Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 22

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 21 October 23 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deletion (G7).

Matt Brown (actor)

Matt Brown (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

it's a blank page BurtonH0123 (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

G7), and there doesn't seem to be any objection to deletion. JamieS93 19:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The Bangellame

The Bangellame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently published book written up by the book's publisher who is also the grandson of the book's author. Despite requests, no evidence of notability has been produced, either for the book or its author. -- Sgroupace (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information with strike through above is false information. There is no evidence to support the above description, which is very misleading. --123flamenco (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the strikethrough. It is inappropriate to alter another editor's comments in an AFD. If the information is wrong, then you are free to point it out, and the original editor is free to retract the statement. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this discussion was already taking place here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Bangellame Shall I migrate the contents of the discussion to this page now? --123flamenco (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to copy the material here. The link you provided above allows editors to review the material. This discussion here is a result of a formal nomination for deletion of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - It's unclear why the nominator believes the original author of the article is also the publisher. The publisher is Su Su Publishing which has published very little. The original author has acknowledged that he is the grandson of the book's author. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apolgies. For "book's publisher" above, read "person instrumental in getting the book published". The strong, and admitted, COI is what I wanted to convey. Sgroupace (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is about a book that was published only last month. It does not meet Wikipedia's
    reliable sources about this book which shouldn't be too surprising as it was published last month. The book has not won a major award. It matters not if an illustration used for a book won an award, as the award is not for the book. Nor is the author of the book so historically significant that all their works are notable. James Joyce would fall into this category, but not Miriam Wilkinson. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I appreciate that some people at least give some thought to what they say in such discussions as this. I do not believe that this information can be found online. The articles from the early sixties are mainly kept on microfiche. Anyone who has ever searched through such archives will realize that 7 days to locate sources of this nature is rather too short. I simply haven't finished searching, however I know that several newspaper articles will be found, because I have seen them with my own eyes about 40 years ago. Not that I am suggesting that the wiki policies should change. I was simply unaware of these policies when I posted the article, which happens to be the first article that I have ever posted on Wiki. --81.135.80.178 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now there seems to be a problem. No matter how anyone tries to argue the contrary, my credulity is on the line and I have no choice other than to react with strong words. Perhaps some people try it on, I am not one of them. The way I see it: Sgroupace seems to have nothing better to do than invent false information. This by the way was both damning and extremely rude. Considering that anyone can read these words, I feel compelled to delete the damning tag once more. Though it should be somebody else that does that. Rather than suffer anymore indignation, I suggest that someone delete the whole article without further ado, including all links to this page because I am sick to the teeth of having to defend claims which are known to be true by not only myself, but by several other people. --81.135.80.178 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to see a page that says THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN DELETED written in bold. That would be worse than me digging a deeper hole for myself than I already have, with the help of Sgroupace - might I add. Just ERROR 404 will do! --81.135.80.178 (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 81.135.80.178 please sign in before editing. Why should your credulity be on the line? I believe every word you say. It is just that a) your claims are insufficient to establish notability and b) for Wikipedia we must have evidence. -- Sgroupace (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe I'm overreacting, it's just that the description at the start of this page makes it sound as if I am trying to avoiding providing you with more tangible evidence. The fact is that unearthing it could take a while, because I can't invest an unlimited amount of time searching through archives. The buildings I need to visit are not just on the corner of my street. It is not necessary to explain the criteria any further, and I apologize for my words above. I appreciate your last comment. --123flamenco (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you would need to search for archived material from the 1960's. At issue here is the book, and not Miriam Wilkinson, and since the book was published in September of 2009, there wouldn't be material to substantiate the notability of the book in those archives. You need to provide sourcing to establish the notability of the book. If you are trying to establish that Miriam Wilkinson is of such historic significance that all her works are also notable, then I'm, afraid you will not convince me, as that level of significance should be very evident, and as such would have a plethora of material available online. -- Whpq (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. However the archives will be searched. The relevance of the materials I uncover remains to be seen. I am sure you will appreciate that opinions sometimes change. I myself am not an art critic. The Bangellame is art, poetry, calligraphy, a puzzle. Unique among books, but then again it's not for me to judge that. --123flamenco (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability can be established. 123flamenco, what the article really needs to avoid deletion is third-party sources to establish its notability, such as book reviews. The only citation it has now regards Wilkinson's tapestry, which is not the subject of the article. If the AfD does result in deletion, don't worry, the article can be
    userfied for you to work on and find sources for without a deadline. BlazerKnight (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I wasn't aware that I could resubmit the article at a later date. I see that there would have to be more substance to the article and some history to the book. Well it has 30 plus years history, so far. It's just not notable by Wiki standards. Thanks for the advice. --123flamenco (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - Wilkinson's tapestries. There are several.
Voicing Concern: The Bangellame Wikipedia article appeared on Google search results faster than it was created, and was flagged within 60 seconds. Will Google's database be updated so quickly upon deletion? If not, what message will people see when they click on the link? Most people are not aware of the policies employed by Wikipedia. The first impression that I get when I see a notice of deletion is one of inappropriate content - usually meaning something bad. Are there any assurances that this will not happen? Would it be possible to display a message that does not convey this impression, or will The Bangellame have to wait up to three months as a consequence of my mistake? Updating Google search results can take up to three months. What exactly are the consequences of this deletion in terms of bad publicity? Perhaps three months is nothing compared to having already waited over 30 years to reach the printing press. Still I am having sleepless nights worrying about this. Would it be possible for Wikipedia admin to delete the page entirely rather than displaying a notice of deletion. I would prefer the following message: ERROR 404. Thank you. --123flamenco (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out that Wikipedia is NOT a vehicle for the promotion of the book which appears to be the reason for this article. As such, its appearance on Google is not relevant. However, you may request
speedy deletion as the author, and an admin will evaluate and determine if the request is within policy and act accordingly. -- Whpq (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
That doesn't answer the question about Google search results. I have more understanding now, after this discussion, and I am not contesting the point. Please understand that I have invested nearly a whole year in doing research, writing text and learning how to display it online etc... to promote something that I consider worth promoting. Adding an article to Wiki was a bad idea, but in no way an unreasonable one. Miriam Wilkinson has created some beautiful art after years of painstaking labour. She simply deseves recognition. I would not dream of promoting my own work on here because I am not at all vain. I would like her artwork, including The Bangellame, to be reviewed. Perhaps I should have invested more time in my own art which happens to be music, but instead I have sacrificed much of my time to this, and not without risk. I cannot make such a decision to delete the article until I know what the consequences are. This article is quite simply bad publicity and I do want the whole affair to end ASAP. I am not sitting at my computer day and night responding to all of these comments for nothing. This means rather too much to me for that. I have read more of the regulations regarding new articles and the deletion process. I didn't find an answer to my question above. I did discover that this AfD has not been conducted as and according to those regulations. I have allowed myself to become embroilled in petty arguments. Perhaps I didn't take much goading, but that is what has happened. The first result on Google points to this page which I am not in favour of - as it does not give a fair representation of Miriam. Nor would a sign saying THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN DELETED - as I have tried to argue above. I admit that I have made a mistake, but it was not intended with any malice. Three months with Wikipedia having the first link on Google pointing to a deleted article about the Bangellame is quite simply unreasonable. I have been pressed to meet deadlines and made some mistakes. What I want to know is what can be done about it. Thank you. --123flamenco (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely if Wikipedia can magically make search result appear on Google within seconds, they should be able to make them magically dissapear too. As you point out: This is not what the discussion is about, but I don't see the point in starting another discussion elsewhere. That might be of interest to someone else, and perhaps I could contribute, however my attention is focused here. --123flamenco (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say thank you to Whpq who has sent me a PM and been most helpful. If I were to request a speedy deletion, and the message were to read 'This article has been deleted at the request of the author'. I would find that acceptable.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close Not a deletion discussion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identity fraud

Identity fraud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Identity_theft#Identity_fraud_to_be_created Elvey (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Certainly a notable topic (to some extent it's my
    day job
    ), article shortcomings merely need some expansion.
OTOH, how about deleting this user with extreme prejudice for their choice of username? 8-( It's impossible to reconcile that username with any pretence of GF. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I usually tend to lean towards the deletion end, but this is an important notion and absurdly nominated.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did any of you follow the link I provided explaining the reason I proposed deletion? I think not! OF COURSE the topic is notable. Why do we need Identity theft and Identity fraud??--Elvey (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close - AfD is not for discussing mergers. If editors feel the two topics are one and the same, that is a reason for merger or redirection, not deletion. (And there isn't sufficient discussion to determine consensus at the link provided anyway.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After reading all the arguments, and every comment, I think it's fair to say that the only consensus garnered here is that global warming is controversial. The title of the article is clearly problematic; a significant amount of editors requested a rename if the article was to be kept, and considering that the no consensus closure will default to keep, I would suggest all parties work to find a suitable rename. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

AfDs for this article:
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The question to ask ourselves: Is a list such as this one anything other than a POV-push?

In my opinion, any list of the style “X's who Oppose/Support Y” is a POV push. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment i dont like the article name. it implies that all the scientists listed are opposed to a single, monolithic assessment of global warming. since we know that there are thousands of shades of interpretation of the data and stances along multiple gradients (scientific judgement on global warming cannot be represented as a simple line from "very opposed" to "totally supporting"). the sections do break down the scientists into categories, but i would submit that doing this is OR, unless these categories are clearly defined outside WP and used by scientists to self identify themselves. I am not sure a name change is possible or could salvage the list. perhaps (let me think here), "Scientists wholly or partly critical of global warming theory". this would allow for scientists who may prove to be mostly supportive on balance, but have reasoned critiques. as it is, the title sets up a subtle POV: "aha, here are reasonable people opposed to the big bad mainstream" which, while obviously summarizing notable points of view, by omission ignores much of the debate within the scientific community around many of the specifics of GW. I would say, to leave out any critical voice, however close to mainstream they are, from a notable scientist, in an article with this subject is inherently POV.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mercury above makes a very important point. Clearly there's a whole spectrum of counter-consensus opinion on climate change, ranging from people who disagree with aspects of the current scientific consensus to those who reject the whole thing out of hand. Lumping them all together into a single broad-brush category of "opposition" is not only inherently POV, it grossly misrepresents the gradient of opinion that exists. The conception of this article is fundamentally flawed. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per others who say the concept of the article is fundamentally flawed. There's no value a list like this could serve beyond what might be covered in Climate change denial or something similar, if the scientists themselves are notable and have a position to contribute to that article. If they don't have a notable position that would go in that sort of article, there's really no point in listing them off. --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree - inherently misrepresents. Categories will handle this better than a list. Hipocrite (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't know how to link, but I'm pretty sure you'll find that we had categories of this kind, and they were deleted, on the basis that they were too blunt a classification device and that something like a list article was needed. JQ (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I suspect that the reason the category was deleted is because most of the scientists on the list wouldn't fit into any neutrally worded category about climate change denial because the goal of this list is to misrepresent the views of people who have minor technical objections to various models as supporting the finge nutzoids who believe that cow farts are a larger threat to global climate that SUVs. Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an important/highly current topic. It could go into a different article Climate Realists or similar, as long as it doesn't make the article to large. rossnixon 01:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Do you have an answer to the position that an article such as this is inherently pushing a POV and violating our OR and Synthesis policies? ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 01:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with my comments from the 1st AfD: The list starts by a short and clear description of what "opposing mainstream scientific opinion" is, and then describes the conditions that have to be met, to "qualify" for inclusion. The quotes are there specifically to ensure that each scientist is indeed placed correctly on the page (per
    WP:NPOV
    is upheld):
    1. as a list to show that consensus doesn't exist.
    2. as a list to show how few scientists really are in opposition.
I suggest that people take a look at the discussion archives, to see that there indeed has been a very thorough review of each inclusion. The editors have strived to keep away from
WP:NPOV, since we have "anti-" people who are pushing to get as many scientists on the list as possible (to show that statements of consensus is wrong (i presume)), and "pro-" people who are trying to keep people out of the list. --Kim D. Petersen 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment If point #1, it probably runs afoul of
WP:UNDUE
, giving too much weight to an argument that consensus doesn't exist (consensus never means everyone agrees). Listing off every scientist that doesn't agree gives the false impression that there is a "controversy" greater than there actually is.
If point #2, it probably runs afoul of a number of things Wikipedia is
WP:NOT. The Discovery Institute, by comparison, publishes a list of scientists who disagree with evolution, for the sole purpose of making it seem that there is a controversy and that intelligent design is something scientists seriously consider, when of course that's not actually the case. This "article" is exactly like that, and that's not the purpose and goals of Wikipedia. --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment And my argument is that the article is neither #1 or #2. And exactly because people divert in how they are interpreting the list from two such very different positions - shows us its NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "science of GW is settled" POV is predominant, and this article/list shows that there is notable opposition to the "consensus" position. The mainstream position is made up of key conclusions, and the list is grouped to indicate where the various opponents "stick". Opposing a key (i.e. crticial to the position) conclusion doesn't put one on the "gradient of opinion" it puts one in opposition to the position. To suggest that this list belongs in "Climate Change Denial" is to assume the POV that those listed are inherently wrong in their conclusions (as if the very "denial" name of such an article). If the general GW related articles related such opposition in an open and objective manner, then I would say delete it as redundant. LowKey (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That argument, that the purpose of this article is to list off the oposition in the way you describe, makes this article a POV fork. --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also,
    WP:OR issues concern me with this article/list/whatever the hell it is. Crafty (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per previous AfD discussions. It's a legitimate article. (If any particular bias or POV is evident, it's probably from the exclusion of particular scientists.) ~ UBeR (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the list is POV, it counters that by explaining right from the get-go that these scientists oppose the mainstream view (which is explained). The quotes acceptably show the stance of each individual scientist (And NOT the opinions of their fields of study, employers, publishers, etc), and are very reasonably organized into section based on their position in the gradient of opinions regarding global warming. The fact that these are the minority counter the argument that "X's who Oppose/Support Y" is POV, as such lists will always be POV. To have an article listing all the scientist who have formed an opinion would be pointless, and this list serves to show the minority viewpoint. If only the majority viewpoint is shown, that is just as much a POV violation.
I think this nomination is a misrepresentation of what wikipedia is striving to achieve with its NPOV guideline. The list could be cleaned up, but certainly not deleted, on the basis of NPOV. It's removal would make a POV assertion that all scientists agree that global warming is real (Which is certainly not the case). So I ask: What POV is being pushed? That global warming isn't real? Hardly the case. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well said, i wish id said this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This is a key page that captures an important section of the debate on global warming. It would be inappropriate to delete it. Tom Dietz (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Scibaby.[reply]

