {
WP:LAW } 21:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I apologize for the mistaken identity; mutatis mutandis, my comments stand as to
WP:LAW } 14:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually you're still wrong since I support deletion. The sentence was simply a response and acknowledgment of the work of many editors at fixing the problems. It was not an argument for either keeping or deleting the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're disputing my point (viz. that the amount of work sunk into an article is not an argument for its retention), which doesn't seem to be the case, it's off-base to call the point wrong. It isn't. It may be mistaken to the extent it responded to an argument that you apparently weren't advancing, but that argument might appeal to others, and it is duly preempted. - Simon Dodd {
WP:LAW } 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
This argument has often been rejected in the past; see
WP:BHTT. The answer to problematic content is not to separate it out into its own page, but to use the normal editorial processes to get rid of it. We already know how to deal with edit wars, and it isn't by creating POV-forks. O'Reilly is a controversial figure so his article will contain a great deal of controversy and criticism and it will probably attract edit warring. Creating a fork and putting all the criticism there is the easy way out, and the wrong choice IMO. *** Crotalus *** 14:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete, this appears a pure POV fork, as the nominator said. If someone wants to save the information and put it in the Bill O'Reilly article, that'd be more appropriate. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should be deleted as a POV fork... but its contents are appropriate enough to be moved back into the main article? This nomination is a magnet for rash judgements and self-contradictory opinions. —
    Rankiri (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You've asked this question repeatedly throughout this AfD, so I figured I could give you the best answer I have. The reason I believe this article is, in effect, a POV fork is that info that is added there is overwhelmingly if not always negative. It is to the point that even the United Way/Red Cross controversy, where BOR received positive coverage, is now read as either a negative story or editors will say it does not belong in the article. The reason the info can be saved is that due to the work of the editors, we have done the best job we can in presenting negative information in compliance with BLP and NPOV. However, that doesn't remove the fact that article in its current use exists to highlight negative viewpoints of Bill O'Reilly, which as I see it brings it under
WP:POVFORK. I do think it was originally developed as a valid spin-off but its current use is different from its intended purpose. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you may be correct that "its current use" suggests we are highlighting the negative, but the answer to that is not to delete the article but to change the current use to something that does not suggest we should highlight the negative. We can move and rename the article right now; I think "public image of" as proposed below is a good formulation. Croctotheface (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if we merged this with some details of awards and other notability, such as the best-selling books, it would make a good "perception of" article. A simple rename would not be appropriate. The overall message is that O'Reilly is extremely popular but controversial, this page makes him sound like a fringe wacko hate group advocate who the reader could not possibly like, where in reality there are a fair number of people who do like him (same goes for portrayals of
talk) 01:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I think awards and praise would certainly belong in a "perception of" article. You'd have no objection for me on those grounds. Croctotheface (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly supports this as well. My major objection was that if O'reilly were to win his Peabody tomorrow no one would think of putting that into this article. However, if the article can be changed so that it incorporates all criticism of him, whether positive or negative, then I would support keeping it. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can bet your tail that, if O'Reilly were to a Pulitzer/Peabody/etc, it would be added to his main bio post haste. :) That being said, I would also support a
summarized (not duplicated) in the main article). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I don't see why the material couldn't be incorporated into the main biography. It wouldn't constitute
    undue weight because O'Reilly's entire public persona is based on stirring up controversy, and he has attracted substantial notable criticism. *** Crotalus *** 16:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The writing has gotten a lot better, but the article is not well-sourced. Some of the citations are
talk) 00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I think it's false logic to immediately assume that an organization is unreliable simply because they're critical of the right wing -- it could very easily be argued that said criticism is due to increased inaccurate reporting by organizations that tend to pander to that point of view. In the end, neither Wikipedia nor its editors should make those judgments -- we should only neutrally reference all viewpoints. In no case should a source be excluded on the basis of its viewpoints, but rather we should seek to discern if said source is indeed
reliable. Policy states: How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. I'd posit that FAIR has a solid reputation for accuracy, and I've seen them critical of all political parties. Policy additionally states: The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. I'm pretty sure I can find a good number of FAIR references in mainstream media... Other than a retracted statement 15 years ago, do you have any basis to sustain the assertion that they're inaccurate, or is this based strictly on ideologies? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I will concede that their ideologies are the primary reason I find them dubious. Whether they are considered as "reliable" is really mostly a consensus decision, and I don't think I'd be alone in considering these groups as something less than "accepted high quality reliable" sources. They're not the Iraqi Information Minister, but as the sole supporters of accusations of wrongdoing against a living person, I'd rather go by "When in doubt, leave it out." You will of course totally disagree, but you have made it clear from our previous discussions that you have great faith in these organizations.
talk) 01:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the issue of whether a source is reliable or not depends on whether it uses the facts appropriately. I would say the great majority of primary sources are opinionated, but the better ones, the ones we should accept, base their conclusions on fact, instead of vague generalizations or flawed logic alone. Also, using a primary source with an outspoken opinion does not constitute approving of that opinion. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 09:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that you'll find quite a difference of opinion among editors as to whether the organizations in question "use facts appropriately." Using a source with an outspoken opinion without balancing it with other viewpoints according to their weight is problematic. My expectation regarding primary sources (in this case the criticism itself) is that they are interpreted by a reliable secondary source. This would be far easier in the main article anyway since there the criticism itself is a secondary source and it simply becomes a question of reliability. Outspoken partisan groups there are fine so long as they are used to represent substantial opinions in proportion to their weight.
talk) 14:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Dunno if I can swallow all that... :) For one, the semantic argument that the source acceptability changes depending on whether it's cited in
Criticism of Bill O'Reilly doesn't hold water -- this article is a split from that main article, and the subject here (Bill O.) is the same subject as there (Bill O.). Also, the relevant policy statements don't deal with how they "use facts", but rather (repeat): How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. See my comments a few paragraphs up. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete We're giving a guy a whole whack of undue weight. Criticisms can stay in original article. (
    BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - I think
    SDY and Simon Dodd said it best. Articles entirely devoted to criticism of such a controversial figure are inviting POV attacks. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak Keep, but Rename and Be Responsible - I don't really edit nowadays much. In the past I know that everything Simon Dodd said was true...this article was a lightning rod for every crazy loon to launch POV attacks on O'Reilly because they disagree with his ideology. This article needs constant vigilance in making sure it keeps to NPOV and does not degenerate into a Media Matters propaganda site. If people want to read "gotchya" statements by Media Matters that have been edited to portray O'Reilly in the worst possible light, they are free to go to Media Matters to satisfy their wants.

Still, criticism does have its place. Some of the criticism has been very noteworthy being mentioned on several networks, such as the Harlem comments. Others, such as Keith Olbermann, are not as noteworthy as he seems to be the only one on a cable news channel that is obsessed with O'Reilly. Now if they had a confrontation that the rest of the media picked up, that would be worth mentioning. I tend to go towards putting in more information than less especially if O'Reilly responded to the criticism and thus wouldn't constitute a BLP attack. People can then make up their own minds.

I do find it funny how some of the people calling for the keep on this article have gone into a frenzy when I added similar criticism about people like John Edwards and other people whom O'Reilly has criticized. Then again, I could just be seeing things. Arnabdas (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- Far far FAR too much information here than can be contained in the parent article. Rename wouldn't be out of line, but there's no way I can see merging all the information into the article on Mr. O'Reilly, nor do I think just deleting it all is a good idea either. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- This article is proof that just because something is well cited doesn't mean it's not trash. None of these events are encyclopedic, and entirely POV. I don't agree with Bill O'Reilly at all politically, but this is ridiculous content for an encyclopedia. How would you feel if you read this trash in a nonfiction printed book? 74.237.158.41 (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clearly promotional in tone and unsalvagable as it is. no objection to a neutral article being written by an uninvolved editor if the sources are there

Spartaz Humbug! 19:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Zenfolio

AfDs for this article:
Zenfolio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable product with references being a newspaper review, a blog and two passing mentions on a hosting service and a page advertising something called Eye-Fi Jezhotwells (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page was speedily deleted earlier today. Now re-created with slightly better wording. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I removed some of the marketing fluff, but it still seems to fail on notability. --Transity (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pretty Little Liars. ~ mazca talk 21:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killer (novel)

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

This derivative stub is a redundant spin-off of Pretty Little Liars, a relatively short article which already covers the series. Its author has created six stubs for related novels which include only plot information, and has yet to expand this article significantly with real-world coverage to assert notability (and seems unlikely to). She has reverted my attempts to boldly redirect, so I'm seeking a consensus on merging/redirecting or deletion. — TAnthonyTalk 18:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge indeed, since delete is not an option for me (the title is a viable search term). I don't see any potential for this acquiring content. This is the best I could find, and it's not really anything--it certainly does not address the novel in depth. Are the others listed as well? Drmies (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - (

Non-admin closure) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Wicked (Sara Shepard novel)

Wicked (Sara Shepard novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

This derivative stub is a redundant spin-off of Pretty Little Liars, a relatively short article which already covers the series. Its author has created six stubs for related novels which include only plot information, and has yet to expand this article significantly with real-world coverage to assert notability (and seems unlikely to). She has reverted my attempts to boldly redirect, so I'm seeking a consensus on merging/redirecting or deletion. — TAnthonyTalk 18:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Spartaz Humbug! 10:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Jeffrey Lord

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

Looks like a non-notable literary pseudonym. Tagged with {{

refimprove}} since May 2008. Only 2 sources, a personal webpage and a message board. Blargh29 (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Move (with slight reworking) to Richard Blade (book series). I read many of these books long ago, back in my student days, and still have a number of them. Back in the 70's this series had a following. The info seems accurate, although I can't speak to the names of the ghost writers. -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments here generally circle around a subjective interpretation of whether this is maintainable, and whether this is superior to a category. In both cases arguments are split pretty evenly each way - no overall consensus to do anything in particular can be pulled from this discussion. ~ mazca talk 21:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games in development

List of video games in development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Otterathome (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

&
Otterathome: For Films :- 2010s in film. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
This is a deletion of list of games in development of all time, not list of games in development in 2010 or any other specific time/date/year. If you can't be bothered to read the entire discussion don't bother adding your useless input in future. Thanks.--
Otterathome (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • There are other benefits; some people navigate via lists (usually the readers), some navigate via categories (you and I). --Izno (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rankiri (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Your concerns are understandable but
    Rankiri (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Would you support moving the list to
    Rankiri (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
As far as being unmaintainable, that does not appear to be a problem since the number of upcoming notable games (ie games with their own Wiki articles) is smaller than, say, the number of books pending release. Also it should be kept in mind that the number of potential editors interested in editing video game topics is fairly large as video gaming is a popular topic, which likewise helps allow the article to be reasonably maintained. Thus you have a large number of potential editors to maintain a list that is, at most, a few hundred entries at any given time. (And, in fact, the number for the main article in question is far lower, since games in development for the current year are kept in a separate article.)
Finally the complaint that the article violates
WP:NOTCRYSTAL is unfounded since all the information is well referenced and the article is not making specific, unverifiable predictions or analysis. 63.95.36.13 (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Martin (footballer)

Richard Martin (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD with no reason given. Original reason for PROD was "Footballer who has never played in a fully-professional match". Also think that he fails

WP:N, due to lack of non-trivial sources. Big Dom 17:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • He doesn't, which is why I've said he fails it...GiantSnowman 11:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you think he is notable for not getting signed for Everton? In a weird ironic twist - you nominated an Irish player that played in the the top divsion in Ireland, had multiple caps at under age level and actually signed for Everton for deletion! --Vintagekits (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He passes
    WP:N because he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It doesn't really matter what the coverage is about - the current guidelines say that as long as he has received coverage, he is notable. GiantSnowman 11:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Once again, he is notable due to media coverage according to
    WP:N. GiantSnowman 11:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • But they aren't "short, weak, passing mentions" - five of the sources deal with Martin directly and in detail, and he is named in the title in two of them! You have to stop thinking WP:FOOTY is pro-English, anti-Irish - it's not! And as for me "conceeding that hasnt actually done anything notable" - I haven't done that at all. As I've said, he is notable due to media coverage, as
    WP:N dictates. GiantSnowman 12:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Spartaz Humbug! 10:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

DemandStudios.com

DemandStudios.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails

WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep, 1. Re: Hut 8. - The sources outside of Demand Studios aren’t “press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions”. Upon closer investigation, they are feature articles from some of the most notable press outlets in the US, such as LA Times, US News, Business Week and the Wall Street Journal. In fact, only two of the nine citations lead to Demand Studios.com, certainly not “a lot of information directly from their primary-source websites”. What’s more important is that these two sections of information are Terms of Use and statement of earnings. Those two pieces of information are only reliable directly from the source. Secondly, links were said to not “even support the claims they are cited for. References are all press releases/other promotional material, unreliable sources or don't mention the subject…” If each and every link is investigated it is found that none of the articles were press releases, generated from Demand Studios (with the exception of the two cases I mentioned above) or biased toward the company. All articles simply stated what makes Demand Media unique, including facts that were cited in the article.

2. Re: WP:NOTABILITY - An encyclopedia article is nothing more than a description of something unique. Demand Studios’ way of generating content and topics is unique, as seen in the unbiased articles from outside sources. If one takes the time to read the articles from these notable press outlets, it is apparent Demand Studios and its parent company, Demand Media, are notable online platforms. 3. Re: WP:SPAM - This article is not spam, which Wikipedia describes as “abuse of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately.” The article on Demand Studios does not solicit to its audience, since it does not say anything like “Come work for us.” It simply states its hiring process – which is something that makes the organization quite unique – in an unbiased way. It also mentions that only those qualified may apply – spam is not discriminatory. 4. Re: Smerdis of Tlon: The assumption that the article is “blatant advertising typically written in vague and glittering generalities” does not give any examples to back up this claim: a. “an online content creation studio that provides writers, filmmakers, copy editors, transcribers and proofreaders with freelance work” – Demand Studios could not be defined more simply than this. There is no bias, no generality, no advertisement. b. “a new media company specializing in distributed social media and content on the Internet.” – same note applies. Does not advertise or show bias. It is a simple statement of what the company is and does. Facebook could describe themselves almost exactly the same way and it would not be considered a “glittering generality” Emilynf1 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)— Emilynf1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The sources from LA Times, US News, Business Week and the Wall Street Journal are not press releases (though the Business Week one is actually a blog, which may not meet reliability standards). However, these articles are all entirely about Demand Media and do not even mention Demand Studios. They can be used as evidence to support the notability of Demand Media, but not Demand Studios. A substantial part of the information sourced from primary sources has been removed by myself and other editors since I wrote that comment.
WP:NOTABILITY
requires that, to be included in Wikipedia, articles must have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Whether the subject is unique or not is irrelevant.
Spam on Wikipedia, as defined by
neutral encyclopedia and does not promote any individual, company or group. Hut 8.5 10:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Demand_Media_spam --Hu12 (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sadly we are going to see more of this type of article. Someone gets an idea to "monetize" an aspect of the Internet, and they push promotional material anywhere they can, with a properly written article that at first glance appears better sourced than most. However, Wikipedia is not for
    WP:SECONDARY sources say otherwise. I read every reference (except for those on the subject's site) and they are just puffery used by media to fill space. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. JForget 23:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Democratic Party of Russia

Independent Democratic Party of Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(delete) – (View AfD)

There is no such party in Russia.--El1604 (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's still not registrered as a party but still of interest just like the National Bolshevik Party. Närking (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This party existed, and subsequently has stopped the activity (or not). And Independent Democratic Party of Russia never was. It has not been created at all. no members, no activity. nothing.--El1604 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, if this party is registered or not according to the new tough Russian laws does not mean that it doesn't have a valid place here and it's surely known in media. Närking (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's known in media only as party creation attempt. it does not exist and does not operate.--El1604 (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And? A party creation attempt that has created such a long list of articles in the media around the world surely has a valid article here. Närking (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is also
    Rankiri (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Well, it's not just a few articles during a week.Närking (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • so this article not about party, and about party creation attempt.--El1604 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article. Närking (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From http://svpressa.ru/issue/news.php?id=6160 (translation), March 21, 2009: "To date, no decision on the establishment of the party is not accepted, no fixed format for the possible establishment of the party...Clearly something is premature to comment in detail." The nominator seems to have valid
    Rankiri (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thanks for the link. I've added it to the article now. Närking (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please
    Rankiri (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 assertion of notability, no sources Tone 20:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T-media

T-media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable Slovenian company.

my talk 15:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Spartaz Humbug! 10:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Al Roach

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

Non notable athlete - fails

WP:AUTHOR. Majorclanger (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - as per nom. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - he might be notable as a writer about reptiles. I have not been able to substantiate that notability however. If someone can establish notability on these grounds, then keep; if not, delete. (I don't think his athletic record is enough to warrant an entry.) LadyofShalott 17:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I put this up as a PROD, it received a PROD2, author removed. Subject is non notable.Paste Let’s have a chat. 19:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails notability as per
    WP:AUTHOR. -shirulashem(talk) 17:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep It I think leave it - well known in pet industry and in baseball, looked up some stuff on him online. Mr.knowitall2020 —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment If that is the case, and they are
      citations? When I looked up about him, I could find a lot of hits on Google, but not from reliable sites. The references currently used are unsuitable for notability - the first one is a news article from a college baseball team's official website - so, a minor player, not MLB - and the other two are from his own books! If you feel that you can find reliable sites which can be added as citations, please do. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • comment I can find some more citations that will give him notability and I will add them. thanks Mr.knowitall2020 —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep It I edited the article, but don't think I did it right because the same thing appears twice. Can you delete the top article and use the second one I posted as it has more references for notability. thanks and let me know if this is okay Mr.knowitall2020 —Preceding undated comment added 02:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - I think MrKnowitall may be confused about the afd process. He says "delete", but then the rest of his words seem to be for keeping the article. Is that correct? LadyofShalott 04:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I dont recall ever saying delete, Perhaps it was someone else that may have thought that.I think it should stay up thanks. Mr.knowitall2020 —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    Each of your comments on this page begin with the word, "Delete", in bold letters. That is used in AfD discussions to say you think the article should be deleted. Since you are actually arguing the opposite, I suggest you go back and strike through the word delete in each of your comments. LadyofShalott 15:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment whoops...now I saw what you were saying. Thought that was standard. I believe what was edited provides more notability, however the first one showing needs to be taken off and the one at the bottom under references needs to be posted on the top. Somehow the text appeared twice and the better one is at the bottom Mr.knowitall2020
  • Comment for Mr.knowitall2020 Please note that only one of your keep votes will be noted! You might want to change the other 4 to comment instead of keep it! It would be impolite for others to amend them, as they are your contribution to this discussion. Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good There's definitely a few good references now to give him notab. Mr.knowitall2020
Note that the above comment was actually entered by Mr.Knowitall2020 - at the time of this comment, user Big Dog175 has zero edits. Majorclanger (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the citations shows that he was not major league (and not notable). Another shows he got 2 grand slams in a college game - again not particularly notable, as others who have gone on to become major league players have done this. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is true, there are a few players in the MLB who have done that as well. I just think Al is well known and some bio backround info should be available to people who might be interested about him. I am having trouble editing the article without having all the info repeat twice. When I click edit, all I see is == References ==
any ideas on how to edit the actual article?  thanks Mr.knowitall2020
This is off-subject for the afd. I have answered the question at User talk:Mr.Knowitall2020. LadyofShalott 04:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BLP1E applies

Spartaz Humbug! 10:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Scott Janke