  • Delete or rename to 'List of scientists by position on climate change' and give
    WP:DUE weight to all the scientists supporting the "mainstream scientific assessment". I doubt if the latter is practical, the current format gives WP:UNDUE weight to the "tiny minority" of nay-sayers, so I suspect deletion is the most practical alternative. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What is your view of the
    WP:OR problem? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The arguments in favour of deletion seem to be different. I don't see anyone in the last discussion making the case that we've seen in this discussion that this article is a piece of
    original research. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment I agree with ChrisO. How is this article not
synthesis? --Nealparr (talk to me) 09:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Why would it be synthesis? What "conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" does it reach? It's a collection of different opinions, not a synthesis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a quote farm of any scientist who has ever made a statement that doesn't match -a- IPCC consensus statement, irregardless of the current 2007 conclusions, which would be the current mainstream assessment of climate change, and irregardless of whether the person actually opposes the current IPCC consensus statement. Many of these quotes are pre-2007, with no indication of whether the person quoted has revised their opinion in response to that assessment. There's little indication of whether the quotes are actually about the IPCC statement, whether they were speaking directly to the consensus statement, or just commenting about climate change in general. These are not quotes opposing the consensus itself (which would refer directly to the 2007 consensus statement by IPCC), but rather random commentary on climate change from random dates. It is sythesis to take the climate change commentary, attach them to the consensus statement, and then push the original position that these are opposing consensus itself. One may, after all, disagree with various aspects of a consensus without directly opposing the consensus. We see that all the time here at Wikipedia. It's fully
five pillars than just NPOV. --Nealparr (talk to me) 10:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
For brevity: if a quote doesn't refer directly to the consensus statement itself, and doesn't state that it's in opposition of that consensus statement, and here we push it as being opposition to the consensus statement, that's
WP:SYNTH. --Nealparr (talk to me) 10:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
As a side note: In theory, an ambitious editor may want to write an article titled "List of scientists who have opposed a mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", and list only quotes that directly refer to such an assessment, but that's not this article. It's fundamentally broken because it makes a present-tense assumption that is impossible to support without original research, real-time sourcing, and immediate maintenance. --Nealparr (talk to me) 10:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can document or rationalize that any of those on the list do not hold that opinion anymore, then please point it out - since then they must be removed (and are). Great care and extreme amounts of discussion and weighting has been applied to each and every scientist on this list. You seem to be of the opinion that this list represents a specific viewpoint, but have failed to notice that the editors of the list are from both sides of this issue. (and its very well weighted as well between those sides - roughly 50:50). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking me to prove a negative. I think the burden of verifiability works the other way. The title says "opposing" (present-tense).--Nealparr (talk to me) 17:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - the reasons given for deletion are exactly the same as have been given, and rejected, in previous deletion debates for this article. They are, as they were before, incorrect. As someone who strongly disagrees with the folk listed (has anyone noticed that the people listed are not all scientists?) it is clear to me, and has been explained on talk, and in previous AFD's, that this article *isn't* POV pushing. Those not capable of reading the past are doomed to repeat it, it seems William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator's argument isn't the only argument under consideration. The article has many other problems that make it inappropriate for Wikipedia. The real question is: Is this article fundamentally flawed as it is conceived? The answer is yes. --Nealparr (talk to me) 14:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From your rhetoric I understand that you don't like the article, but
that's not a good argument for deletion either. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
But it's not that I'm arguing. I'm arguing that it fails Wikipedia criteria. There's a huge difference. --Nealparr (talk to me) 15:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said "The article has many other problems" but didn't specify what they were, then you asked a rhetorical question and answered it, now you say "it fails Wikipedia criteria" but don't say which criteria or why it fails them. I see rhetoric but no substantive arguments there. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gandalf, my objections and what criteria are failed have been stated clearly. Please read the entire AfD. --Nealparr (talk to me) 15:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invitation, but no, I'm not going to chase round the whole AfD responding to all of your comments elsewhere. That would be a rather obsessive sort of behaviour, wouldn't it ? I am done here. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hostile much? I meant this thread. Geesh. --Nealparr (talk to me) 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article, as conceived, is always going to have serious problems with
    WP:WEIGHT, inasmuch as it attempts to overrepresent the significance of a minority viewpoint contrary to the scientific consensus. ("Anthropogenic climate change isn't real! Look at this long list of scientists who oppose it!") TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I would argue that it is important for people to see who opposes the mainstream science and what their arguments are. It is easier to combat the arguments that way rather than having some nameless bunch of 'scientists' muddying the waters with occasional quotes and half baked research. Wikipedia makes this possible by giving the reader the information rather than hiding it away.
talk) 14:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The problem regarding SYNTH, though, is that our list makes the claim that these are people are opposed to the mainstream consensus, which isn't verifiable. That one might grumble certain conclusions, or voice a disagreement on a particular point, isn't the same as directly opposing a consensus statement (for example, by signing a petition or something similiar). That's why it's SYNTH. We're assuming these people are directly opposed to the stated consensus. That's simply not sourced. --Nealparr (talk to me) 15:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easy. Each group of scientists in the list is categorised by exactly what their research/comments say. For example 'Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes' or 'Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable' therefore not wikipedia OR to put them into these categories if that is what their research/statements say. Each of these subtitles expresses a view contrary to mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. There is little doubt that the IPCC report is the best guide to mainstream opinion on global warming, it being an intergovernmental body set up by the
talk) 15:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete Enough said already. Ignignot (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing about the article violates any Wikipedia rule that justifies deletion. ScienceApologist and others dispute that the IPCC statement should not be equated with mainstream opinion. That isn't a deletion argument because it's best left to the article's talk page where it can be debated whether or not it's OR to come to that conclusion. If it is OR, the problem could be solved by renaming the article to replace "mainstream" with "IPCC" -- no deletion necessary. Another objection is that the necessarily short items on the list don't account for nuances of opinion. But there isn't space for nuances, and it's reasonable to summarize opinions. Nuances are best left to the individual articles on the scientists, but if someone has said something contradictory, conceivably both quotes could be put in the list article. This is not the forum to take content disputes. The solution to a content dispute may be elsewhere or nowhere, but not here. Repeatedly returning here wastes a lot of people's time. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If those supporting the consensus about global warming on Wikipedia had been a bit less POV in their attempts to quiet any mention of dissent by knowledgeable scientists, their arguments for deletion would make more sense, but that horse left the barn long ago. Article is entirely composed of otherwise notable figures who have publicly dissented from the claimed "everybody who knows agrees" consensus. htom (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--The following (down to the "so moved" comment) was moved from the top of the page. Let's all wait our turn in line. I won't edit war over this, but it would be fair to say that sticking comments at the top over the objection of others is disruptive. Admins please take note. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Addition by Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served:

Other issues include:

  • The talk page archives show numerous examples of attempts to find the most extreme quotes possible, instead of allowing any nuance to their views, e.g.
    Original research
    .
  • WP:NOTDIRECTORY
    explicitly forbids lists of quotes
  • WP:POVFORK
    , and others do not allow articles which advocate for the fringe view at the cost of the mainstream. The severely weakened presentation of the mainstream view, with constant references to the dissent from it, misrepresents acceptance.
  • This article is typical of advocacy lists. For instance, [1] discusses a creationist quote mine book, [2] is an example of a typical quote-mine in the wild.]
    Objection (your honor :-) ) I find Shoemakers addition here at the top problematic. He is not the nominator, and thus this is an attempt to get his view a preferred spot. Now i have nothing against Shoemaker presenting his argument - but it sets a bad precedence to move comments around this way. I could also answer several of his assertions - but will refrain and prefer that his and my comment be removed - or moved to the correct spot. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--so moved JohnWBarber (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of my complaint. If the inclusion criteria involves the IPCC report, how many of these have nothing to do with the report? Looking over the list, I find that some of the quotes directly reference it, but many (most?) are just comments on climate change in general. Which is which? --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to a neutral title like 'Scientists opposed to global warming theory'. Strongly object to the word 'mainstream' in the title. The entire article attempts to obfuscate that there are is a very large body of scientists that have rejected global warming theory, and attempts to portray dissent in only select segments as the only dissent. The topic should have more coverage of the large body of scientists who disagree with the theory of global warming.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This smacks of sweeping scientific dissent under the carpet, the disruptive use of tags should also be removed. Justin talk 20:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obvious time waste doing this again. Sure not perfect but adequate --BozMo talk 20:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep There is a conspicuous under-representation of minority and/or dissenting views on any of the other global warming articles; Keep is conditional upon Renaming the article and changing the format to something more encyclopedic (i.e. not a list) Voiceofreason01 (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. I don't think it's hopelessly OR, but summarizing the quotes would be good. It's kinda like wikiquote right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is under-representaion of minority / dissenting views on global warming both within and without WP. Protection of rationally-expressed opinion is important, and even more so when it concerns a minority. Problems with the article can & should be fixed, but that is difficult to do when it is under such consistent attack. I would suggest that if keep is decided, then there should be a longish period before the issue is mooted again. Contributors deserve a chance to cool down, and put in some hard work. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many of those who want to keep the article seem to argue as follows: Global warming is wrong. Therefore anything that supports the 'fact' that global warming is wrong must be right. Clearly this is not true -- bad arguments can be advanced even for good causes. This list, for reasons clearly spelled out above, is a bad argument. The question of whether global warming is a liberal lie is moot. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That there are people willing to suppress free speech is frightening enough, that they want to suppress it while screaming they are doing it for the good of mankind is downright scary. The people who are screaming for deletion remind me of the Inquisitors trying to root out heretics. All the scientists quoted in the article are well respected and they have points of views that need to be heard over the clamoring sameness of what people get to hear in the main press outlets. Post the "the objectivity... blah, blah, blah warning and let adults decide for themselves. Say no to censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottca075 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please mind
    WP:CIVIL. There is no need to start attacking editors who disagree with you about the deletion of a deeply flawed article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete This approach fails
    WP:WEIGHT and there's no way to fix that IMO with this format. It is for this reason that it becomes a POV fork. Colin°Talk 09:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep. It is important to be able to have access to the opposing views on climate change and its causes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