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

This is classic

WP:NOTNEWS. In reality, he wasn't even fired for something he did himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment for keep related issues I can fully understand why some would want to delete and why some would cite BLP1E. I would expect many votes using this reason. I also note that even I thought at the time I edited the article that some people would not like the article and would want it deleted.
However, AFD is not a vote so I present some ideas that would support a keep.
1. Niteshift36 notes that "he wasn't even fired for something he did himself". This makes him different (notable by some, not notable enough by others).
2. Frank notes "even if it becomes a major...court case, the man himself woun't be notable because of it". Plaintiffs in major cases do have their own article.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUser_F203&diff=304322655&oldid=304236583 Shows that an editor in Finland looked up Wikipedia to see if we had information on the man. Wikipedia provides an unequalled source online for information. If we were to strictly keep only what is encyclopedic, huge sections of WP would be deleted such as video games (which is covered by fan sites anyway) and minor politicians.
In short, this article covers a person and incident which is very unusual, has (US) First Amendment and marriage law issues, and which actually gets a lot of traffic. If there is a question over keep, this could be a classic IAR (ignore all rules). For the administrator who decides, I can see if you wish to assert that strict rules be followed but these comments above are simply the comments that would be in the keep column and the other two are obviously the comments in the delete column. User F203 (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being fired for something you didn't do yourself doesn't make you more notable or different. No, plaintiff's in major cases don't always have their own articles (and this won't become a major case anyway). And it really doesn't matter how far flung the people who saw a blurb somewhere and came here looking for it are. There are many topics that pass notability that don't have their own article. Likewise, the news is littered with topics that aren't notable. We have wikinews for those things. This fits squarely in the
      WP:BLP1E category and there is nothing historic about a)being fired, b)having a wife who appeared on a porn website or c) having the actions of a family member affect someones employment that would be an exception to BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Possible merge to the city's article? The Janke article could probably be condensed to 1-2 paragraphs and fit nicely into the much larger Fort Myers Beach city article. User F203 (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Actually, I didn't realize this article existed until someone tried to put this mess into the Ft. Myers Beach article and wikilinked Janke's name. Putting it into the FMB article would still run afoul of
        WP:RECENTISM and would still have lingering BLP problems. As DGG said, this isn't a tabloid and this is straight tabloid fodder. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Delete without a merge or a redirect. I agree with the nom that this is indeed an example of classic BLP1E. WP is not a tabloid. I am very reluctant to overuse BLP or expand its scope, but this is just what it was meant to exclude, and rightly so.DGG (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and very limited merge I have carefully thought about this article. After guidance from a very senior editor, I believe that there has to be weighing and balance between an encyclopedia that has articles that people are trying to look up and wacky entries. This article seems to be on the wacky side. I realize that I am not using the usual WP lingo, but the concept is there. Since redirect is a tool to assist readers and we know that readers from more than one country is looking this up, redirect is the way to go and redirect to the city. Without explanation, the reader may wonder why Janke is redirected to a city article. Therefore, a limited merge is appropriate. The merge may be as short as one sentence, certainly not the entire article. User F203 (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And even though it was removed and a discussion is under way, a discussion you were invited to participate in, I see you just force the mention back into the FMB article. You keep waxing philosophical about what WP should or shouldn't be, but you keep insisting on re-inserting something that could be an example of the BLP1E policy entry. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E refers to the existance of an article, not content of another article. However, I have asked in your talk page that you work with me to write the town article up to GA standard. If there is a lot of history of the town, then this event will not be very significant in comparison. If nothing has happened in the town, then this is more significant. User F203 (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, spam Tone 21:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RR & CO.

RR & CO. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable Slovenian company.

my talk 15:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. It is a snowball keep here JForget 00:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Eve Carson

Murder of Eve Carson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable event once widely covered, but now lacking in historical significance to keep. Merge significant info with U of North Carolina and delete article. Veggy (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

NAC. POKERdance talk/contribs 01:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

10 bore

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

All other articles on Shotgun gauge/bore redirect to

Gauge (bore diameter). In addition, the style of this article is horrid, really beyond repair. --DOHC Holiday (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete and Redirect per nom, no other shotgun cartridge sizes have their own article and there is nothing uniquely notable about this specific one. Curtis (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    Gauge (bore diameter). AfD/deletion not necessary. --EEMIV (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angry white male

AfDs for this article:
Angry white male (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is clearly racist and the term AWM is derogatory much in the same way another term used to describe a certain minority is.

  • Keep (will shortly be changed to speedy keep when I get home and add a couple of easily found sources). The current version is sub par, but "Angry White Male" is clearly a concept that has been covered in multiple reliable sources, and POV vios are reason to clean up, not delete. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The entry clearly labels this term a stereotype, so it's a bit odd to call it racist. (please note you are missing step three of the AfD, as well as some of the usual header information). Hairhorn (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. But even if it were racist the content of an article being racist is a reason to change it, but not to delete the whole thing. What's relevant is notability, which is easy to establish by glancing through the results of a quick Google Books search. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Spartaz Humbug! 10:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

George Ponsonby (disambiguation)

George Ponsonby (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominate for deletion This is an unnecessary disambiguation page and clutter. There is a hatnote on the primary page to the only other entry. The reason for the removal of the prod was: The problem is that both he and George Ponsonby (politician) were politicians. This means that the disambiguator for the latter is misleading. The proposed changes (including the "prod" on this article) might be appropriate, but first we need a better disambiguator for the "politician". Alternatively, a much more precise hatnote is required. Peterkingiron. I believe the hatnotes I've now added are quite lengthy and clear: AT THE PRIMARY PAGE: For the Hon. George Ponsonby (1773 – 1863), see George Ponsonby (politician). AT THE ONLY OTHER ENTRY: For George Ponsonby (1755 – 1817), Lord Chancellor of Ireland and member of the Privy Council, see George Ponsonby. I looked through the article for what the differences were before creating the hatnotes (though someone who knows these bios better may be able to improve them). Both were Anglo-Irish politicians, so George Ponsonby seems to be the more notable and thus is rightly at the primary page and George Ponsonby (politician) couldn't have any other disambiguator really, from my investigations. I think that the hatnotes are now detailed enough; perhaps more relevantly, there is nothing on the disambiguation page which is not covered on the hatnotes now. Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural keep since no valid grounds for deletion were specified. No objection to early renomination if the notability is challenged.

talk) 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Law Society (University College Dublin)

Law Society (University College Dublin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Why is this page being proposed for deletion? It is perfectly valid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio88 (talk • contribs) 2009/07/27 19:07:53

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest withdrawing/closing nom. AfD tag was added by an IP, and IPs cannot complete all three steps of an AfD. Often the reason for nominating is obvious, and someone will complete it for them, but there's nothing clear about this case. It's not necessary to create an AfD page to object to deletion, which is what's happened here. Hairhorn (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prasanna Hennayaka

Prasanna Hennayaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability guide lines and can not be considered as a person of importance to have a wiki article.Cossde (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

WP:SNOW JForget 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Richard Graham (Northern Ireland footballer)

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

Plays at semi-pro level for last 9 years, thus failing

WP:N ----Leagueofireland (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment, how do you know that is was a "semi pro contract"? regards--Vintagekits (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That account looks suspiciously like a
    sock puppet. --Jimbo[online] 21:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • And even if he had been working in a car dealership while playing for Grays in January (which he wasn't), that doesn't support your claim that he "Played for Dagenham & Redbridge on a semi-pro contract", which is what Vintagekits asked you to prove..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO due to his having played in a fully professional league with Queens Park Rangers, Barnet and Dagenham & Redbridge, and WP:N due to the subject having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", courtesy of the BBC reports. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think he actually played for QPR - regardless, thanks for the reply.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced in Hughman's Football League stats book. I also found an online report for a league game he played against Grimsby for QPR [28]. Looks like soccerbase confused him with Mark Graham [29]. --Jimbo[online] 08:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He never actually played a league game for QPR.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep the whole shebang. The issue of mergine can continue on the article's talk pages. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield (IL) Cardinals

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Southwest Michigan Devil Rays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Battle Creek Yankees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michigan Battle Cats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Madison Hatters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

These teams are incarnations of the same franchise. As per some of the conversation here, these should be merged into the article of the current franchise, the Great Lakes Loons, with redirects for these five defunct teams. Muboshgu (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —BRMo (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I don't think the rule of "one article on the franchise" that is generally used for major league teams works well for the minor leagues. First, there's usually very little continuity - different players, different owners, different fan bases. To the extent that readers are interested in these articles (or editors are interested in expanding them), it's usually from the viewpoint of local history – what is the history of professional baseball in this city or town? Finally, for some historical teams and leagues, it is simply very difficult to sort out the history of which franchises descended from which. BRMo (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I understand your point, I think it should be more of a case by case basis. In this case, we're talking about a Class A franchise with some very brief stops. While they were in Springfield for 11 years, and were the Michigan Battle Cats for 7, I don't think that establishes much local history. Beyond that, they were the Battle Creek Yankees for two years, the Southwest Michigan Devil Rays for two years and the Madison Hatters for one year (and it says in the article they never intended to stay longer than one year). There's nothing in any of these articles to establish any sort of following, and there's no way there was a following in those brief stops. I still eel those stub articles would be just as useful merged into the "History" section of the active franchise page. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't disagree with merging the "Battle Cats," "Devil Rays," and "Yankees" articles with each other since they apparently all played in Battle Creek. But I'd oppose merging them with Great Lakes Loons, who play in Midland. For readers and editors approaching the topic as part of local history, it would be better not to merge across dispersed geographical areas such as Madison, Springfield, Battle Creek, and Midland. BRMo (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, or keep as is. Isn't this at the wrong venue if the nom isn't asking for deletion? MfD or
    WP:MLB would be the right place to discuss this, since it's an editing issue, not a deletion issue.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You're right, I should've set it up as a merge. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as standalone articles. It would be confusing to merge, and not particularly helpful if a reader is trying to research the history of baseball in a particular region. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Spartaz Humbug! 10:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Ševčenko's law

AfDs for this article:
Ševčenko's law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