  • Delete. We don't need POV-based lists on Wikipedia. This article is questionable regarding
    Offliner (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • (e/c)I'm not entirely in disagreement on the scientific qualification part, but that is something to discuss on the talk page - the trouble is getting an agreement on what a "scientist" is. I'm open for opening up that discussion again. As for the "said at one time" part, i've just been over the list again, and there are very few where i would be in doubt on their current scepticism, most of them have a long history of stating things contrary to the current consensus. But again - if you are in doubt about any of them, the usual procedure is to remove that person, and start a discussion on the merits of inclusion (here is an example [3] (by random - i didn't check how it went, nor read through it)) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can any list be NPOV when the lede starts off outlining inclusion criteria that are, in fact, POV and OR-ish.
  • It should not be interpreted as...
  • Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change...
  • In judging opposition to the consensus, each scientist's statements are compared...
  • For the purpose of this list a "scientist" is...
None of those POV statements are sourced to a third-party reliable source. They can't because they are solely the opinion of Wikipedia editors. By comparison, consider the proper Wikipedia statements such as "Dr. Smith argued that this list should not be interpreted as...", "The AAAS stated that the criteria for inclusion to the list is...", "Dr. Smith made a comparison of...", "In the AAAS's list, "scientists" were defined as..."... It's impossible to write these properly written statements when it's original research. We have no one to
attribute the statements to. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Bang on. Nealparr hits the nail on the head. Fences&Windows 02:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Every Wikipedia article involves necessary editorial judgments about what to include and how. It's impossible to avoid that. Normally, articles don't discuss that, but
WP:PSTS -- in other words, a reliable source should be cited for each name on the list. But not even that means the list needs to be deleted. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:LIST does not state that while including a statement of criteria for inclusion, ignore NPOV, and ignore OR. For or against global warming isn't the issue. The list tells people not to misinterpret it, and it makes non-neutral statements about things like what is and isn't global warming skepticism, who is and isn't a scientist, and what is and isn't harmful. Those are all POV issues regardless of the for and against global warming issue. Editorial judgement does not excuse OR, there's no third-party reliable source that compiled the list. The list of compositions by Franz Schubert is referenced to a dictionary of Opera, ie. a third-party source that compiled the list. Ours is an original list, compiled through original research by Wikipedia, and it certainly isn't reliable research (as we're discovering going through the list item by item). The criteria for inclusion fails basic core Wikipedia policy. --Nealparr (talk to me) 15:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nealparr - are you arguing that any Wikipedia list is OR unless it has been sourced from a single, specific third-party reference list ?? Really ??? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I didn't say that. While most lists do mirror a real-world published list or catalog independent of Wikipedia (list of countries, discography, list of books by an author, etc), a fact-based list doesn't necessarily have to mirror a published list. A list that is inherently opinion-based certainly does, is certainly OR otherwise. This list explicitly states that it doesn't reflect, for example, a petition list published elsewhere. It relies solely on the opinion of Wikipedia editors to decide what does and doesn't constitute opposition to the IPCC consensus statement, who does and doesn't qualify as a scientist, what does and doesn't qualify as global warming skepticism, etc. It's not a fact-based list. It's an opinion-based list. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we assumed that you were right and that the article violates OR, you still haven't shown that the list is so inherently WP:OR that it can't be fixed, therefore you haven't given a deletion argument. You certainly haven't shown that
Wikipedia:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a POV, which allows such articles (Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.). Nowhere does it say that an article about a POV can't also be a list. JohnWBarber (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
By opinion-based, I don't mean that it is problematic because it is a list of opinions. I don't personally have a problem with that. It's the inclusion criteria that is opinion based, and that inclusion criteria is the basis for this "article". That's why the article itself fails, inherently, and (I feel) should be deleted. Recovery of the article to make it policy-compliant would require formation of neutral inclusion criteria that outlines a solid plan for avoiding original research (for example, requiring a reliable source that states that the opinion is in opposition to the consensus, versus relying on editors to make that judgement), removal of entries that don't meet that criteria, retitling, and so on. I'm not opposed to any of that. A list of dissent to global warming consensus is not by itself flawed. The thing is, with the necessary changes to make it policy-compliant, it would no longer be this article. It'd be a whole new article that barely resembles this article. I don't feel that the concept for this article can be fixed. I feel it's inherently broken, and that the general topic idea from which the concept of the article derived deserves a do-over. --Nealparr (talk to me) 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The
WP:PSTS (tertiary sourcing) standard I brought up is not applied when editors add sourced criticism to a regular article (for example, we don't need a third-party source saying Roger Ebert disliked The Adventures of Foo to simply state that in an article with a quote or even just a footnote to the review -- and we do this kind of thing normally, throughout the encyclopedia). So it's debatable whether or not we need that kind of third-party sourcing here. I should have read PSTS more closely. The subject of this article is to list what various scientists believe on certain subjects, and WP:PSTS actually says it allows that kind of sourcing (Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. The "descriptive claim" would be to describe what that subject's opinion is). Editors are normally considered competent enough to identify criticism or (in this case) skepticism when they see it. It doesn't seem like a leap to say that a comment that is skeptical comes from someone tho is therefore skeptical and could be termed a skeptic, at least skeptical about a particular point. And the article tries to make distinctions about what these people are skeptical about. If the article fails in that regard, it doesn't seem too complex a problem that simple editing (no matter how contentious) of individual items can't fix it. So the inclusion criteria used by the article look like a solid-enough plan already. JohnWBarber (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
A primary source is fine as a reliable source if the person is explicitly stating that they are disagreeing with the IPCC consensus statement (like a petition or some other example of expressed disagreement, or them outright saying they are disagreeing, for example). All I said is that the criteria should state that a reliable source needs to demonstrate the opposition rather than relying on editor's judgements. A primary source can do that, sure. It doesn't need to be a third-party. How that contrasts to what is going on in this article, however, is that editors are sourcing "X said this" and originally synthesizing that "it contradicts Y" to form the "conclusion Z" that X is in opposition to Z. None of that is reliably sourced (primary, secondary, or tertiary) and is
based on the opinion of the editor. I've stated my opinion that this means the concept for the article is fundamentally flawed, but I'll let everyone come to a consensus on whether that is true, but that is what's going on in the article due to the current inclusion criteria. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
All the scientists on the list have statements that are in contradiction to the basic points of the scientific consensus. Where you go wrong here is to assume that the consensus is only and singularily defined by the IPCC, and thus that any statement must be specifically directed towards the IPCC. Sorry but that is incorrect. The IPCC is an assessment of the scientific consensus - not the definer of it. See
Scientific opinion on climate change for this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Then drop the line "In judging opposition to the consensus, each scientist's statements are compared to the most recently released IPCC report at the time of the statement" from the criteria that the list is based on. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More problematic: Drop that line and then decide how to justify entries that were made according to that line, entries that are sourced based on the consensus "at the time of the statement" (temporal problem), like sources that are pre-2007 consensus. According to the IPCC, there's stronger evidence in recent years that man is the likely contributor. Earlier comments wouldn't be opposing that consensus. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge: Not seeing any new arguments here in favor of deletion. Criteria for inclusion is very strict, built from prior consensus. Viewpoints and individuals discussed are sourced and noteworthy, and total elimination of any description of AGW dissent would be a
    disservice to the encyclopedia. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 02:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • COMMENT If it's so strict why are non-scientists included? Verbal chat 10:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to be confrontational, but who in the article would you classify as not being a scientist? A large part of the controversy surrounding this article is the question of how we determine who is or is not called a scientist; such as whether the field of one's doctorate prevents them from being classified a "climate scientist." »S0CO(talk|contribs) 20:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a fine article that describes an important part of the debate on global warming. Please keep this article in place. Razor Occam (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC) This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Scibaby[reply]

  • Delete: The article from beginning to end is a synthesis of sources, with each quote removed from its original context and used instead merely to justify the scientists' inclusion on this list. Very few of these quotes were intended to self-identify as a "climate change skeptic" so the list really shouldn't be here. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whose positions are being misrepresented? If you can demonstrate that content has been taken out of context in order to change its meaning and synthesize a position for anyone in this article, please do so so that the error can be corrected. If not, then this charge is groundless. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 20:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given several questionable ones have been found and are being discussed on the article's talk page, at a quick look-through, I think that the burden of proof is that they aren't misrepresented. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 214 FCs served 20:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - and the claims are under review, which is what I suggested in the first place. Demanding burden of proof that the positions aren't misrepresented as criteria for inclusion is
WP:RS will have to do unless we intend to personally petition each of the listed individuals for confirmation that they made those statements. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 20:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Excatly wrong. Well, at least "Jc-SOCO" and "Shoemaker's Holiday" mean completely different things. However, because misrepresntation is common in the real world for these views, it should be the burden of the editor adding the material to ensure that the quote really is in opposition to the IPCC consensus, was after the IPCC consensus, and was not taken out of context. Richard Lindzen is a good example; the quote doesn't show opposition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the editors responsibility, as well as the responsibility of the editors that watch the article. You are wrong with regards to Lindzen's quote - it was/is in response to the TAR (which he was an author of), the SPM quoted was accepted Jan 20, 2001 and released right after. Lindzens quote is from April 2001 after the release. And as you can see on the talk page, he still holds that view (with statements from 2009) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find the delete arguments unconvincing. Selecting and classifying the quotes is not OR, but rather normal editorial discretion - we do the exactly the same thing whenever we decide what to include and what to reject for any article. The fact that both proponents and opponents of the AGW consensus claim that the article is (the other) POV and that other opponents and proponents claim that its NPOV is good evidence that it is in fact reasonably neutral. Of course its not perfect, but then what article is? On the positive side, this article gives us a way of properly accounting for extreme minority positions that otherwise would be impossible to integrate without giving them

undue weight. It also concentrates the debate in one central place where it can be presented in adequate context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Random Break

Comment. There's a lot of editors that claim the IPCC as a concensus statement, and that disagreeing with that statement is opposing mainstream consensus. However, there is, AFAIK, no connection like that in any WP:RS. (It would have to be a sociology of science paper, I'd imagine.) ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 00:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The good-faith intentions of the article are not achievable without extreme
    verification that the scientist has not later repudiated the statement (people change their mind, particularly scientists upon viewing new data). Third, the lead claims that the list shows scientists who have opposed one of three principle conclusions; however, many of the quotations appear to have no connection with the particular IPCC conclusion (the scientist may very well oppose the conclusion, but it is up to the reader to infer that without verification). Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Keep This article is needed to maintain NPOV balance, amongst the current crop of global warming related article. It serves a necessary function. Green Stoole (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Green Stoole is indef blocked as another Scibaby sock)--BozMo talk 08:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)— Green Stoole (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per Science Apologist ATren (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without the quotes (the
    WP:BLP violations aren't going on? As a "pure" list, no reader or editor will be able verify whether a scientist merits inclusion on the list or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Source A + Source B = Unsourced C is original synthesis. Providing sources that state C directly is not. It's entirely possible to write a list that uses C sources without running afoul of the original research policy. Sourcing C directly is just research. Combining sources that don't say C directly and concluding C anyway is original research. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, some of the sources in the list do directly state C. What's wrong with just using those and having a shorter list? --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete and salt With issues centered around
    WP:NOT (it's a directory, wikipedia articles should not be) there is absolutely no way to salvage this article. Would have commented sooner but just noticed the AfD now. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. This list is just a quotefarm used to fuel talk page soapboxing; it's not here for encyclopedic purposes. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WVBluefield (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violation of
    WP:OR in taking a single quote from these people and does not take recent changes into account. Reywas92Talk 20:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Overall the list is clearly original research. The classification of scientists into categories based on bullet points in the IPCC is not supported by any reliable source. The characterization of "scientist" is arbitrary and runs afoul of original-research concerns as well; there is no particular reason, for example, why one would expect an emeritus professor of nuclear physics to be more of an expert about global warming than anybody else. I don't see any way that this sort of partisan list can be constructed from individual quotes without conducting original research. Eubulides (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't decide on the deletion of this list. But as one of the first few editors to heavily push on BLP on the list and someone who has some occasional involvement in it, I can agree BLP issues come up all the time and there is a push by some editors to include people without sufficient sourcing to demonstrate they are opposed to the mainstream assessement. However on the whole I feel we do achieve a resonable job in keeping that out. On the other hand, perhaps the list is fundamentally flawed as some claim. I think issues like 'what is a list' and 'what sort of lists do we have on wikipedia' are important here, I've never really see any good discussion and I think a number of the issues raised here apply to many lists on wikipedia. One final thing, it's clear to me both from this discussion and my experience with the article that people on both sides (i.e. editors who support the mainstream assessement and those who oppose it) want it gone and want to keep it. I don't know if there's a clear distinction between the two. This shouldn't matter but I think it's important to say to avoid any claims of some sort of conspiracy from either side. Yet there will be some editors and some external parties who are glad when/if it's gone because they've 'removed propaganda by climate change denialists' and some editors and some external parties who say we're 'engaging in more suppresion of the real science as part of the climate change conspiracy' if we delete it and of course some editors/external parties who think 'oh no, we've removed a good list which demonstrated the claims of a conspiracy are nonsense and those actually opposed are a tiny minority' and some editors/external parties who think 'yes we've removed another attempt by the climate change conspiracy to smear good scientists because they dared speak out against the conspiracy/non-science' and some editors/esternal parties who think 'yes we've removed another attempt by the climate change conspiracy to mislead people into thinking there isn't a lot of scientific dispute about their conspiracy'. Again this shouldn't influence the outcome in any way, but I think it's important to understand. Nil Einne (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree completely, and as a sidenote, i will also add that i believe that the push for inclusion of the more fringe views on the main articles about climate change will be increased if this article is removed, since we now won't have any navigational aids to these. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BHTT --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. This isn't the kind of AfD I'd normally comment on, but some of the editing on that page seems inappropriate, particularly the addition of four warning tags defacing the article, and immediate reverting when I tried to remove them. The list seems useful, and the fervour surrounding it seems suspicious. It needs to be well-sourced, preferably with secondary sources, but so long as it is, there's no reason within policy to remove it. Because the idea of man-made
    global warming is a contentious issue, a list of scientists who oppose it would seem ipso facto to be notable. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Yes, such lists are compiled by participants in the climate change debate, so it is a notable issue; however, isn't the task of Wikipedia is to report on such lists rather than compiling original ones?? (I think of
    Scientific Dissent from Darwinism as a good example on how to report on a list, explaining its role in the debate without becoming an active participant by publishing one's own list.) The underlying assumption, POV if you will, advocated by such lists is that scientific opinion is best measured through an opinion poll of scientists. The alternative might be to have a list of papers in high-quality journals that dispute the mainstream assessment on climate change. That kind of list is advocating other assumptions about how to assess the state of scientific research. The point is that Wikipedia should certainly report on lists of dissenters, but it should refrain from actively validating the assumptions that such lists are based on by creating its very own lists of dissenters. 77.4.79.151 (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, or change editing rules Unlike what many uninitiated editors think of this article, rather than being a POV mine for the skeptical side, this article is actually a cleverly designed POV mine for the believer/alarmist side. Over time, it has been twisted in a way to create the illusion that opposition to the IPCC consensus is restrained to a few 30-40ish crackpots. In this context, no matter what I think of the climate change debate, this article is good for the trash.
This being said, there is basically nothing wrong with having an article documenting a certain notable POV if that POV is not covered in a more general article (that is another debate). But the POV that is supposed to be documented here is not documented at all, thanks to ad hoc rules created by a group of activist editors who have all voted 'keep' I see (for instance, some rule not to include scientists who happen to not be the subject of a specific Wikipedia article about them - a rule with no relationship whatsoever with the Wikipedia editing rules - or a rule not to include scientists who have made their position public through a letter signed by other scientists - same comment).
If this article is fixed in order to make of it what it pretends to be, it has a legitimate purpose. Concerns such as BLP and SYNTH are really secondary issues because they are easily manageable. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

ark // 01:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

List of foreign-language names for Cornwall

List of foreign-language names for Cornwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article dedicated solely to various translations of a cities name does not belong on Wikipedia. A translating dictionary maybe?

listcruft. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. I do believe Cornwall was once a nation, though, and we have a page at List of country names in various languages, so maybe there could be somewhere to merge this to rather than simply deleting it. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, bizarre relisting discounted.

barbarian  00:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

THUDD

THUDD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A spoof of THX from 1 episode of Tiny Toon Adventures. No links. No Refs. No notability. Blargh29 (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mind you, it's got to win an award for the longest time that an article has had a tag on it - it was tagged as being an orphaned article way back in November 2006. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom.--Karljoos (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one-off joke, no secondary coverage that would indicate notability or importance. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep for the lulz. • Anakin (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability asserted. Aiken ♫ 15:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Blargh29 (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Argh! Okay, then I suggest cleanup and promotion to featured, and nomination of 69.137.188.39 to adminship for his four stellar contributions (and no history of problems). • Anakin (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I predict that 69.137.188.39 will soon be an administrator. You convinced an administrator to relist this for further debate, simply by saying "Keep for the lulz". Mandsford (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's not an admin. That was a user relist. I left a message asking why. -moritheilTalk 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it was just a joke, seeing as he nominated it for deletion in the first place. • Anakin (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But since he did it, we have to be clear, so I've asked him. -moritheilTalk 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what's worse, that someone thinks we'd get a laugh out of that, or that a non-administrator can post the relist message in the first place. So, if we've gone seven days and I don't like the way the discussion is going, I can just extend the time? To try that, I'd have to have some big ones, and they'd have to be gold plated. Mandsford (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why has this been relisted? There are surely enough comments here. Aiken ♫ 15:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blargh29 responded to say he has not actually relisted it. He has not offered further explanation. -moritheilTalk 04:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Better tell him to change his password. Mandsford (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are a number of claims on the Keep side that this topic is discussed heavily in a wide range of third party sources. There were however, no such sources when this AfD began, and far more importantly there still aren't. Subtract the primary sources, and one is left with a very large amount of synthesis and original research. Black Kite 13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Differences in versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

AfDs for this article:
Differences in versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure trivia, fan-cruft listing of the minute differences between adaptations. Unencyclopedic and unnecessary. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. article provides no argument for why this material is notable. no references to reliable third party sources mentioning the differences and why they matter to anyone other than fans (or even why they matter to fans, if published in a nonfan source). the whole article seems to be original research, as this is not published elsewhere (no references to such publications given after 3 years), and required the authors of the article to watch and read and listen to each version meticulously, and record all these differences. thats different than simply quoting a single primary source, which is obviously not original research. this is really at the far end of the OR spectrum. As a fan (but not a fanatic), i would care about any differences that either changed the tone/style, character behavior, or story arc, esp. if not specifically approved by Mr. Adams. Im not sure there are any, from my recollections of the material. if someone can provide refs showing an active discussion among film/literature/radio critics of the differences, or published works describing the differences, i would bow to it being included in WP. and i will leave it to defenders of the article to find sources, and hopefully not simply say "notable" or "referenced" (it really would need page refs for text passages)or (god forbid) "interesting" or "useful". of course, this is being offered for discussion on a Thursday, and maybe im just having trouble getting the hang of ths day...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mostly harmless. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this may also be an in joke, so DON'T PANIC.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources are easy to find, then why aren't they in the article? I would reconsider my delete if there were any non-primary sources provided. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Verbal. It has plenty of coverage, and is a notable enough topic. Dream Focus 10:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I guess the referecnes need cleaning up a bit, but I also agree with Verbal.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references are almost exclusively the source material itself - the books, cassettes, etc. Without coverage by secondary sources any two things could be compared in this way and the article could be said to have sources. For example for "
    Wikipedia:Original Research "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.". The sources do not support that there are differences between versions, they simply support what each version says. Guest9999 (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Differences between The Beatles and The Spice Girls
The fact that all the references are primary sources is enough to make them ineligible. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, but the author's own comments in the foreword to his own work can hardly be considered an independent source. Abductive (reasoning) 20:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, but by size this material would not be merged back to HHG2G. Miami33139 (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comparison of pumps

Comparison of pumps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a marketing brochure; "Which pump is right for you?" Non-encyclopedic, and unnecessary comparison \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Jesus Christ, it shouldn't hurt to just make a grouped AfD? FunnyDuckIsFunny (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Group AfDs don't work when the articles are so different, and each one may have individual merit. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Still we don't need a new AfD relating to comparisions every ten seconds. FunnyDuckIsFunny (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non encyclopedic, far too subjective in terms of comparing one week's product catalogue with another, and I see no way in which this could be fixed. A prose description of the relative merits of each sort (and leaving comparisons or application choice to the reader) might have some value, but this isn't it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- are we looking at the same article? There is no 'marketing' information here, no links to commercial pump suppliers, merely a list of different pump types with parameters. Aren't there articles on some of these other pump types? Only 6 or 7 are linked currently, but if these are all distinctive types (which they are, looking at the reference used) presumably there is scope for them being described in WP in the future. Since the list doesn't specifically mention a suitable purpose for each pump, it cannot be considered a "Which pump is right for you?" selection guide. To help counteract this, I have adjusted the lede to suit. However, I also agree with Andy that there should be more prose description of each type, possibly losing some of existing the columns (such as 'Difficulty of repair' (very subjective) and 'hazard to fish' (which column contains no useful info.) EdJogg (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must say that I have the same feeling as User:EdJogg above: are we actually looking at the same article? Because I simply cannot see this as a "marketing brochure". The different pumps are listed only by their types, such as "Archimedean screw", "Chain and washer pump", "Coil and spiral pump", "Diaphragm pump" and so on. None of these types are tied to a particular company, and I simply cannot see this table as a marketing attempt (nor do I see it as "comparing one week's product catalogue with another", per User:Andy Dingley above).
I was somewhat worried about possible commercial references/external links, but the only reference is to a page from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and you can hardly accuse that of being a commerical (or "marketing") link.
Having said that, I should point out that I have no opinion on whether this table, as it stands, is worthwhile as a separate Wikipedia article. The nominator's arguments that this is "[n]on-encyclopedic, and unnecessary comparison" are possibly valid; all I wanted is to say that I do not see any marketing attempt here.
-- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per the above. Btw regarding EddJogg's comment, aldough it isn't quite stated that a specific type is more useful for a certain purpose, due to the pumping height, we can get an overall idea; eg if it states that it is 100m or more, it could eg be used as a potable water pump, lower lift heights typically refer to irrigation pumps. As for the discarting of columns, indeed some could be removed, but some (such as the "hazard to fish") are best kept. reason for this is that pumps are also used in national installations on rivers (eg locks, flood protection, ...). Some (even in developed countries) still use pumps very hazardous to fish (actually more than hazardous as it kills the fish anyhow).

talk) 08:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

An article that described different pump mechanisms would be useful. Comparisons between them though becomes subjective and run foul of
WP:OR. This article, as it stands, isn't good enough as a description to warrant inclusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It isn't original research to list stats like that. And the perceived quality level of the article is not a valid reason to delete it. Dream Focus 10:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which "stats" are listed? Production costs of "medium-high" are too vague to convey useful information and even when these are quantitative, delivery heights that range "10m-100m" aren't much better, let alone a column of question marks. "Medium-high" isn't useful because it's not precise enough (not enough increments) and it's also unclear what budget we're judging it by. What's an expensive way to pump water for a village's irrigation is cheap for nuclear reactor coolant. These broad values are also unclear because "plunger pumps" work over a huge range, but don't become meaningful for comparison until we know which plunger pump (i.e. size, drive power) we're talking about.
I don't know what a "Progressive cavity (mono)" type of pump is. This article doesn't tell me, nor does it offer even a redlink that suggests it might try to in the future.
The article, as it stands, has two distinct problems. It doesn't convey enough useful information to be an objective list of descriptions - this might be fixable in a similar article, but this article isn't it and is currently no more than a list of names. Secondly a comparison in this sense becomes subjective: "high cost" only exists when you assume the budget available. Subjective judgements like that are inherently
WP:OR
, because they introduce that assumption for budget or manufacturing capabilities.
At risk of censure for
List of boiler types, by manufacturer
. That's a similar article in some ways: it takes a core technology with many different approaches within it then tries to enumerate the possible options and tie them into some organised taxonomy. It doesn't make comparisons between them though.
"quality level of the article is not a valid reason to delete it." Opinions vary on that. If someone fixes it now, then great. Otherwise it can be best to delete poor articles and re-create them again later. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A valid encyclopedia entry, listing the types of pumps, and information about them, plus linking to various Wikipedia articles about pumps that have already had articles made about them. Dream Focus 10:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comparison of the 12-hour and 24-hour clocks

Comparison of the 12-hour and 24-hour clocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comparison of the various advantages of different times. Content forks from the respective methods pages, and and uncited unencyclopedic comparison. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as this is largely original research. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR, redundant to 24-hour clock. I guess you can make an overly complex description of just about anything simple, although the difference between the two clocks is fairly obvious to any person who ever learned how to tell time. Beyond that, one can compare anything to anything. Imagine how much one could write about the differences between shoes with laces and shoes with velcro straps. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as just somebody's essay. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subject non-relevant--Karljoos (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it looks like
    someone's homework. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Let we explain why it was made to begin with. It was made following discussions [7], [8] on the inconsistencies between the two articles. The artilces were also being overrun with with comparisons instead of talking about the topics. This article was therefore made to work this out. Also there is significant content in this article that has never been and would be inappropriate to out in one of its two "parent" artilces. Zginder 2009-10-27T13:54Z (UTC)
  • Merge to 24-hour clock, then merge 12-hour clock and rename the joined article. Miami33139 (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a rescuer can come up with sufficient reliable sources for the comparison as its own subject. While I sympathize with the problem of keeping unwanted material out of the individual clock-type articles, a separate article for the comparison seems inconsistent with
    WP:FORK unless it can sustain itself as a notable subject in its own right. With nary a sign of a source anywhere in the article, this comes across as pure original research. --RL0919 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comparison of cricket bowlers

Comparison of cricket bowlers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-encyclopedic sporting cruft, inclusion in the list is purely subjective and none has any encyclopedic value. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a random selection, Jim Laker is the 57th leading Test wicket-taker and amongst 149 bowlers with 100 Test wickets Sobers is 128th in term of averages. Sobers also played one One Day International so his place on that table is very questionable. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article dedicated solely to a meeting that may or may not have happened, and also how similar the two men were. Unnecessary content fork. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep and ameliorate concerns through regular editing.

barbarian  00:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comparison of MD and DO in the United States