This article has almost no content or citations, it is a stub. Also it claims to be a law, which is clearly not possible in the matter. if anythign it should be a part of criticism of history. Also who is Sevcenko, what does the source provided have to do with it, is this really a respected theory, because it is most certianly not a law. This seems like an irrelevant and fringe factiod. Ishmaelblues (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From a quick Google search, I found the book The Christian tradition in Anglo-Saxon England; on page 42 there is a mention of the function of the law, with a reference that names it. I will add the reference to the article which will take care of one point for deletion. Also, it is not uncommon for things that are not true physical laws to be called "laws". I would be OK with it being merged into a larger article, though it seems that Criticism of history does not exist. Awickert (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough for the source provided. Also, the nominator may wish to familiarise themselves with the broad usage of the term "law" in the English language. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ihor Ševčenko is a famous historian of Eastern Europe,[30], with a festschrift dedicated to him, and therefore appropriate for an article. However, this is exceedingly trivial. Given that we haven't the least idea of where he actually said it, or if he said it, and what the context was, there is not any basis for making an encyclopedia entry for such a platitude, that historians tend to study the same examples. . DGG (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely more than a mere platitude. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This "law" reminds me of the law of limited competition cretaed by Daniel Quinn, which use to be its own page. Both have the same problem, the are not laws a represent radical ideas, additional a "historical" law is the result of simple ignorance. This "law" has even less internet content than Quinn's "law." This "law" also has had no impact of the field of history, it is mentioned in one book about anglo-saxons as a google search will reveal. At most this should be added to an article on its creator (and if he does not have an article should his ideas) or to some other page, because as of now it is a stub, without an y mainstream acceptance and is extremely obscure. it is agreed this article is exceedingly trivial. Ishmaelblues (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes lets move the stub to the Ihor Ševčenko page Ishmaelblues (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and the article does not meet

talk) 00:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Billy Mays III

Billy Mays III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Billy Mays III has received no coverage in reliable sources other than brief mentions as a relative of

WP:BIO. Timmeh 14:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete: Notability is not inherited.
    talk) 15:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete No evidence has been provided he satisfies [[WP:BIO]. Notability is not inherited. He should be mentioned in the article on his father. Edison (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Billy Mays#Personal life as a plausible search term. There doesn't seem to be enough notability to justify a stand-alone article. If an when there is, the article can be recreated. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Joe Chill Curtis (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirecting is preferable to deletion since it's a plausible search term. I haven't looked into the question of a dedicated article. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability isn't inherited. Future possible roles don't cut it. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm a fan of the late Billy Mays and his TV show, but I say delete it. I don't even recommend a redirect because I don't think "Billy Mays III" is a plausible search term (I would just look up "Billy Mays" if I was trying to find him). Since this Billy is supposed to be part of the next season of Pitchmen, he might become more notable later, in which case there's justification in recreating the article. -- Atamachat 19:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Atama TrbleClef ♮ (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Billy Mays III is in PitchMen, unlike you guys! You guys never went on TV before. He's half as popular as Billy Mays, and that's a lot because the Billy Mays that's resting in peace was very popular. I hear of Billy Mays III a lot.
    Jeremjay24 (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

a/c) 01:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

A&A Global Industries

AfDs for this article:
A&A Global Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claim of significance in my opinion. I originally requested a speedy, but the author used

Northwestern Corporation and Oak Manufacturing. Jujutacular talkcontribs 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Already deleted JForget 23:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Void Illusion

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

Non-notable alternative rock band, though the article has not meet

notability requirements. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carwinism

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

From my searches the only place I have been able to find this word in on the Carwinism websites. It does not appear to be a notable concept.

talk) 13:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swagman Restaurant

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

fails WP:CORP, hardly any third party coverag [31], nothing really notable about this restaurant. being burned down unless it got major national coverage doesn't make it notable, businesses burn down all the time. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Extremely well known Melbourne landmark, the destruction of which was national news. The restaurant is notable, as there has never been any other restaurant really like it in Australia. This is true in terms of the scale of the restaurant, in terms of the amount and penetration of television advertising (the jingle was at the time known word for word by nearly all Melbournians, and would still be very widely known today), and in terms of the calibre of visiting artists (see entry: while of course there may be venue in Las Vegas and elsewhere that have far more notable artists attending, the point is that there has never been anything like it in Australia). Of course, this notability firstly occurred at a time prior to the internet, but the notability is certainly there, as all Melbournians who lived through that period know. This is precisely the kind of entry that should be kept, because it is significant and notable history that Wikipedia, as opposed to other encyclopedias, does have the capacity to record. Article is well-sourced to major national newspapers, and meets all policy requirements. BCST2001 (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
very widely known today' then if would follow you can find current reliable sources that show this. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to me to be notable based on coverage and significance in major city. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per BCST2001. --
    Dialogue 00:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The world of reliable sources did not suddenly burst into being with the invention of the World Wide Web! The restaurant was a social and cultural institution in Melbourne for many years (..."the smorgasbord that we're famous for"!). The article already has multiple, reliable sources asserting its significance and a trip to the library would find many more. Where in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does an article topic require "major national coverage" anyway? (Personal note: A close friend of mine had planned her 18th birthday party for the venue in 1991, which then had be to cancelled as it burnt down two weeks before the date :-(... )-- Mattinbgn\talk 01:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment currently the reference focuses on the fire and I believe that is
    WP:NOTNEWS, I'm not expecting web references but people need to show evidence of significant coverage as per WP:CORP. the article makes a number of claims without being backed up. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per BCST2001 and Mattinbgn. Bidgee (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fei Jing - Soaring Eagle - 飞鹰

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

"Very little is known about (...) this style" seems about right. The article includes no sources, and a quick Google serach makes me decidedly pessimistic about this ever changing. Possible

WP:NFT, even. Ashenai (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I am translating a material about this style from a book, published in Bulgarian language, that I referenced in the article. I can't translate this too fast, but I will translate a little everyday. KOBRETI —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete 1 source not evidence of
    notability --Nate1481 14:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
missed that tag--Nate1481 15:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • HOLD ON nominated for deletion ten minutes after it was created by a brand-new user, who has asked for time to construct the page ("under construction"). Give the editor a chance. JJL (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This martial arts article has a non-vanity press paper book as a reference. jmcw (talk)
  • Whoops. Withdraw nomination. Sorry, KOBRETI, this AfD nomination was premature at best. Please accept my apologies, and feel free to take the time you need for your translation. I don't want to close an AfD I opened, but anyone who wants to do so has my blessings. :) --Ashenai (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Spartaz Humbug! 10:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Unthank road

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

Unreferenced stub about a local street in Norwich; no demonstration of notability, and includes a relatively significant portion of trivia. PROD declined. Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to give some context, the Golden Triangle mentioned is this one. Unthank Road is a major secondary road into Norwich. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about Unthank road: is it?  :-) You'd never know that Unthank was significant to read the article. Nyttend (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in unreferenced article indicates it is any different to thousands of other non-notable roads. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brescia Furniture Fire

Brescia Furniture Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

as per

WP:NOTNEWS, I doubt this got much coverage outside of Sydney. and probably none outside Australia. factories burn down all the time. LibStar (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenality

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

Page is an attempt to promote a

general notability guideline. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 12:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

What about giving the editors a chance to properly source what you allege is a neologism? This appears to have a bit of academic structure to it. CriticalChris 13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nineteen days coupled with evidence of promotion seems to provide an exception to
WP:BEFORE. I made a good-faith effort to find evidence of notability myself, so if you see anything I missed please post it and I will very much consider withdrawing. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 14:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. Google Books/Scholar/News show no relevant results. The mentioned blog clearly identifies the word as a
    Rankiri (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: only definitions I found define it as a neologism. Awickert (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promoting a neologism for commercial gain. Both this page and the Urban Dictionary were created by earthpm. This editor is attempting to promote a book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.I dsagree with the premise that the word greenality is in anyway promoting anything for personal gain. It is true that the coiners of this word are EarthPM. The foundation of EarthPm is that it is at the intersection of green and project management. Whether or not EarthPM is a commercial enterprise is irrelevant to the word greenality. As far as the connection to any blog, you probably know that in this case, blogs are not money making enterprises. Therefore I disagree with the assumption that the inclusion of the word greenality seeks to promote anything but a gauge in which projects, both the process and the product, can be assessed. This is a fledgling concept and is being fleshed out as we speak. As with any word, greenality will evolve over time. Right now the basic concept is what is being expressed. There is no doubt in our minds that greenality will become a candidate for Webster's or American in the future. Right now, we want it to be part of Wikipedia's leading edge of environmental definitions.--EarthPMDave 19:55 29 July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthpm (talk • contribs) 20:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see
    Rankiri (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Spartaz Humbug! 10:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Wasi Shah

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

Non-notable person, fails

WP:BIO. Although he is a minor poet and drama writer. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 11:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Spartaz Humbug! 10:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Fox-at-Twilight

Fox-at-Twilight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Fictional character from a series of non-notable books by a non-notable author. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me. I notice you were the one who split it off in the first place, so good solution. :) BOZ (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are third-party sources (in this case, things published by companies other than TSR and Wizards of the Coast) which have a "reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" (e.g., not personal blogs or wikis).
T • C • L) 22:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
That seems like a catch-22, as all of WotC's characters and plots are covered by copyrights, so no company but WotC can publish anything about the characters without copyright violation. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding the situation.Malchor7 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, more often than not, it is a catch-22, as many others have discovered (thus the endless debates regarding notability for elements of fiction). BOZ (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a reliable source were to review the books that the character is in, with a few paragraphs about the character specifically, that would help to establish notability. Its things like reviews, studies, and journalistic articles that can be used. –
T • C • L) 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After reading the article, I still have no clue what "Kiss Verification Methodology" is, so speedy delete as no context. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss Verification Methodology

Kiss Verification Methodology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. Would be spam but the external link don't work! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possible speedy delete as an article devoid of either
    keep it simple, stupid aphorism in "verification methodology", which sounds like That Sort of Thing to me. Most troubling thing about it is its open invitation to create an article about "functional verification components", which is surely going to be more of That Sort of Thing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD G3. NAC. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dandy Desmond