Comparison of MD and DO in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary comparison, US-centricism and a topic that can be easily dealt with in the respected articles. The precedent this article sets is also worrying. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I believe that comparison articles should be kept when they provide content that would not easily fit into any existing single article, and where the comparison itself is of interest.
    Comparison between Roman and Han Empires is a good example of this. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 22:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Precedents don't exist in Wikipedia. There are plenty of references in the article. And what's this US centricism nonsense? The Wikipedia has articles about things all over the world. No one would complain that the list of presidents in a country is centric to that nation and thus shouldn't be allowed, or an article about someone only notable in their nation. Dream Focus 10:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep very well researched article with many medical journals cited.
    talk) 11:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to
    talk) 15:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm sure the AfD suggestion was made in good faith, but this is a frivolous AfD. The article is a very notable topic. The "comparison of MD and DO" is discussed in numerous books, scholarly journals, and media articles. Even a casual glance at the sources listed for this article would reveal that. The idea that this article should be deleted because it is "US-centric" is ridiclous. It's an article about a topic that exists in the United States. It is no more US-centric than the article about the Grand Canyon. There is no reason whatsoever to delete or merge this article. Bryan Hopping T 17:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't find anything wrong with the article. Just because it centers on a U.S. medical debate doesn't mean it is not encyclopedic.
    talk) 19:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It'd almost make sense to have a "medical practitioners in the United States" article that would cover MDs, DOs, NPs, PAs, and such, but I'm very reticent about the term "comparison" as part of the title of any Wikipedia article: it implies
talk) 19:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
If there were noteworthy comparisons from India or Brazil on similar topics, they would not be deleted. Please, look at the sources before you judge. This is a noteworthy topic, as the numerous sources for this article clearly indicate. There are many articles on this exact topic, the "Comparison of MD and DO in the United States" or as the article was originally titled "Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine in the United States." Let's judge this article by the same standards as every other article. This topic is widely discussed by reliable sources. Isn't that the end of the debate? Bryan Hopping T 20:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So long as it's clear that it's not "Wikipedia's opinion" since we are the mirror, not the lamp. Calling it a "comparison" is problematic. Whether it's the US or India or Brazil or Uzbekistan is irrelevant.
talk) 21:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, I hope that, as with all articles, RS will guide us. In this case, those sources are listed in the references section of the article. Reprinting the sources listed in the article seems pedantic to me, but I will do so. Bryan Hopping T 03:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wood, D. L.; Hahn, M. B. (2009). "Accreditation Standards of Osteopathic and Allopathic Medical Schools: Could They Affect Educational Quality?". Academic Medicine. 84 (6): 724–8.
    PMID 19474546
    .
Uh... OK. None of this tells me this article wouldn't be better titled without the "comparison of." Comparing things vs. documenting differences isn't a huge difference, and this is mostly a question of easy fixes rather than outright deletion. I never challenged that the article was unsourced, rather that it presented the information in a way that is not compatible with the expectations of an encyclopedia.
talk) 06:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The DO degree and osteopathy are significantly different in the US than they are elsewhere, so restricting it to the US isn't inappropriate. See my comments above on why "comparison" articles are dubious by construction.
talk) 07:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
"The DO degree" is only 1 of 13 disambiguations of DO, so using that acronym in the title is uninformative. (ii) if they are "significantly different in the US than they are elsewhere" then giving the US comparison in isolation is misleading. (iii) The article does not discuss either qualification (or either discipline) generally, but only the difference between the two. Thus 'Osteopathic and Allopathic medical practice' misrepresents the scope. The alternatives would appear to be 'Comparison of Osteopathic and Allopathic medical practice', 'Differences between Osteopathic and Allopathic medical practice' or 'Osteopathic versus Allopathic medical practice'. The former would appear to be the more encyclopaedic phrasing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the acronyms are not ideal. "Versus" is clearly not the phrasing we're looking for. "Comparison" I'm not too happy with, as it implies review and analysis rather than presentation of information. "Difference" is probably a good choice. "Osteopathic medicine" is extremely light on the osteopathy, and this article is very much about "what's the difference between a doctor with an MD as opposed to a doctor with a DO." (answer: not too much)
talk) 10:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree. The article has some problems, but deletion is not the solution.
talk) 08:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree with Antelan as above, with one correction. In the United States in 2009, "DO" (D.O.) currently signifies the degree "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine." There is currently some debate about changing the post-nominal letters to make the acronym proper. See http://www.do-online.org/pdf/pub_do0208dodegree.pdf Outside the US, "D.O." (DO) is an acronym for "Doctor of Osteopathy." Bryan Hopping T 03:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this topic is well-debated among med-school applicants, and has sourcing. Also, it gets viewed 3000 to 6000 times a month. Abductive (reasoning) 01:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There may be all sorts of problems with this article, including its precise title. But the topic is still notable: "Like a well-worn comic book plot, the practice of medicine most Americans are familiar with has an alternate universe—a parallel world with its own history and philosophy. It is a world where physicians train in alternate institutions, belong to alternate professional organizations and sport an alternate degree: D.O. (doctor of osteopathy) rather than M.D." Thus starts one of our sources, a scholarly article entitled "Inside osteopathic medicine’s parallel world". This may not be our most necessary article, it doesn't have global scope (and cannot, since DOs are a phenomenon restricted to the US, osteopathy elsewhere being something much more "alternative"), and it may (or may not) be biased or focused on the wrong things. But given a considerable number of reliable sources focusing on osteopathic medicine / regular medicine comparisons, I believe the topic is notable.
This doesn't mean that we can't adjust the focus of this article, or that we must preserve it as a separate article. Since osteopathic medicine is a minority thing, it's natural for the osteopathic medicine articles to cover the differences to regular medicine. Whether they can do so exhaustively, or whether there should be an exhaustive article on the differences which those articles can then summarise, is a matter for a pragmatic decision rather than an AfD. Hans Adler 12:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Best regarded as a summary article. We may need a specific statement somewhere to clarify that these sort of articles are acceptable--sincethey are frequently cha;lenged, but usually sustained. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if that is needed. All it takes is a few sources saying, "...unlike an MD, DOs are..." to justify this sort of article. But an article on Comparison of Oak trees and Avalanches should not be allowed. Where the line show be drawn can be determined by sources. Abductive (reasoning) 01:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD is frivolous. The number of reliable sources explicitly justifying the article AND its title is large.
No one is challenging
talk) 08:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The topic of the article is "Comparison of MD&DO in US." That exact topic has many reliable sources. You are saying the topic is notable. We have a notable topic with reliable sources. What then is the problem? Bryan Hopping T 09:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we to delete all the articles in Category:Comparisons? Bryan Hopping T 09:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When one of the first things I see when I look at that category is
talk) 09:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
That's too bad, cause that article has great sources and is a VERY notable topic. Possibly the most discussed topic in modern film science fiction.Bryan Hopping T 09:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look's someone already tried.
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_Star_Trek_and_Star_Wars Bryan Hopping T 09:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, but notability and sourcing is not the concern for comparison articles,
talk) 09:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

To address concern of "Cherry picking": If there's ANY reliable, published source that anyone feels needs to be added to this article, please do so! The more reliable sources the better IMO. Bryan Hopping T 10:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per near-unanimity of respondents.

barbarian  00:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comparison of birth control methods

Comparison of birth control methods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A how to page on how not to get knocked up, any strengths and weaknesses of a particular method belongs on the page of the method itself. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much of anything that is how to in the article either in terms of content (e.g. it does not cover how to select a method), or style. Perhaps you could raise specific concerns in the articles talk page? Zodon (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a good summary article. This is the appropriate way to present the material--the individual articles will expand on the details. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was moved to

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhode Island Routes/Comparison of sources for numbered routes in Rhode Island, a subpage of the related WikiProject. I left the title in its original state, although I assume others may move it to a shorter title if needed. JamieS93 00:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comparison of sources for numbered routes in Rhode Island

Comparison of sources for numbered routes in Rhode Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article analyses the differences between sources. While possibly helpful for a Wikipedia namespace page, aren't we meant to be acting as a source here, not telling everyone the differences between others? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

barbarian  00:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary list, another example of US-centricism by focusing on what is a dominantly American church, bad precedent etc. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The content cannot really be merged anywhere, so I would like to see an argument that would satisfy deletion of the page if it existed in isolation. We cannot delete a page for being Americentric, and "unnecessary" seems highly subjective to me. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 22:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It doesn't matter what country it is in. You can have a list of all the churches of any religion in any nation. Dream Focus 11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not aware of any policy that says we have to delete articles in order to maintain balance between U.S. topics and those of other countries. – jaksmata 13:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd add that there are less than 150 such temples in the world. So what if it's a "dominantly American church"? We have an entire Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures out there. If one of them takes the form of a table, more power to it. Mandsford (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints These are differently formatted versions of data which all belongs together. I would add that the UScentric assertion is deeply ignorant, as simply looking at the list would show. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Clarification: By "merge" in this case I mean essentially replacing the "list" article with the "comparison" article and adding images as one of the columns. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general it seems to me that the "list" article is inferior to the "comparison" article. There's no reason that the sorting tabular features of the latter cannot be applied to the former. Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how the information on the two pages seems to overlap, but I agree with Trödel that a merge would be inappropriate. The two pages have distinct purposes: The "list" article has less info, and it's purpose isn't to give a large amount of info on each temple, but to list articles on each individual temple. The "comparison" article would be unwieldy in that sense, but its many sortable columns are ideal for comparing different aspects of temples. You could use it to determine how many temples were dedicated by a particular individual, for example. – jaksmata 13:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to keep the list article in some state of purity by keeping this other data away from it. Also, the list article is actually the larger of the two (22,737 at present vs. 16,308 for the "comparison" article) and it is also much longer on the screen, due to the images and the non-tabular format. Depending on how you balance room counts against photographs, it doesn't really give significantly less information either. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list article got its current format as a result of recommendations during the featured list nomination, and I'm not inclined to make any changes that would put its featured status at risk. --Trödel 11:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dont see it as us centric, any more than required by the fact that the religion is US in origin. a good summary article. This is the appropriate way to present the material--the individual articles will expand on the details. Essentially, it's a list, and a very good one at that. How the articles should be edited is not a question to be dealt with at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Boland

Rick Boland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches for this actor's name only find passing mentions in the local press.

Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Information annealing

Information annealing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic appears to be a neologism, and the article should be deleted per

WP:NEO. The term doesn't appear in Websters, Oxford, or American Heritage, or even in the Dictionary for Library and Information Science. Neither LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts, nor WorldCat turned up anything on the term. The Transhumanist 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Quite a few of the usual "it's notable" non-votes which are ignored as usual, and the nominator has a fair point, but no consensus to delete. A merge might be useful to create one slightly useful article rather than three pointless ones. Black Kite 13:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between U.S. states and countries nominal GDP

Comparison between U.S. states and countries nominal GDP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comparison between U.S. states and countries by per capita GDP (nominal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comparison between U.S. states and countries by GDP (PPP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary list which furthers our US-centricism and would set a precedent for other countries. The United States is not a special case. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep Insightful and interesting article. List contains valuable information that is difficult to find in a condensed form elsewhere. bosoxrock88 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but possibly combine in some manner. Other regions can be added also, as suggested above. . DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn with no "delete" opinions (non-admin closure).

Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Bodil Mårtensson

Bodil Mårtensson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are a few Google news hits for this author, but I'm not convinced (with my admittedly minimal knowledge of Swedish) that they amount to significant coverage in reliable sources.

Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

a/c) 20:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

1st Street (Tampa, Florida)

1st Street (Tampa, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short, non-notable side street [9]. Dough4872 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (highways).  Btilm  21:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Notwithstanding the nauseating prospect of having little stub articles about every street in the world, this one runs for five blocks [10]. Click on street view and tell me what's notable about this residential neighborhood. I'll admit that 304 First Street has a nice carport. Mandsford (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable residential street, and only five blocks long at that. I couldn't even find the carport. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yawn. Miami33139 (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

a/c) 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Michael shortino

Michael shortino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the claim of "east coast fame" I can't find anything about this Michael Shortino via any of the Google resources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - cannot find any sources about this artist. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable BLP.
    ark // 08:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stylistic issues such as excessive linking can be addressed through editing, and don't usually merit deletion.

a/c) 20:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

List of radio stations in Venezuela

List of radio stations in Venezuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Linkfarm. Damiens.rf 20:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep encyclopedic topic, article needs a bit of work, namely the external links, RadioFan (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid list topic that just needs more attention and better conformity with
    WP:EL. --RL0919 (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Liotta

Gabriel Liotta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Performed a google check on Gabriel Liotta and came up with very little. Person is either fake or lacks notability. Calling for deletion in compliance with wiki standards IndulgentReader (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely not notable, cited sources are either trivial or don't mention him. --
Vejvančický (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

a/c) 20:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Roderick Miranda

Roderick Miranda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hasn't made a professional appearance and fails

WP:GNG Spiderone 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. There is consensus here that this topic merits an article, and that end is not served by deleting the existing content.

barbarian  00:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Sungdong Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unenyclopedic lists of 'history'; there is absolutely no information to be found about the companies themselves. Would need a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. Additionally, the only reference is a primary one, and that is definitely not sufficient when the article boasts claims of "ranked x in the world".

talk 19:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Would need a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic - nothing is salvageable in the current article and it would arguably even fail CSD criteria; Additionally,
talk 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Starting from scratch would better be done as a delete-then-recreate situation, to make sure none of the rewritten info is influenced by the prior biased "history" content. You've got my point spot-on; just not the keep part.
talk 02:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It's obvious enough that the shipbuilding company exists and is notable, but I don't see how adding a single reference is going to fix everything. It's just covering up (not patching) one of the many, many holes in the wall; doesn't really do much else. I'm more for the "tear down the poorly-made wall and build a better one" type of thing.
talk 02:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It doesn't specifically say that. It's actually part of the process of speedy deletion.
talk 01:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

a/c) 20:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

TBA (Third M.I.A album)

TBA (Third M.I.A album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another for the

WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. SNOW close as suggested--clearly madeup, clearly nonnotable. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin (Card Game)

Stalin (Card Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is

made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is rough consensus here that the coverage of this topic does not meet the threshold for notability.

barbarian  00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

LinkedNow.com

LinkedNow.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Insufficient evidence of notability given -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: I agree with Xeno. The press meets the criteria of "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

I'm affiliated with NBC, and I looked at LinkedNow's NBC coverage and I can assure you, it is not trivial. We have many companies competing for news spread. Further, the TechNow award is a big deal. The show has significant coverage and has a large following in the bay area as well as throughout California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlaswire (talk • contribs) 19:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC) — Atlaswire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Xeno and Phantomsteve, did you read the last response? This is why non-US residents can't fully understand the importance of TechNow show. TechNow show is not another website, [Smerdis of Tlön, "another website as "Website of the Week"] For those who are from UK, if I wrote that say...http://www.bbc.co.uk/dragonsden/ selected LinkedNow as the website of the week would you still consider this as a vanity advertising? TechNow show is very very reputable and discuses the newest developments in technology such as bing.com, Wii, and other... Many, even very mature businesses of the Silicon Valley would have given anything even for a small air slot, not to mention 2 minute coverage.--Suzan.nguyen (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a U.S. resident. I see that whatever TechNow is, it doesn't even have an article in Wikipedia. If it is so important, why haven't you created an article about it? What is your connection with LinkedNow, Susan? Do you have an undisclosed
conflict of interest? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

SmarteScript

SmarteScript (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. Fails

WP:RS are given. Basket of Puppies 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. The single keep argument has been effectively refuted Kevin (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MaryAnn Johanson

MaryAnn Johanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable blogger who self-published a book through the LULU vanity press. All but one of the references are links to her work. The one real reference, to Time Magazine, consists of two sentences inside of a two page article, and it doesn't even mention Johanson by name.

talk) 16:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete As per the nom --President of Internets (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who again? --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Likely a vanity page. Bourne (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or possibly Rename to FlickFilosopher.com: Hear me out here. I'd never heard of her; I thought from the article she didn't sound notable; and I was all set to vote "Delete"... but decided to do a little searching first. Turns out her site, flickfilosopher.com, was listed as a reference or external link in a lot of Wikipedia articles. Well, OK, I thought, that doesn't mean anything; those references were probably added by the same person who wrote the article. But they weren't—those I checked out were all done by different users and IPs. Well, okay, so a number of different Wikipedians have used her site as a reference in articles; that in and of itself isn't enough to establish notability. But I figured it was enough to make it worth looking into... and after some Googling, I now think her site seems to be notable after all. I may not have heard of it before myself, but it's mentioned and linked all over the place. Now, granted, most online links aren't reliable sources, but the Time magazine mention listed in the article definitely qualifies (it doesn't mention her by name, granted, but it does mention her website by name), and she's also had significant mention in the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, USA Today, and several other respected newspapers... unfortunately, those last few links apparently require payment to see the full article, but just put "flickfilosopher" into a Google News Archive search and you'll see the references.
All that being said, she seems to be notable really only for her website—the fact that she self-published a book through Lulu is completely non-notable. So I could see the article being renamed to flickfilosopher.com (with "MaryAnn Johanson" as a redirect) instead of kept at her name. (After all, for instance, it is her website that Time mentions, not her directly.) Also, if the article is kept, it definitely needs a rewrite—the bit about her self-published book doesn't belong (unless someone can turn up some independent reliable sources referring specifically to the book), and that last paragraph about how she's "not afraid to pan popular and critically acclaimed movies" has got to go (or at least be reworded to not sound so fannish). Still, her website seems to be well known enough and to have garnered enough attention in reliable sources to merit a Wikipedia article. —Smeazel (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It also appears that Johanson also self-publishes her web site and is the sole contributor to its contents. The press citations mentioned by Smeazel are all in passing. Johanson and her site have never been the sole subject of important media coverage.
talk) 13:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

a/c) 20:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

W Ketchup

W Ketchup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. The jokes over, and this fails the notability test. Sorry. JBsupreme (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What joke? It's a real brand, it's still being made, and it gained plenty of notability when it was launched. Does a brand have to keep making a quota of press appearances every year in order to remain notable? -- Zsero (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BBC articles mean you are being important. --President of Internets (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Received only incidental coverage after its introduction, never received any other coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No. This was a one off product from a one off election. Not notable --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is simply false. It was not a one-off product; it's still in production five years later. -- Zsero (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WngLdr34. Not notable meaning it received spartan coverage when it was first introduced and then never again. It was not really notable in the beginning and it doesn't appear to be notable now, either. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 22:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. wow, i missed this product entirely. aside from problems with the article (mentioning the W is also bushes middle initial without reference would have to be removed, no matter how obvious it is, and reiterating the companies press material without also quoting the heinz press release directly is unbalanced), the references dont support notability. yes, it did get media coverage upon its release, and inspired a press release from heinz. and if its initial notability had any impact, it would deserve an article, as notability, once its established as more than News, doesnt fade with time, only public awareness fades with time. but i really dont see this product having left a mark of historic notability. the election didnt turn on it, it didnt enter the public lexicon, the product doesnt stand out in the market significantly, it didnt change corporate policy towards manufacturing in the US. A lot of news stories tied to elections get more coverage than they deserve, often for the fun of it or to fill news cycles. and press releases are easy enough to create. I would be swayed if someone could find sources showing their lasting legacy as a UNIQUE product, not just another ketchup.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:Recentism article that slipped through the cracks. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete May have been notable at one time, but as time passes there is no coverage or other commentray. Thus it fails
    WP:N Transmissionelement (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Apparently a real product for people who want to order a minimum of four bottles of ketchup online for $17.95 plus shipping and handling, and a portion of the profits go to charity. Or, you could donate twenty dollars to the charity. About as trendy as spinning hubcaps, and this one's 15 minutes of fame ended five years ago. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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,

unambiguous advertising and linkfarming. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Optimax

Optimax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be an advert (started by Optimaxlev who only edited this acticle). Badly written. Two not very important companies plus a trivia section. Tresiden (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete as the tagged G1 nonsense, but also a bit of G3 Hoax (Religion followed worldwide?). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tinny for the road

Tinny for the road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

talktome⁄ ididit] 16:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JamieS93 00:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analog and Power for C6455

Analog and Power for C6455 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a mere list of "Complimentary Analog and Power Devices that can be paired with the C6455 devices". Fails

talktome⁄ ididit] 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Right now I am the creator of the page and am only using the current page as a template. I am will be adjusting the information throughout the next two days so it will not be a copy of the Analog and Power for AM35x page (which I also was a primary creator). Thanks for the concern though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stacy.Cavanagh (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikiipedia is not a directory or parts catalogue. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A first draft of an article should at least look something like a first draft of an encyclopedia article (this isn't Wikpedia 2004 where any random scribble was soon transformed into brilliant prose). This is a laundry-list of components whose coherence is not significant to an encyclopedia user. Promotes the TI web site, with many "See TI" links, forsooth! And posted by what appears to be a TI IP address. I know a little about semiconductors and I'm baffled as to what any general-encyclopedia user would do with this. The title doesn't even make sense -"analog and power" WHAT? What's a C6455? At first I thought this was someone's course lecture notes. Then I thought it was some kind of Japanese transistor. Take it out. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Moira Sullivan

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

The result was Snowball keep Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACDSee

ACDSee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded with explanation: "seems like a case of

WP:IDONTKNOWIT". Well, I actually used it in the past, but cannot find enough coverage by reliable sources. M4gnum0n (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JamieS93 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon City Royals

Simon City Royals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as a non-notable criminal organization. Google News archives returns 0 matches and I suspect for good reason. JBsupreme (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lianne Farbes

Lianne Farbes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG --Rrburke(talk) 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I declined the speedy deletion for the technical reason that several editors are looking carefully at the article, and I want to encourage rather than discourage discussion, but speedy deletion wouldn't bother me if that's the consensus at this AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for speedy, but you're right, AFD is probably a better idea. MuffledThud (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to stop deletion? User:jeromeparsons

  • Yes—otherwise it would just have been deleted instead of being listed here. It's listed on AfD to give people a chance to discuss its possible deletion. If you want to stop the article from being deleted, explain why it shouldn't be. What makes this person
    verifiably notable enough to merit an article, the article will stay. Otherwise, it's probably going to go. —Smeazel (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in this discussion is to delete, as there are insufficient sources to show notability. As this is a decision of the lowest level court of record, only in the rarest of instances would I expect its decision to be notable. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkes v Jessop

Wilkes v Jessop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails

WP:GNG
.

I have looked at multiple contract textbooks, all published after the case:

None of them give this case as either an example nor something that set precedent. It's also worth noting that this is a County Court case.. and county courts cannot, under any circumstance, set binding precedent. Ironholds (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ironholds beat me to it; I had said to the article's primary contributor when he contested the prod that I would bring it to AfD sometime this week when time permitted. It's a decision of a Deputy District Judge (the lowest level of judges in the County Courts of England and Wales), it does not change or extend the law but is merely an example of the application of the law to existing facts, it has not been mentioned or followed in any other cases that I can find, it does not bind any court hearing any similar case. And, as Ironholds said, it's drawn from a single source and has received no coverage in secondary sources.
    BencherliteTalk 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. The above users say three things: (1) it's not in textbooks (2) the case is not a binding precedent (3) it's only covered in no secondary sources.

People reading this may be baffled by why they want to delete a perfectly informative contract law case page. But to answer their claims (1) it's not in those books that Ironholds lists because his books precede the case (he doesn't seem to have read the page) and even if he hadn't got his dates wrong, casebooks could include it later (2) the case is a binding precedent, as Bencherlite inadvertently gave us a [the Practice Direction on Citation of Authorities link for on my userpage; that a county court judgment can be cited...


So Bencherlite is wrong (embarrassingly, I think). (3) Actually, there is a secondary source, which is the Current Law Yearbook (that's CLY, which you see under 'citation' - the primary source, of course, is the official report). There will probably be more, and when this important case has been around for a little longer, it may prove of some use. So, these two guys are wrong on all three counts, and I remain baffled why they care in the first place. Wikidea 15:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embarrassingly wrong, am I? I beg to differ. It's a decision on its own facts, not a new principle of law - it follows and applies principles of law laid down by higher cases, which can and would be cited in later decision. It's exactly the type of decision that the Practice Direction is designed to prevent being tossed around in court. In any case, even if it could be cited in case, that wouldn't make it notable.
BencherliteTalk 16:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Read 6(2)(b) once more. On the contrary, it seems to depart from what other cases suggest. You're right though, I'm wrong about you being embarrassed. Wikidea 16:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is binding precedent. County Court cases can be cited, yes; so can obiter. It doesn't mean it's precedent. The books were all published one or two years after the case, so the books do not precede the case. Ironholds (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's really unfortunate that you're trying to argue that this isn't precedent. What can I say? To the other readers, please trust me. The case was in 2007. Nobody had heard of it because it was not reported. Wikidea 18:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trust is bollocks. Here you're another anonymous editor with no authority to comment. Bring up
multiple, reliable, secondary sources and we'll talk. Ironholds (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Please try not to portray your biased view. The central problem here is that it fails
WP:GNG; you've not been able to show that it doesn't. The fact that it doesn't appear in any of the leading case books is good evidence that it is not a significant case. And County Court decisions are never binding - show me a textbook or practice manual that says that they are? The fact that they can be cited in court doesn't make them binding - obiter can be cited, after all. Ironholds (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh shit, I'm wrong about precedent. Please forgive my comments. Well, I still think you should keep the page. Even if my precedent argument is wrong, it was good enough for the CLY. Wikidea 16:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...which doesn't constitute multiple sources, as per
WP:GNG. Different things set different standards - the fact that the CLY chooses to include it does not oblige us to. Ironholds (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's an example of another case which was in the Industrial Relations Law Reports recently, and is a County Court decision, which I wouldn't be able to put up if Wilkes cannot be put up: Spackman v London Metropolitan University [2007] IRLR 741
If you wouldn't be able to put it up, you wouldn't be able to put it up. "you must include non-notable case X because otherwise non-notable case Y won't be included". Did either X or Y set anything important? By definition not, because they're county cases. When X and Y pass
WP:GNG, they can be included. When the High Court makes a decision based on X, then the HC decision can be included. Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santexq

Santexq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising article for non-notable software. Going straight to AfD with this one; maintenance tags have been repeatedly removed without addressing issues. This is:

  1. Unambiguous advertising: about all the article contains is a features list and general puffery about the concept of "project management
    " generally.
  2. business. The references supplied are to press releases or texts on the general concept of "project management". Google News Archive yields nothing but press releases. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ilario Vannucchi

Ilario Vannucchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no real notability shown. no independent reliable sources. no coverage from touring, no indication of releases being on important labels. search finds no coverage in independent reliable sources (language may be an issue). Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:55, 15 October 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 14:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. As mentioned in the discussion, please add the sources uncovered to the article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japan (Eiji Ōtsuka manga)

AfDs for this article:
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a duplicate of

WP:BK. —Farix (t | c) 14:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge Merge into Eiji Ōtsuka and be done with this one sentence article. --President of Internets (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 14:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The earlier AFD was opened on 19 October, but the article was either improperly tagged or the tag was removed. I have closed that debate. The nominator's statement is posted below, for reference. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability not established in the article, no sources, even no content.-- deerstop. 22:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japan (Eiji Ōtsuka manga). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The other debate was still open, so I have closed it now. Hopefully I closed it correctly, as I haven't closed an AfD before. Calathan (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My rationales is that series received enough third party coverage in France but could also "userfy" on me as i am not in the mood to salvage that article right now. --KrebMarkt 15:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ActuaBD a generalist comics website who also review manga. Two of their editors are actually qualified members of the French ACBD (Association of Comics critics & journalists) [16] which happens to award the "prix de la critique" at the Angoulême International Comics Festival and the "prix Asie-BD" during the Japan Expo.
    2. SF mag a paper monthly magazine in Sci-Fi. I personally don't like that publication but they did review that manga series.
    3. Planete BD not much to say, a modest generalist comics website.
    4. Manga Sanctuary 2nd biggest animanga French website (size & traffic).
  • Keep KrebMarkt's sources prove notability. Dream Focus 16:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per KrebMarkt, it looks like sources are there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Though those sources and more information will actually need to be added! I know much shouldn't be expected of it with the stub label, but don't we at least have an official website or article for/link to the author? Assuming it gets a third-party perspective summary and sources added it'll be in good shape.
    talk) 22:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep based on the sources found by KrebMarkt. Edward321 (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Tomos Software