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

Non-notable per

WP:SPA. Per Ardua (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Per Ardua (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, Desmond is quite a phenomena, these days here in Thuringia. Just two years ago they discovered manuscripts in a bookstore in India and brought them here to do some analysis at the universities library (ThULB). They are authentic and currently there is a lot of research in progress about the composer - publications will follow and there has already been a small conference just a year ago with some contributions about Desmond and his work - which is by the way astonishing. Anyways his contributions where (luckily "where") lost for half a century though he had no influence and is probably not worth mentioning in wikipedia at all. One could give the topic one or two years and then consider opening the article again or keep it and wait for further publications about the topic. I'm not sure. --91.43.126.78 (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. I think the whole subject needs a meta discussion at the VP or listing at CENT but AFD is a poor location to decided on utility of the outline series of articles

Spartaz Humbug! 10:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Outline of computer engineering

Outline of computer engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unnecessary orphaned subarticle/list treated as if it's a parent article. Nothing here that can't be handled by the proper parent article at Computer engineering. Also, headers like "Essence of computer engineering" strike me as pretty POV.WesleyDodds (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've only recently become aware of the outline project, the idea being that an outline page is supposed to be a quick page of basic facts and quick links to more things, kind of like the "micropaedia" that the Britannica has (had?) starting in the 70s. Such pages have potential to be very good navigation aids, such as Outline of Japan. I can't vote a !keep on this one, because it has no context and is more like a list of computer engineering topics. Not a !delete either, because the people on these projects are genuinely interested in making outlines worthwhile. If someone, who can explain computer engineering in terms simple enough for people like me, wants to write an outline, I'd change my mind. Mandsford (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really, all that's in this article can be handled by the main article itself and any nav templates/infoboxes therein. It's basically redundant. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is it's attempting to cover the same scope as the proper article (that is, give a comprehensive overview of a subject), but with a list of links in lieu of substantive content. You don't need a separate article for that. Hell, you could accomplsih the same thing with a nav template, and it'd take much less space. More worrisome is the lack of clarity over what is supposed to be the main article, as Outline of computer engineering and Computer engineering both link to one another with the "main article" template. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I created the page in 2007. I have no intention to work on it currently. ~MDD4696 01:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think others will, since now there's an active WikiProject. DGG (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bad page is not a delete argument, give it time to be enhanced. Agree that the difference between this and Computer engineering is not that clear today, it does not give good context and is more like a list, but that does not mean that it should be deleted. --Stefan talk 03:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unnecessary content fork. How honestly do you see this page being enhanced in the future? The best way to enhance it, if any, would be to merge it into Computer engineering and enhance that article. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree, but if that is true why did you ask for DELETION and not merge??? Next time use the {{
merge-to}} templates. --Stefan talk 10:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Because there's nothing really to merge. It's a redundant and confusing content fork-slash-list directory. The computer programming isn't all that big to begin with, so there's no reason you need a separate main/daughter/unclear hierarchy article. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This edit shows how I see this page grow and why I think that it is NOT a small subject and it also (at least to me) proves how MUCH info there are in wikipedia today, which I can not find without lots of time of clicking. Good outlines makes this info easy to find. When you write an outline you need to really search wikipedia and find all these nice pages all over the place, when I started my edit I expected to add 5 - 10 links, I did add 28 wikilinks (the product specific ones might not fit but that is still 21). These additional links are not part of the
FORK but a navigational tool. Again just because both Computer engineering and Outline of computer engineering is not very good pages today and they have lots of overlap today is NOT a reason to delete. --Stefan talk 02:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Tell me: why not just make a
navigational template, which can perform the exact same function without having to be a separate page from Computer engineering? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Who said that he wanted to push for all of them to be deleted? Simply because the words "Outline of" are included in a title does not mean that it's off limits for nomination. If the goal of the outline project is to provide and maintain useful additions to Wikipedia, then be glad that Wesley has pointed out the extent to which this one falls short. Keep nominating 'em, Mr. Dodds. Mandsford (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there are other outlines doesn't mean you need there for every subject.
That's not a good rationale for determining whether or not an article needs to exist. This subject doesn't require a separate outline, and thus the page has no reason to exist. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
How so? There's nothing to suggest that this page will provide anything the main article cannot. It's a pretty small topic, and both pages are small. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trapper Keeper (South Park)

Trapper Keeper (South Park) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources to establish notability. — Dædαlus Contribs 08:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I am in total agreement that the lack of sourcing is appalling, but it seems to me that South Park is notable enough of a series for all of the episodes to have an article. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid argument, as notability is not inherited.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree with the idea that all episodes of a notable TV series are entitled to their own article, although I don't think there's a specific policy about it. In the early days of Wikipedia, these were useful for people to sharpen their writing skills by working on something that was of interest to them. Unfortunately, it led to the idea that every TV episode, character, catchphrase, etc., deserved its own article. With the advent of entertainment wikis, Wikipedia no longer needs to be the host for fanpages. This can be mentioned in the article about whatever season it was shown, and the larger version can be repeated at "South Park Archives", the entertainment Wiki. Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I too felt that the quality of many South Park articles was rather lacking and made a move to merge them to a general list of episodes, starting with season 1. Much to my surprise (and largely through the efforts of a single editor), these early episodes have been brought up to a high standard, with plenty of notability supplied. Check both these early and the very latest episodes for comparison with this one. This is part of a concerted drive to improve all South Park articles, so I have every faith that by the time this article is reached, it will be treated in the same manner.
    talk) 15:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong keep, as per previous consensus. As Alastariward points out above, we've had this discussion before. Questions were raised as to whether the individual South Park episodes were notable enough to warrant their own Wikipedia entries, and there was a proposal to merge them into a general list. After long discussions (
    South Park Featured Topic Drive. Given that consensus alone, this article should not be deleted. That being said, though, I will try to make some improvements to this particular episode's entry in the next couple days... — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - Hunter can fix it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And apparently, Hunter has fixed it. The only reason that this passes is that there is some "real world notability" established in that this was noticed in the press at the time that it was broadcast. Although Wikipedia is still top-heavy with TV character and sports articles, there is no right of entitlement for such things. All TV episodes will eventually be judged by the real world impact standard. Those pages that are limited to "I watched this the other day and here's what happened" will find new life in other wikis. Mandsford (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Yes and no. They will all be judged by notability, but more of them are notable than people think. I think Hunter has a LexisNexis account. or maybe he doesn't. Anyways, with such an account, sources can be found for every single episode of a lot of shows. It's too bad wikipedia doesn't have an account with them that editors can use, because then we could quickly and accurately determine which ones are notable, and which ones aren't. Most of the time, for older stuff, we're really just guessing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "And apparently, Hunter has fixed it." Actually, I was the one who added the sources. I'd just like to point that out... :-) Theleftorium 11:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Lefto. I guess I've been confused by these reassurances that "Hunter will fix it" and "Hunter will sort it out". I honestly had never heard of Hunter until yesterday. Mandsford (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice job, Leftorium! You beat me to the punch. ;) — Hunter Kahn (c) 18:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, thanks. ;) Can you check if there's anything else that can be added? I'd be nice if we could get it to GA status. Theleftorium 18:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys rock. How are you both getting all the (seemingly) offline sources? Is it something anybody can do? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mine usually indeed do come from LexisNexis. You should check your local library's website. Sometimes they have free access to Lexis or similar databases if you're a member of the library... — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LexisNexis to the rescue it seems, my Google searches never do the trick.
talk) 18:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
(ec) I use NewsBank for that. You need a library card number, though (but it's free). Theleftorium 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Spartaz Humbug! 10:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Onaka (grape)

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

Onaka (grape) is not sourced at all, and the grape variety does not appear notable. Google hits once wiki mirrors are taken out seem little more than 100. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with redirect to
    notable, and that means it shouldn't have its own article; but a redirect would be appropriate because it is a somewhat plausible search term.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment That sounds like a good solution.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Spartaz Humbug! 10:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The Climate Caper (book)

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

Unpublished non-notable book. Lacks substantial GHits beyond blogs and minor references. Absolutely no GNEWS hits ttonyb1 (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The book is on the verge of being published and will soon have numerous hits on google news. Please wait a few weeks. ► RATEL ◄ 07:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article was renamed to remove unneeded disambiguation. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 01:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You hit the nail on the head. Shouldn't have been created yet, but what do we do now? Awickert (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously we just leave it. It's already getting press mentions in Australia. It's clearly going to become part of this important global debate. I cannot understand the anxiety some editors seem to feel about deleting everything, immediately, even books yet to be published. I mean, whats the point of the {{future book}} template of not for cases like this? ► RATEL ◄ 06:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my knowledge of policy is pretty holey. So if there's already a template, I would agree even more with you. Awickert (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The purpose of the {{future book}} tag is it is to be posted on unpublished books where information can change quickly or some information may be in question. Its purpose is not to circumvent notability criteria. For example, if another Harry Potter book were to be announced by J. K. Rowling, there would be extensive media coverage well in advance of publication, but the details would probably change day-to-day. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that merely your opinion of the purpose of the tag, or is that documented somewhere? ► RATEL ◄ 01:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the template documentation? {{future book}} ttonyb1 (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And it doesn't include the sentiments you express above; in fact it has no bearing on notability at all. ► RATEL ◄ 01:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, that is exactly the point. It does not say the tag can be used to as an substitute for Notability. Unless you see that somewhere else in documentation, I do not see how you can make the jump that is a substitute. ttonyb1 (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your circular argument is not sensible to me, and your statement about no GNEWS hits is already wrong, 2 weeks before publication! I can only imagine how much more wrong you will become in a few weeks. ► RATEL ◄ 02:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of this unpublished book. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. we have a consensus now.

Spartaz Humbug! 12:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

-graphy

AfDs for this article:
-graphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pure dictionary definition with no hope of making encyclopedia article

  • The article name is invalid; article names in encyclopedias are supposed to be nouns or verbs (and not even adjectives), so it violates
    WP:MOS, whereas affixes are valid articles in wiktionary.[33]
  • The topic is invalid as well, the topic is supposed to be an underlying concept and not purely a word or purely lexical- that's what dictionaries do, and do it far better than we can here.
  • The article contains a simple list of words that happen to match a particular lexical pattern- again, dictionaries do it much better, and are usually more complete as well.