Tomos Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable startup company. Cannot find significant coverage. Article created by a principle of the company (see talk page). Haakon (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Gartner and voke (started by a former Gartner analyst) are reliable and secondary sources independent of the subject. voke's specialty covers Application Lifecycle Management, so it's notable within its field. While the article was started by a principal, it appears to have adhered to NPOV policies. --141.160.5.251 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vehemently.
    Unambiguous advertising
    for a product with a very small user base: TOMOS ALM is a SaaS-based web 2.0 ALM solution. Targeted at business analysts, developers, testers and project managers, TOMOS ALM provides integrated modules for creating, tracking and measuring the software development process. It is web-based, distributed software that feeds into a centralized database. If you say "web 2.0" and "SaaS" you ought to have your mouth washed out with soap.
Use of language such as "
slanted
in favor of the wonderful things this software can do for your business.
Heh. I also despise buzzwords, but that doesn't mean the whole article is compromised. This is Wikipedia; change the wording. Deletion is a bit heavy-handed.
Gartner is a consulting firm that produces reports on businesses for investors; their warrant covers all businesses that can be invested in, and as such mention in one of their reports confers no notability whatsoever.
As I mentioned earlier, voke is devoted to the ALM space, and as such represents peer recognition. I say we invite expert industry comment, not CfD.
This is also an article that sprung full blown, complete with categories and infobox, at its initial insertion. I suspect
paid insertion for publicity purposes. Note also that the user page of the originating author now redirects to an encyclopedia page for another non notable business. (That redirect isn't kosher, and the user page probably ought to be speedied.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
COI is not a reason to delete. We delete when CoI compromises NPOV; this article does not seem to put anything non-NPOV. And since when did user pages get speedied? That's the most outrageous thing I've heard on WP. --141.160.5.251 (talk)
ownership if a user adopts an encyclopedia article as a user page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I have removed the terms SaaS and Web 2.0 that offend you. I assure you my mouth has been washed with soap. I have also cleaned up any terminology that in any way be interpreted as advertising. The Gartner report is not a standard one but an award to the company, singling TOMOS out for high praise. —Preceding

Bhayduk (talk • contribs) 19:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment--Smerdis raises an interesting dilemma: if an article is sketchy on first appearance, it very often gets deleted as having no significant content and we tell them to write off-line. If if someone does that, and submits a complete article, it is suggested it be judged negatively as showing a suspicious knowledge of Wikipedia. Our COI rules right permit COI people to write articles, if they do it right. Gartner's reports are fairly reliable, but I do not know its contents, nor the significance of its deisgnation as "Cool Vendor" DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You;re right in pointing out an apparent
    game the system to avoid deletion. It probably would help if the user who wrote these articles had at least a couple edits on unrelated articles; the editor who started this article does not. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment. If it were
spam
, the article would have been db-spam'med ages ago. The article describes a corporation, and does not advertise, nor host spam links. +
Spurious referencing in the article? Could you specify? If it's spurious, it can be eliminated. --141.160.5.251 (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am curious as to teh relationship between
    User:Bhayduk. The ADF for RTTS also makes an appeal to Garner as a source, and I've added a note there about my thoughts on Gartner as a source for notability versus verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
the articles spell out the relationship between them. One is a spin-off of the other. --141.160.5.251 (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

a/c) 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Rebel Boat Rocker

Rebel Boat Rocker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails company notability as per

WP:CORP: this company only existed for 18 months and never had a product that saw the light of day. How could they be notable if they had no sales, no revenue, no products, no track record... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

talk) 00:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Rainbow Lodge

Rainbow Lodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fishing lodge, and no longer exists Fremte (talk) 01:53, 15 October 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 13:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep per Oakshade. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it would be great if the sources were added into the article so someone doesn't mistakenly renominate this two years later down the road. (Yes, that does happen.) JBsupreme (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oakshade et al, sources are present and need to be added. Oh well, as usual it's always
    someone else's problem. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per above discussion. Add the sources, please. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per dennis the 2 et al. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I added two of the references to the article, slackers.--Milowent (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - and I see little reason to merge Kevin (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Richardson

Dan Richardson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-

autobiography. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 00:10, 15 October 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 13:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Graham Richardson (journalist)

Graham Richardson (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at

WP:ENTERTAINER does not apply here, per discussion here.) [23][24][25][26] (N.B. Not to be confused with Graham Richardson, politician) ƒ(Δ)² 18:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 00:03, 15 October 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 13:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

a/c) 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Genetic Native Americans

Genetic Native Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

delete, the premise of this article is flawed and the content makes very little sense. The concept of "genetic Native Americans" is not one found in WP:RS literature. The article seems more intent on making some kind of

Aboriginal peoples in Canada, etc. I don't see there's any useful, non-redundant info here that needs merging into those others. cjllw ʘ TALK 12:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy deleted (

talk · contribs). –Katerenka ☆ 22:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Khan, Joseph

AfDs for this article:
Khan, Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN Lampman (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A9 JForget 20:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Ecstasy (song)

Electric Ecstasy (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a non-topic. "Electric Ecstasy" by a Mizz Electronica was apparently rumored to be a song on Rated R (Rihanna album). Said Mizz Electronica now explicitly denied any collaboration between her and Rihanna. Noting the complete absence of reliable sources on that song, this doesn't even need to be mentioned in the album. Wikipedia is not a collection of rumors.
Previously PRODded and IAR-speedied, so I'm bringing it here. Amalthea 10:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Substantial changes in article pursuade several editors to change their positions. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Krach

Aaron Krach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

recycled publicity material) has been flagged as unsourced since December 2008. That's more than enough unsourcedness, especially in view of the frequent presence of User:Aaronkrach who might be expected to know of citably reliable sources. Hoary (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following related page because it too is chronically unsourced and about a book that lacks obvious notability:

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

*Delete

WP:COI, and no sources, I think we should give it the boot. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment If something in either article seems particularly silly when you happen to see it, check in the history to see if it has recently been dehanced by some Telstra IP. -- Hoary (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNow Keep, as improved; seems notable as writer. Not notable as an artist or journalist. Not sure about the novel - I'll go with consensus on that. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe it is possible to make an informed decision on this matter until you have actually read the novel. Before taking any drastic measures, it is imperative that we know all of the facts involved. I have ordered my copy of "Half-Life", and will register my vote after having read it. I would urge all of you who have voted to retract your vote, order a copy of the book, and register an informed vote once you have read it. Thank you. Murrarie (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination has nothing to do with the quality of Krach's work in general, or the quality of his novel. ¶ Let's suppose that Cleave and Smite, Johnbod and I quickly order our copies of the book from this or that online oligopolist, quickly receive them and read them, and realize that the work is a masterpiece. What impact should that have on the article? ¶ There are plenty of superb books about which it would be hard or impossible to create articles that satisfy Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and -- passing through mediocrity, mere bollocks (astrology and the like), diet quackery and so forth all the way to literary hell -- there are plenty of books (Mein Kampf, The Turner Diaries, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc ad nauseam) that are noxious garbage and about which articles can be created that do satisfy them (at least until vandalized by halfwits). -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate judging an article upon how it looks now and try looking at what it
could become. Anyone looking at the page and history will see that I have begun then to improve it myself. Unfortunately for Krach, I will be not be able to get back to it until after work today. I'll hapily report back once its been brought into line with policy and guideline. It'll meet the GNG. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kingdom of Galicia. There is little support in this discussion for keeping this article, but after that things become a bit more murky. A strong minority favors outright deletion, a larger plurality favors redirecting, but is split on the appropriate target, while a single editor favors keeping the article. I believe that the proper reading of consensus is to redirect, as the option that is best supported, while coming closest to effecting the desire of those favoring delete. I have pointed to redirect to Kingdom of Galicia as being the best supported by a slight margin, but editors should feel free to re-target the article in there is agreement to do so. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal

Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No such kingdom existed. The article claims on no authority that one ruler, Garcia II, had the title "King of Galicia and Portugal". The county of Portugal did form part of Garcia's Galician kingdom, but reliable sources don't refer to it like this, and it is unclear why they would. Even if it turns out that some primary source says he used this title, I'd suspect it is probably an inaccuracy based on the emergence of a Kingdom of Portugal in the following century, and at any rate this wouldn't justify a separate wiki article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No reliable sources to indicate notability, or even if it existed. [34]. Aiken ♫ 09:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Your search was for the exact phrase "Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal", so the return you got was higher than my expectations would have been. A search of a few keywords [35] turns up this from the Cambridge University Press, and this and this and those are just three examples. If there are reliable sources that suggest that "no such kingdom existed", we need to add them to the article. Mandsford (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps the name is no more appropriate than William the Conqueror being ruler of the "Kingdom of Normandy and England", but couldn't there be an article about that brief period in the 11th century when the King of Galicia expanded his holdings on a takeover from the Count of Portugal? I agree with you that if the state wasn't called "The Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal" (from what I can tell, it was the original "Kingdom of Portugal") then it should be described as something else. Technically, there was no such country as Austria-Hungary, yet that was the name bestowed by historians on the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary. From what I gather, Garcia didn't stay a doubleking for very long. Mandsford (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't stay a king for long, and one king doesn't make a kingdom any more than one swallow makes a summer. There's not really any here here. Apart from Garcia's share, there doesn't seem to have been much of an Iberian kingdom of Galicia to write about. See my comment here and it's interesting to consider the Google books results if you exclude Garcia from a search for either "king of Galicia" or "kingdom of Galicia" in modern (post-1990) books. Anything worth saying, which may not be much, is probably best said somewhere else. A history-only merge with Galicia (Spain) or something relevant about Portuguese history would be best. But not kingdom of Galicia, because that may want merging too. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with García II of Galicia. I see no reason to have an article on an alleged kingdom that only ever had one king. It does not even seem clear whether he regarded it as one kingdom or two kingships. CErtainly the article needs to be pruned of some of the excessively large templates which are cluttering it up (if kept). Peterkingiron (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kingdom of Galicia, which is in need of major work, especially in light of a recent edit dispute regarding content. Whether that article stays at that title or is moved to Medieval history of Galicia or Galicia in the Middle Ages doesn't matter to me. (For those interested in the origin of the title "king of Galicia and Portugal", it is the from García's epitaph from the Panteón de los Reyes. It originally read "rex Portugalliae et Galleciae", but it was destroyed by Napoleonic troops in 1808. Cf. George Tyler Northrup, "The Imprisonment of King García," Modern Philology 17 (1919): 391–413. It cannot now be ascertained whether this inscription was the original, for it was first recorded by Prudencio de Sandoval. I'm not sure why a Leonese tomb would have sported such a reference to Portugal after 1139, and it should be noted that García's power lay mostly in Portugal, not Galicia. That said, distinguishing a "Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal" from the Kingdom of Galicia is like distinguishing the "Kingdom of the French" from the Kingdom of France.) Srnec (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not favor a separate page for this, but the fate is problematic for some of the reasons above. The most important reason for not having a page of this name is that the majority of English-language sources referring to the division of the kingdom refer to Garcia as simply receiving Galicia (with Portugal being a county within that polity). That he may (or may not - some of the inscriptions in the royal pantheon are clearly anachronistic) have called himself King of Portugal and Galicia need not mean we should - he may simply have used this to memorialize his suppression of the rebel count. Kings do have a habit of claiming elaborate titles, but we don't call Henry VIII King of France, even if he claimed it for himself. Sancho el Mayor called himself "King in Castile", but no English-language writers follow this usage, and neither should we. The problem is what to do with it. I think a strong argument could be made that Garcia's lands were intended to represent the same polity created in the previous partition in the early 10th century as the kingdom of Galicia. That, though, only brings us to the other problem mentioned above. There was only one previous king of Galicia, plus a few generations later a king who was recognized in Galicia as anti-king of Asturias/Leon a couple of years before he was able to take the entire kingdom. It only existed during two, or perhaps three, transient windows. However, one of the warring versions of Kingdom of Galicia treats every king who ruled a kingdom that included the region of Galicia as a King of Galicia. To use an analogy, it would be as if an article on the Presidents of Texas would describe the Kings of Spain, the Presidents of Mexico, the Presidents of the United States and of the Confederate States all as holders of the title, President of Texas; or in the Iberian theatre, calling the Al-Andalus wali of the Upper March and the subsequent kings of Navarre and/or Aragon all "Kings of Viguera". That version represents a POV that is almost non-existent outside of Portugal, where there has been a politically-influenced nationalistic tradition of placing Portugal as simply the latest manifestation of a continuum that includes this supposed longstanding Kingdom of Galicia. Still I would vaguely lean in favor of redirecting there, as long as the less-POV version wins out. Agricolae (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fairly complicated history of Portugal, Galicia, and the Iberian peninsula in general during this period is better handled without using this confusing and essentially unattested terminology. The information can be dealt with in Kingdom of Galicia, History of Portugal, and elsewhere where it is relevant.--Cúchullain t/c 17:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But a redirect is easier and, most importantly, it prevents anyone having to fix redlinks. Srnec (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, the more I think there should not be a single page for the Kingdom of Galicia, unless, perhaps, it is used for the Suevi kingdom (and I don't have the expertise to know whether this is authentic or more Galician/Portuguese nationalism at work). The 10th century 'kings' represent one who ruled briefly what was effectively a transient partition state, and several (Alfonso Fruelaz, Sancho Ordonez, Vermudo II) assigned as kings of Galicia in a POV effort to harmonize conflicting royal claims or conflicting sources by making the competitors kings of a separate Galician or Asturian entity, rather than simply alternative claimants to the whole. A 10th century Kingdom of Galicia has received almost no coverage as an independent entity in English sources. For this period, it should probably just redirect to Kingdom of Leon or Kingdom of Asturias (and an argument could be made for merging those as well, as they are usually presented as a single continuum). That's really a different question, but it means the page we are talking about here shouldn't redirect to a questionable Kingdom of Galicia page. Garcia II may be the better destination. Agricolae (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A late (9th-century) source makes
Alfonso VII upon the remarriage of his mother, who in the interim continued to rule Galicia with titles like Gallaeciae imperatrix. I draw no conclusions, but I think there is more substance to the notion of a kingdom of Galicia than is perhaps being given credit, and I think it might begin with the period during which all Hispania was ruled by the Visigoths save Galicia under the Suevi. (Note that this has nothing to do with Portugal at all.) Srnec (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed - resubmitted to Redirects for Deletion (non admin closure) RandomTime 10:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zensursula