This is a textbook case of Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this is a dictionary entry with no realistic chance of recovery. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the naming violation. We should check with the Wikitionary people if they want any of this. Gosox5555 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The modifications are significant enough to make it a glossary under
      WP:GLOSSARY, not a dictionary article. However, there should be more sources.Gosox5555 (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
I don't think it is a proper glossary though. A glossary is used for a particular purpose, and are not simply chosen via lexical means, but this is just a grab-bag of words with a particular ending. There's no purpose for this article, it doesn't support another article or group of articles. It seems to me that it has the form of a glossary, but is still just a modified dictionary article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is primarily a list of topics presented in the encyclopedia. Its purpose is navigation to "graphy" topics (see
WP:LISTPURP). If a reader is interested in topics that end in "graphy", this list will help him find them. Wiktionary doesn't link to Wikipedia articles. The Transhumanist 17:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It's a list linked only by a lexical element though; there seems to be no other commonality between these words.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between a dictionary definition and an encyclopedia entry is to do with the nature of the article, and the form of the topic, not simply size. The wiktionary has many large entries, these are not encyclopedic. This topic is purely lexical, which is explicitly disclaimed in
affixes do not do well in the wikipedia; in the wiktionary they slot right in, it has over 200 of them, and is far, far more comprehensive.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
In theory, you could consider making it into a glossary, the wikipedia does have them, but I'm not sure why you would want to really, it still doesn't seem to me to reach encyclopedic to do that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is enough to keep it. The glossary of philosophical isms is about words that are linked by an inner meaning and is a constructive idea that can be used to generate new isms. OTOH this is simply a lexical pattern that is used to construct an article; it's not that dissimilar to listing all the words starting with the letter 'k' or something. Doing that puts it squarely in the dictionary style. If the wikipedia covered the different types of graphies like writing and studies in separate articles, then it might makes sense in theory, but in practice, I'm sure that it would still not make the grade.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really, with these types of articles being covered pretty well (and in future better still) by the wiktionary, they've become kind of pointless.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the wiktionary glossaries is that the listed links do not link to Wikipedia articles. So they are useless as Wikipedia navigation aids. As a list, this page is highly useful as part of Wikipedia's navigation system. The definitive annotations make it even more useful. The Transhumanist 00:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's useful is considered an incorrect argument at deletion reviews.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not if the usefulness is in disambiguating topics covered in the encyclopedia, like "graphy" articles, which can't be located via Wikipedia's search feature by typing in "graphy" (because the search engine does not report matches to parts of words). One of the main purposes of lists on Wikipedia is navigation, and this list does a very good job of that in an area where the search box fails. The Transhumanist 16:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would someone search for a page that has a list of words that end in graphy in an encyclopedia?
talk) 16:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
He wouldn't be searching for this page per se. If a reader was searching for "something-graphy", that is, for a graphy he could only remember the "graphy" part, he'd could type in "graphy", and he would find this page which would help him find the topic he was looking for. Or, if a person interested in photography wanted to explore other "graphies", he could type in "graphy" and would also find this page (it turns up at the top of the search results, because it redirects from "graphy", and because "graphy" is in the first sentence of the article). The Transhumanist 17:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is still a
WP:USEFUL argument, but apart from the fact that that is bankrupt here, I can't imagine that people would look up words in an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Basically, if we accept the argument that you can make a glossary on any lexical elements then you can make a single article on
WP:NOTADICT, but I don't think it works like that; this isn't a glossary any more than glossary of rockets would be it's just a list of words ending in -graphy.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, I think you might be right. I just remembered the conclusions we had come to regarding "glossaries vs word lists" at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Glossaries#Scope_-_word_lists_vs_glossaries. No time to re-review (please do!), I'm back off on wikibreak. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in the discussion that you point to in that post, Rfrisbie (RichardF) summed it up very well in favor of keeping these, even giving an example of a featured list that meets all of Wolfkeeper's criteria for deletion: List of English words containing Q not followed by U. It's a featured list, and therefore not "crap". If that list is not based on lexical factors, I don't know what is.
See Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 7#arbitrary section break inserted to aid editing 2.
The Transhumanist 02:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. Tell me, why is every single reference in that article pointing at a dictionary????- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OMFG I just read the AFD and the FAR for that. Basically it survived both because a bunch of stupid people think that the best tool to play scrabble is a dictionary an encyclopedia. Yeah, that makes sense, in their bizarro world, which has no dictionaries, I'm sure.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the article's name and the the article's intro indicate that we're dealing with a dictionary term, the article also provides a list. The list is valuable and should not be deleted because of other problems with the article. --Pink Bull (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be more or less arguing for transwiki-ing it to the wiktionary; I'd accept a vote to move it there.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

((since its been updated further discussion about the articles utility after the change would be useful.in sufficnet discussion for a consensus given the changes so far

Spartaz Humbug! 06:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)))[reply
]

Graphies isn't even a word!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, who needs wiktionary when you can just create a wikipedia glossary for each and every dictionary entry in it? I'm not kidding; let's do it!!! Twenty different definitions for a single word? No problem- it's a glossary of that word!!!!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If an encyclopedic entry can be created for every single word, I'm fine with that. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and fix. This is not a "textbook case of WP:DICT", it is a textbook case of an AfD submitted by somebody too lazy to think of ways to handle a difficult case. This could be a disambiguation page, or a redirect to a section, but it this would need editorial expertise. Submitting an AfD does not need editorial expertise. The question is, will Wikipedia benefit from
    dab (𒁳) 11:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toadfish Rebecchi

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

utterly non-notable, unsourced 'article' about a fictional soap opera character; it does have just lots and lots of plot summary. delete. cheers, Jack Merridew 06:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why would this article belong in the actor's article. It nvere mentions the actor, the article is (in part) specifically about the character?
  • Keep There are not a lot of soap opera character articles that would be worth keeping but (sadly) this character is one of them. The subject is a pop-culture figure in at least two nations. The article (
    sneer quotes in AfD nominations are not particularly helpful BTW) is not much chop at the moment but given the subject matter a reasonable stub could be created rather quickly. I support the general clean-up of character articles on Neighbours and Home and Away that appears to be taking place at present but this article, at least is one of the rare exceptions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I agree with those above, this character does seem notable enough to justify a wikipedia article. Dream Focus 06:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I think it would be a mammoth task going through old TV week magazines to source this, I believe the character is notable enough. I never had a subscription, so good luck with it (whomever cites it).
    talk) 00:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Multiple sources showing notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was

96 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Kleeb

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

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is

talk) 05:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Child injuries solicitors

Child injuries solicitors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertising for law firm despite removal of multiple refs to its websites and addition of .gov sources; biased,

poorly sourced information not suitable for article or merger into other articles without considerable work, especially when source editor realizes his/her commercial links will not be included in any resulting article or merger. Flowanda | Talk 04:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep;

NAC. POKERdance talk/contribs 02:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Absal

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

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete: I realize that you declined the CSD, but the sole paragraph in the article is a direct copyvio from the second paragraph of http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=54395&sectionid=351020102 and as such fits the CSD G12 criteria. Frmatt (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: After having seen the new page and looked at some of the references, I've changed my position to Keep as the original author has removed the CopyVio paragraph and it appears to be a notable company. Frmatt (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I did all the necessary corrections. The company's name was misspelled by presstv. Thus the difficulty to find references through a google search (including the co.'s own website). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.251.98 (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: not much about the company, hence why I nominated for db. If you want to keep it add more sources and notability, or else it will just be a stub class. TheWeakWilled 11:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Sourcing is adequate and article can be expanded. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a major Iranian company and is important in the home appliance market of Iran. Alefbe (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 21:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia Chiefs

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

No need for this crazy list. All of the people on this list are "red lines" and do not merit an article in the first place. Torkmann (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Redlinks never disqualify an article from existing. The point of having redlinks is the hope that those interested or versed in the history of the DCPD will create stubs or better about those who have lead the department. This is a fine example of a list, though I would suggest a rename to
    chatter) 04:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Oh, it is Torkmann again. Meets every criteria for a Wikipedia list. Well, not all are redlinks, there are four with their own articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable position and a list is an effective means to organize this information. These are the types of people who do have ample sources written about them during their postings in D.C., throughout their lives and in obituaries after their death. I have used red linked entries on other lists to create articles that its astonishes me never existed before and which I only realized might be candidates because I saw the red link as a starting point. Alansohn (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom - As Torkmann didn't give any valid reasons for deletion in his nomination, I'm taking that to mean that there are no good reasons to delete. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can you keep "per nom"? I am the nom, and I said delete. Torkmann (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Sarcasm. She actually explained it. You didn't give it a good reason to delete even though you were supposed to. Therefore you must think there isn't a good reason to delete it. She is agreeing with you that there is no good reason to delete it. It's a sort of joke. (I'm sure explaining it will ruin the comedy.) 66.31.229.247 (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you—while I hate explaining my own humor, I did think that I'd made my meaning sufficiently clear in the remainder of the !vote. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn. Dismas|(talk) 08:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. No reason to delete this seems to say it all.
    -- Banjeboi
  • Keep "No need for this crazy list" is not a criterion to delete it. It meets every inclusion criterion I can think of. The fact that the list consists mostly of redlinks is not a reason to delete it either, as an acceptable article could be written about most (if not all) of the people on the list, having the link there is a prompt to someone to create an article, and the list provides useful information about the person even without an article. Hut 8.5 19:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Census-designated place. utcursch | talk 12:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhauli,Darbhanga

Sidhauli,Darbhanga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Small town in India. There are no references, nor can I find any meaningful hits on google. Notability is very doubtful, unless some sources in another language can be found. LeSnail (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @186  ·  03:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep villages are inherently notable. Pzrmd (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable village, and is governed by a Panchayat. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 04:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real places are notable. JIP | Talk 04:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Inherently notable as a real place whose existence is verifiable
  • Speedy keep: The status quo of grographical places' articles is that all settlements that are verifiable are inherently notable -- Tinu Cherian - 12:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard H. Sylvester

Richard H. Sylvester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Simply being a police chief of a major city does not make one worthy of inclusion into this compendium. Not to mention what if if every police chief in history had their own articles. The subject has not innovated any useful changes in policing, and is not historically significant in the field of law enforcement. While many police cheifs who are notable and included in wikipedia have written books and memoirs, the subject of this article has written none. Torkmann (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so your the guy that added "Thomas F. Byrnes" as the originator of the term but didn't add a reference. Is this your way of punishing me for removing the unsourced statement? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not punishment, this is a discussion. The discussion is on whether this Sylvester fellow is a notable enough comrade for inclusion here. Please take note of a subject's notability, or lack therefore, before starting new articles. Torkmann (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just add references, it is less work than a retaliatory AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well looks like I now have a wikistalker. See Suffrage_Hike AFD
      • Another one? This is the second person you've accused of "wikistalking" in the past few weeks. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    WP:WAX is an extremely poor argument for anything, let alone deleting an article. There is no "must have written a book" policy for justifying notability. The coverage in multiple reliable and verifiable sources -- Wikipedia' gold standard for determining notability -- along with the innovations and accomplishments in his career at the national and international level all combine to clearly satisfy the Wikipedia standard of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. !vote by nominator stricken for procedural reasons.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I just read what WAX was, and in no way did I make that argument. Please stop mischaracterizing my statements to construct your "straw boy." I never said we shouldn't have this article because we don't have other articles on police chiefs. I said we shouldn't have this article because this guy did not accomplish worthy or notable enough things as police chief. Torkmann (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you allowed to nominate and vote? I think this a "bad faith" nomination and should be closed by an administrator. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Spectrum (comic book) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperion (Supreme Power)

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Benson

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

Fails

WP:ENT. Only played bit roles in a few TV shows. Gigs (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree. That's why I marked it for speedy deletion yesterday. Vltava 68 02:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Spartaz Humbug! 10:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

John E.S. Lawrence

John E.S. Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail

WP:PROF contested speedy by Dpmuk Gigs (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • There is so such thing as an "Adjunct (Full) Professor". The web page with the CV stating that he's an "Adjunct (Full) Professor" is pure self-promotion at best and academic dishonesty at worst. The terms "full professor", "associate professor", and "assistant professor" refer only to tenured and tenure-track faculty. Since an adjunct professor is a non-tenure track, part-time, temporary, non-salaried position, the terms full, associate, and assistant professors don't apply. Dgf32 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to carry on comments here as they're irrelvant to this AfD but a fuller discussion is on my talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no indication that the topic meets
    WP:GNG is not met. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What are you talking about? He's a regular adjunct professor. It says so right on his CV and on his faculty page. Gigs (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal: (i)
    WP:PROF #5. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment (in response to DGG) DGG correctly described a set of terminology in use at a very small number of U.S. universities that have abandoned the traditional academic titles in favor of creating their own systems, which usually are designed to correlate with pay grade. However, the vast majority of universities in the U.S. use the the traditional titles as I described above. Dgf32 (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Columbia University one of this "very small number of U.S. universities"? If not, then DGG's description of their terminology would not appear to be relevant to Lawrence. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Columbia University does not use the term "Adjunct Full Professor" for any faculty. All "adjunct professors" are referred to as such. Dgf32 (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Lawrence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment from subject - Just for the record, let me briefly explain my recent introduction to WP, because there seems to be misunderstanding here, and unprofessional statements being thrown around. Firstly, when (rashly) ignorant of WP criteria, my original purpose in contributing was in specific reference to Antarctic exploration, and to an exploratory expedition that I led to the Victory Mountains for the NZ government. That expedition is extensively documented (I have provided several independent, published references). If I remember correctly, my name was highlighted in reference to the mountain range which now bears my name, with what I thought was a request for further information on me.. so (then unaware of COI limitations) I offered such information, which can be seen on other (history) pages. All of that information is independently verifiable, and detailed sources were provided. As already noted, my CV, and a selected sampling of more recent publications (in books, reputable academic journals, and published technical reports) are available at http://www.cambridgedata.com/johnlawrence/ and in many other web sources. Whether it is `notable’ or not is a fair question, and for WP fairly to decide. But anyone would ask for, and expect fairness here. The reference below to my wife is wrong and uncalled for. She neither contributed to, nor knows anything about this page, or any of this discussion. I have published what I said I published, and any suggestion of `academic dishonesty’ is unfair and unacceptable. The point about no difference between ranks in adjunct faculty is also incorrect by the way. My rank at Columbia is that of adjunct (full) prof, not adjunct associate or adjunct assistant. Whether or not to delete this page is entirely within you folks’ judgment, and I respect that. My information on mountain exploration (documented in the Alpine Club Journals of New Zealand and the US as well as other journals), and on my work in human development and the UN system (on which I have been widely published) was offered, perhaps mistakenly, but in good faith. Jeslw (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if your personal article is deleted, your contributions to the encyclopedia are still welcome. It's not necessary to know all the policies before you start, so no one will hold it against you. We have higher standards of inclusion for standalone articles than we do for information inside articles. A subject must be both notable and verifiable to get its own article, information inside articles must only be verifiable and neutral. Gigs (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll defer to others to judge notability claims on the basis of exploration and such, but from the academic perspective the subject does not appear to have any substantive notability. I base this assessment on his claimed publication record, i.e. "he has over 100 publications". His website lists some conference papers, university reports, course materials/handouts, etc. Let me respectfully remind our commentators here that, with some very specific exceptions, institutions do not typically consider these as being of the same caliber as archival journal publications for the purposes of academic promotion, tenure, etc. There are a few entries that look like they could be journal publications, but they could not be readily verified. For example, the link he gives to Lawrence and Singh Sustainable Livelihoods and Employment, Int. J. Tech. Cooperation 3(1), 1997, 92-109 is dead – the journal seems to be defunct. I also checked
    WP:PROF criteria seem to be satisfied either, including #5 (as an adjunct). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC).[reply
    ]
Comment from Lawrence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment from subject

I am very hesitant to belabor these points, and appreciate the time spent by many on this, but again, not trying to justify `notability' but just for the accurate record, please remember that internet searches are very choosy, and there are many Lawrences. Middle initials are important. I just did a quick search for Lawrence J E S in the `Author Finder' of the ISIKNOWLEDGE data base of Web of Science, and immediately found five hits on my work, and a sixth under Lawrence J E. Anyway, surely John Wiley, Springer, Oxford University Press, UNESCO and Sage are reputable publishers (all of whom have published me as sole author) and Psychological Bulletin, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Evaluation Review, Evaluation and Program Planning, Human Resource Development Review, and the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science are reputable journals, all of whom (and several others) have published my work. For quick review of just 5 web references, please see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Jeslw (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum. Thanks. I've done a new WoS search using Author=(lawrence j e s), which returns 4 refereed publications, one having 8 citations, one having 3, and the remainder having zero. As for the additional references you list, I'm afraid that things like unpublished reports are not likely to carry much weight here, though I'll certainly let other commentators weigh-in for themselves. I regret to say that this doesn't change matters much. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment from Lawrence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Further note from subject

Again in the interests of fairness and accuracy, WoS actually lists 49 citations for my `Science and Sentiment' article for Psych Bulletin. 69.183.5.80 (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still more comments from Lawrence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Further note from subject again, in the interests of fairness and accuracy, WP editors' inability to find the `Science and Sentiment' article for Psych Bulletin is curious... it is referenced under Lawrence JE (as #53 in the first listing in ISIWK N=71)) and has been cited 49 times... anyway, until this series of discussions I had no idea about the web of science data source, and thank WP for introducing me... find myself reasonably placed with an index of around 5 with many more distinguished full-time colleagues, falling well short of WP `notability' criteria notwithstanding....the funny thing is, Ive only really been an `academic' since retirement! and by the way, does WP really stand behind `happenstance' as a standard of judgment for NZ Government selection of its NZARP field crews? . Jeslw (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every editor speaks for themselves here, not for the project. That said, notability rests on third party coverage. The "Lawrence Peaks" seem only marginally notable themselves (only a few mentions in scholarly works). Even if they are notable, notability isn't inherited. Gigs (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brief (and final) reply from subject Points well taken, thanks, but the `project' in general - which is an extraordinary contribution to knowledge, and increasingly well respected - will be judged substantially by the quality/integrity of its editorial process. Fairness and accuracy seem worth arguing for. Furthermore, my own case aside, resting the concept of `notability' mainly on western `scholarly' journals might be considered questionable itself in today's global environment. Value-added of professional contributions in different settings, regions and cultures (adequately documented by third parties) would also seem relevant. Anyway, perhaps that's a suggestion that should be made elsewhere.Jeslw (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic University Law Review

Catholic University Law Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a notable student group. There are no reliable sources that show significant coverage; all sources are self published. Was also written by a COI editor. Triplestop x3 00:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable student group, and at least as notable as the dozens of other student-edited law journals with wikipedia entries. This article is supported by stronger citations than many of those entries. Consider the following existing pages:

Chicano Law Review, Syracuse Law Review, Rutgers Law Review, Maine Law Review, and Duke Law Journal, among many others under the category "Law Journals." I fail to see the purpose of the category if Catholic University Law Review is not to be listed. Stout1070 (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Please see

WP:OSE. Triplestop x3 02:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Fair enough, but Catholic University Law Review enjoys inherent notability. Please see WP:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, before you respond. Stout1070 (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question What is "inherent notability"? Don't think this figures in the
    notability guidelines? --Crusio (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

As found on the

WP:OSE
page: "Inherent notability

While the Wikipedia community discusses the concept of "inherent notability", the concept is in limited practice through the use of precedent. As an example, generally speaking, any high school is deemed to be sufficiently notable for an article, but lower-level schools are generally not. While not a hard-and-fast rule, this is the status quo for Wikipedia inclusion and is consistently maintained through discussions of various schools, school districts, and their creatability and keepability (or lack thereof). Thus "inherent notability" is basically codification of OSE." Stout1070 (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Follow-up question The clause you cite speaks specifically of high schools (and I know many people disagree with that notion, but that is not the subject here). How does this apply to the CULR? The Catholic University Law School would be inherently notable, but as far as I can see, that would not apply for a journal published by it. Almost any scientific journal has some connection or another with a University, still, if not shown notable, they get deleted. Mind you, I'm at your side (I'm a member of
    reliable sources available that discuss the journal? --Crusio (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I didn't expect this, but turns out the journal has an impact factor and although it is not stellar, for every journal included in the Journal Citation Reports there are several that are not included. ISI is very strict on including journals in their database, so the 104 that they list under "Law" should be considered the top journals in that field. That's evidence enough for me. Apart from that, article needs some cleanup, but that can be done later. --Crusio (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to be a significant journal in its field.
    WP:OSE is nonsense -- "Other stuff exists" can indeed be a reasonable argument for keeping, particularly if similar articles have existed for a long time and been exposed to a large group of editors. That's called "precedent". Of course no two articles are exactly alike, but it is a useful comparison to see how well or poorly similar articles have been accepted by the community. Strikehold (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - academic journal,
    Catholic University is not my favorite school, but so what? Bearian (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient coverage in third-party sources to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca talk 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B.J. Schaffer

B.J. Schaffer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Child actor with a rather weak assertion of notability, aside from a seemingly dubious claim that he guest-starred on Saturday Night Live. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:00, 15 July 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) 00:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is a trip down memory lane. Being a regular host on Nick's
    Don't Just Sit There makes him notable even if nothing else does. Once notable, always notable. Memories may fade, but notability (according to wiki policy) does not expire with time. Aacoo (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)— Aacoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
Being a regular host would only make him notable if there was substantial coverage in
independent, reliable sources. Any chance you could hunt down those sources? A google search for "Don't Just Sit There" + Schaffer comes up with sources that trace back to him, a couple of blogs, and an IMDb entry that doesn't even say how many times he was on the show. Perhaps you'll be better at finding sources than I was. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 28 July 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 00:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked at his essay, and it describes his SNL experience as a single skit, not as having been a guest star. Given that and the complete lack of third-party sources, I just don't see how he meets any of the criteria. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No
    reliable source coverage to show notability; an article can only be written with primary sources, if kept.-SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 05:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca talk 21:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Things GNOME!

Getting Things GNOME! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Prod removed. Nonnotable software, no indication of notability. I see no sources outside of the typical sourceforge sources, and more imporantly, no indication is given in the article Shadowjams (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added some argument on the discussion page. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Getting_Things_GNOME! ). The main arguments are an article about this software notability are a reviews on Ars Technica and LifeHacker (two websites that have a wikipedia entry about them). Also, LifeHacker is not at all related with the OpenSource/Software world, meaning that GTG has reached a broader audience than the core Linux users. Also, GTG has an entry on French wikipedia with contributions of two established wikipedian. As such, it looks like GTG has reached a notability already greater than some other GNOME software with existing wikipedia pages (Galago_(software) for example). Admitelly, the software is young (less than a year) and its success is even younger (steadily growing since March 2009) but I, as a non experienced wikipedian, believe that the relatively young age of the project is not a discriminant factor. I'm of course biaised about this, being one of the developer, but I try to be as honnest as possible ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeploum (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on the Ars and LifeHacker articles. Those are both particularly big blogs, so being mentioned in them is a decent indication of notability. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm sorry but most blogs, regardless of the size, aren't reliable sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 28 July 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, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While a newsvine can indicate notability, a blog generally does not. Unless there is something else to indicate notability I'd say delete.Fuzbaby (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Triplestop x3 02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, not many sources. TheWeakWilled 19:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability, lifehacker is not an indication of notability. Jonathan Hall (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Elliot Mason

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

Fails on

WP:MUSICBIO. Hitro talk 07:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I have added reference to Elliot's solo performance with the JLCO on PBS, but I cannot find a good source which references his solo directly, other than video footage. I think any expert on jazz or trombone would consent that Elliot is one of the top players today, and is certainly notable. Unfortunately, literature with direct indication of this is scarce. I will continue to search for ways in which Mason meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, but I think anyone familiar with jazz trombone would see how ridiculous it is that his notability is being questioned..
One criterion for notability (as per WP:MUSICBIO) is "a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians. " Elliot has been a member of numerous notable ensembles, which include the JLCO, Count Basie Orchestra, Maynard Ferguson Big Bop Nouveau, Mingus Big Band, Maria Schneider Orchestra, Toshiko Akiyoshi Orchestra, George Gruntz Concert Jazz Band and The Temptations. I could add this information to the article. Abromwell (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited: Abromwell (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Reviews such as these: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43] specifically identify the subject and his solo performances. The article can use better referencing, but the information fromt hese reviews would indicate there is notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:MUSICBIO, bios from concert programmes are not significant coverage in reliable sources. Jonathan Hall (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
What about
WP:MUSICBIO #6? 146.130.97.105 (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russians in Singapore

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

Cannot find any non-trivial,

reliable sources
on this topic in either Russian, Chinese, or English. The "best" sources I located were:

  1. this blurb from a headhunting agency (bottom of the page, in Russian)
  2. this paper in the the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies which discusses Russian shipping via Singapore in the late 19th century (but not much about any actual Russians living there), and
  3. this newspaper article about how a few medical tourists came to Singapore from Russia or Taiwan.

Not exactly the stuff from which we can derive a proper encyclopedia article. cab (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is some information (in Russian) here [44] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.234.23 (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the link. But one newspaper article falls rather short of "non-trivial coverage" required by
      Ethnic groups in Singapore}}, the level of coverage is much greater: multiple newspaper articles, or even entire books. (With the exception of Pakistanis in Singapore, which I may also nominate for deletion). The information in that newspaper article can be added in a brief paragraph on Russian diaspora#East Asia. cab (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wonder if we should start a pool about how long it takes before someone claims that all "foo ethnicity in bar country" are inherently notable. Gigs (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability for this intersection. JJL (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Steve Bertrand

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

Delete as per

WP:MUSICBIO Only notability is a song that charted on Billboard, without citing which of the Billboard charts, and maximum position, but it was his band's song, not his as a solo artist. All of the material is listed on the band's article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 will place a copy of the article in

CORPORATIONS are found, the article can be restored. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Number 9 Audio Group

Number 9 Audio Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails

WP:CORP. Failed prod. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by Tylerbahlai

I am having a hard time finding any more sources for this wikipedia entry to make it more legit. Since the studio has been in business for 25 years, a lot of the references (magazines, newspapers, etc...) that I would like to use simply have not made it online. I did reference a Canadian Musician magazine article, however, and will endeavour to find more articles/listings in well-established, published resources.

What other resources can I use to further verify the studio? I will try to find more quickly, as I have no desire for this page to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerbahlai (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the exact
Wikipedia's criteria. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I have added two new references, including an article published in The Toronto Star way back in the day (1993). Is this enough to keep the entry afloat? I will add more offline published sources later, I just need to find them first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerbahlai (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, none of the references do anything to establish notability per
    WP:CORP#Primary criteria. Searching finds nothing significant either. Sure it exists, but there is nothing to show why it is notable.  Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 14:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Do not delete yet I found an episode of Much Music's disBAND where the studio is featured, and have added a reference to it in the article. The reference links to the episode page, where you can watch video clips of the episode. Will look for more references. Tylerbahlai (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Tylerbahlai[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San-j Sanj (xzecutive)

San-j Sanj (xzecutive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail

WP:NBAND. Web search returns little-to-no reliable third party sources and news search returns virtually nothing. SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I can find social networking sites and event announcements but nothing that would be considered a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced. Promotional. Doesn't seem to pass
    Rankiri (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Appears to be a duplicate nomination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nabil Abou-Harb

Nabil Abou-Harb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not establish

notability of the individual. Sparse IMDB page, few verifiable resources and a Google search for this person returns few hits about this individual. Most are about other Nabil Abou-Harb. HeatWillRockYou (talk
) 3:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[*Speedy close Article was kept July 21 [47]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. This debate needed more discussion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of Brothers

House of Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band with just two EPs released and no real evidence of notablity. Fails

WP:MUSIC - Delete Exxolon (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thani bin Jassim bin Muhammed

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

Non-notable person, Speedy declined and fails

WP:BIO, but it doesn't meet the notability requirements. There are over 16,100 Google hits and nothing to find the article. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 23:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge Keep -- notable figure in
    Al-Thani dynasty. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Based on what I see in the source [49], he would be more deserving of an article than most of the "notable" British royalty who have articles. If I read this right, he was the eldest surviving son of the ruler of Qatar at the time of the latter's death in 1913. Although I personally do not like the entire premise of the royalty articles, where someone gets an article because he happens to be the third cousin twice removed of Queen Elizabeth, the
    WP:ROYAL people have their own "special" criteria for European royalty. If we're going to pretend that being born into royalty is an accomplishment, then the Arabs should get the same privileges as the Europeans. I don't like the rules on royalty, but as long as they're out there, they have to be applied consistently. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I agree --- we shouldnt have such examples of systemic bias -- a Qatari editor or at least an Arabic speaker would be very useful here. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike British royalty, Qatar royalty have real power, so we can't really compare the two. --Pink Bull (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3Way (web series)

3Way (web series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Articles need independent coverage in multiple reliable sources in order to merit an article (see Wikipedia:Notability). Noisalt (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Claim of notability is dubious. For one thing, it isn't cited. Second, being "one of the first" is an empty phrase -- if it was "one of the first 100" out of 100 total, well, then, who cares? --EEMIV (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salem (Days of our Lives)

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

This article cites no real world sources, the notability is questionable, and most of the pertinent information is already contained in other articles. Rm994 (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Stewart

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

Entrant, and junior winner, in a talent content arranged by a local radio station. This does not appear to be a notable award as required by

WP:V. I42 (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources to verify this, and links provided do not mention the subject. Jujutacular talkcontribs 12:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Here is verification from a local newspaper. All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails
    talk) 15:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ DOI.org
  2. ^ http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001378/137873e.pdf
  3. ^ http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/520/1/42
  4. ^ http://erx.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/13/3/243
  5. ^ http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?database=ged&lin=1&mode=e&look=new&sc1=1&sc2=1&nl=1&req=4&au=%20Lawrence,%20John%20E.S
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_29&oldid=1142644660"