Zensursula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a mocking name, since it is a play on "Zensur" (German for

Rosenkohl (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for the hint. Now there is a section
Rosenkohl (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. List certainly appears to be redundant. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of gangs active in the midwest United States

List of gangs active in the midwest United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE. Not only is this mostly redundant with List of gangs in the United States, the majority of what is listed here is either unsourced or patently false.  :-( Kill it with fire. JBsupreme (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Rather pointless - redundant to the other list article mentioned above. It doesn't warrant its own article. Aiken ♫ 09:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly written article, starting with no clue about what the author's definition of the Midwest United States includes. Chicago is usually considered the major city of the Midwest, but I've seen it extended into Nebraska, Minnesota and even Kentucky, which is about as midwest as a bowl of grits. Even at that, do we really need indiscriminate lists of gangs active in vaguely defined areas like "the Deep South", "around New England", or "the Southwest"? Gangs of the U.S. doesn't need spinoffs. Mandsford (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    → talk  16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per the discussion here, there is no showing of notability for the subject of the article as written, nor does it appear that the subject can be made notable. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar stones

Jaguar stones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

delete, the "jaguar stones" as described here are not real, instead the description comes largely inspired from the book Middleworld, a work of juvenile fiction by J. & P. Voelkel (supposed to be the first of a trilogy). They have nothing to do with actual Maya artefacts or mythology—while there are of course various sculptures and other iconography depicting jaguars, "jaguar stones" per se is not a meaningful or encountered term in Maya archaeology. The "Indian legend" of Numi the black leopard is completely made up, originating it seems at some New Age gem seller's website but otherwise not to be found in any anthropological record or other

WP:BK notability. Nothing here or elsewhere I've seen indicates a reason to change that assessment. ps. The article was originally created to be about the book, it seems likely by someone with a connection to the book or its authors, but was changed when the article's validity was questioned. cjllw ʘ TALK 07:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Other than fictional works, there are no mentions of these on Google Books. I am indifferent to an article on the stories, but I don't believe the stones warrant their own article. Aiken ♫ 09:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Based on the consensus here, prior recreations and confirmed socking, I've protected from recreation for 1 year. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress Linux

Fortress Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent

WP:SPAM. MLauba (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • For your information, Fortress Linux is availiable for download if you join them. And the reason why it's is not on the Distrowatch list, is because there is a waiting list for at least six months at Distrowatch to even join that list. —Johan82(talk) 22:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 real assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaner G Yo

Shaner G Yo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This rap artist appears to be non-notable. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. nomination withdrawn. tedder (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

El-Saddai Christian School

El-Saddai Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be more of an advertisement than an actual article. The topic is of questionable notability. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article can be cleaned up, and per this, the school is notable. tedder (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it runs through 12th grade (or in Colombia, even through the 11th, when the bachillerato degree can be attained), then it would qualify for inherent notability. I agree that it does need to be rewritten without all the superlatives. Mandsford (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of only 18 schools in Columbia which currently have Wikipedia. This school offers a unique educational programme for children with special needs and disabilities. It has multiple references from secondary sources, albeit mostly in Spanish. It is clearly notable, and the article just needs to be tidied up. Dahliarose (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per the

snowball clause. No purpose keeping this open for the last 12 hours. MuZemike 17:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Far Gate

Far Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a non-notable game. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Already looks a thousand times better! I had to actually make sure it was the article of the same name as earlier. It's a good thing. Crossed out the improvements clause of Keep above with my main statement since you've shown fantastically great faith so quickly. No concerns personally; I'll watch the page and see what it looks like after the week AfD period has passed and see if any cleanup tags might still be needed.
    talk) 04:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Recycling symbol. Kevin (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Anderson (Recycling)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:BIO - the person is known only for designing the recycling symbol, and there seems to be no reliable coverage about him that is related to him doing anything else. The article contains no information about anything else, too, and no information is lost if the article is deleted and replaced by a redirect to recycling symbol, as was the case from 2007 to 2009.  Sandstein  06:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree with the nominator, delete. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Merged keeping it as redirected does not harm (as it is now). Olivemountain (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not currently redirected to Recycling symbol. The redirect was recently undone. That's why I am nominating the article for deletion.  Sandstein  16:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The international recycling symbol is one of the most recognised symbols in the world. The designer of which is notable by association. It has been used and reproduced many times over. This alone should be sufficient justification to keep the article. As the designer of the symbol is not well known it makes the entry even more of interest to readers, hence should stand.--Alex Marshall (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per
WP:N, notability is not inherited. Each topic must be individually notable. Everything there is to be said about the designer can usefully be said in the article Recycling symbol.  Sandstein  16:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saltine cracker challenge

Saltine cracker challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MADEUP sums this up pretty well. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I'm pleasantly surprised by the improvements by Melchoir. I just verified several of the Factiva references; no issues there—they're valid. (Amending my previous recommendation to keep.) TheFeds 16:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll add references myself. The fact that new editors often don't add references is one of many reasons why it is inappropriate to AfD an article one minute after it was created! Next time try cleanup tags and/or Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. And please brush up on Wikipedia:New pages patrol#New pages that may require deletion. Melchoir (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Weak Delete, Merge with' Competitive eating. If it goes for a delete consensus, I'll go with the crowd, but I would rather it gets merged --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and merge needs improvement, but surely it will find its place somewhere with good references. the concept seems feasible and Google provides a multitude of entries 88.71.96.63 (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This definitely isn't something just made up in school one day. I've heard of this, and a search in google news shows tons of mentions in various news articles. And FWIW if you type "saltine" in google the first thing that autocompletes is "saltine challenge". I'm not sure there's enough sources to add up to significant coverage or whatever the exact threshold is, but it's something that will require a lot of searching to determine one way or another. This is clearly a very popular activity, it's just a matter of whether reliable sources have ever bothered to write about it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with competitive eating. I forget where I saw this originally on television, probably Tosh.0 or something like that. JBsupreme (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The saltine cracker challenge now stands alone, so keep. JBsupreme (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't merge this with Competitive eating. While the saltine challenge is obviously a form of competition involving eating, and it makes appearances at fairs, most of our article on Competitive eating is inapplicable. The timescale and amount of food for saltines is much shorter than than the contests described there. It's a binary challenge, not a "how many" challenge. There are no known governing organizations or professionals. The sections "Training and preparation" and "Criticisms and dangers" would simply mislead; the limiting factor is the amount of saliva, not the amount of stomach capacity. These unique differences mean that there is no good place in Competitive eating to merge this article; one couldn't just add it to the Food list.
    One might add a new top-level section for saltines to both Competitive eating and Saltine cracker. This strategy isn't exclusive with having a separate article for details; it benefits from it. See Wikipedia:Summary style.
    As for whether there is enough detailed, significant coverage to be found in reliable sources, the answer is yes. If the article doesn't convince you yet, then that's because it's still a stub. I'm not done with it. Melchoir (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Although I'm still not quite done with the article, I'm getting close. It's no longer a stub, and I've nominated it for
      WP:DYK. Melchoir (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Agree. Totally inappropriate to merger with competitive eating. See here for evidence. Bongomatic 07:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, what I just read was someone complaining about moving a CONTEST for EATING food into the completive eating contest? Ok, besides laughing, this is really not worth a full article, and there are enough random stubs, so just merge it, or if the will of Wiki says delete, purge it.--Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I've heard about this, so it is culturally relevant, I however don't see this article ever going beyond a stub, but that's not what we're debating here is it. Deathawk (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets
    WP:N fairly easily, with tons of coverage from verifiable sources. As a sort of game and pop culture phenomena, it's no less notable than existing articles like Beer pong and Quarters. Also, agree with Melchoir on the merge being a bad idea, competitive eating is something approaching a sport, while this is simply a sort of game. Geraldk (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I love changing to keep when an article is improved like this. I'm honestly both surprised and impressed. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 17:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More than enough sourcing.
    talk) 20:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment on previous opinion: Flagrant conflict of interest! Bongomatic 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, he is evil. Melchoir (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Silly, but sourced. Cheers!
    talk) 05:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. I see multiple independent reliable secondary sources. I like it with articles like this when Wikipedia can cover such fun niche topics. :) Cirt (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is improved dramatically, and might actually be a GOOD article now. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on my failure to pass the challenge 6 years ago. At the time I think it was four crackers (but I could be wrong). I also failed the three litres of chocolate milk in one hour challenge.--kelapstick (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - partly because it meets
    WP:GNG, and partly because like Kelapstick, I too have failed this challenge in the past. Woe is me! GiantSnowman 12:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

a/c) 20:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Paul E. Reinhold Agricultural Fairgrounds

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has apparently stood unreferenced for about 2 years. I consider it unlikely that this article will ever be referenced. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer: Article has been moved to Clay County Fairgrounds --Milowent (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.
  • Keep. Long-established fairgrounds are usually the topic of coverage somewhere, even if the coverage is not available on the net. See this search for references to events hosted there. It may also be worthwhile to search Google News' archives for references to individual buildings at the Fairgrounds, as there may have been coverage of renovations to the building where the Green Cove Lions played. Perhaps the buildings were used by the U.S. military during wartime, as happened with other agricultural fairs. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Created this article because it was a home venue for a team in a defunct football league. Now that both are gone (likely never to return), I say let's delete it. Tom Danson (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Remember the principle of "once notable, always notable". Wikipedia has lots of articles about dead people and defunct organizations and demolished buildings. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I did some work on the article. Its a notable public facility, despite creator's willingness to go along with a delete, there's no good reason to delete.--Milowent (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and retitle. While the grounds may be "officially" called the "The Paul E. Reinhold Agricultural Fairgrounds" because Reinhold donated the land, they have much greater coverage under the more common names of "Clay County fairgrounds, Florida" [37], [38] or "Clay County Agricultural Faigrounds, Florida" [39]. With respects to the author, there's a whole lot more out there that might be used to expand and source this article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article has been moved to
      Clay County Agricultural Fairgrounds. Clay County Fairgrounds seems to be most commonly used name. --Milowent (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Keep Glancing through the Google news and the four books mentioning it, it seems notable. Dream Focus 06:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Snow closure, obvious delete. Could have gone speedy. tedder (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsvilleproject

Carlsvilleproject (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meaningless drivel. . . Flint McRae (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is nothing to save here. No reliable sources even have the ability to pick up on something created in a blog a month ago. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 12:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed, no reliable sources to establish notability. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The page claims it was started in September of 2009, the article was created within the first part of October by a User with the same user name as said article. The only other editor is an annanymous IP that presume is the same user. Blatant self promotion,nothing more nothing less. Deathawk (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. we have a clear outcome

Spartaz Humbug! 03:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Jeff Horowitz

Jeff Horowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail

WP:BIO. Article written by subject, and none of the sources are anything more than trivial mentions. Nothing that will clear notability, I'm afraid. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

talk) 00:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Monster Jam World Finals X

Monster Jam World Finals X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It was tagged for 6 months in regards to the notability. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. So shouldn't this article be deleted then? Robert9673 (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a bad-faith nom from a new user. --
    27 09:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Can you please assume good faith? This is uncivil behavior. I think it's reasonable to nominate the article for AfD. The notability is an issue, which was tagged for 6 months. Perhaps you like to give a reason of why you think it should be kept, as that is required in an AfD. Robert9673 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) RMHED 23:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Baldwin

Shawn Baldwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AFD was created by IPs, I will add their rationale below. Please

WP:AGF with the rationale, but I think they have a point. tedder (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

— 38.106.170.58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • This article undermines the usefulness of Wikipedia. It was clearly drafted by Baldwin in an attempt to repair his damaged reputation after this dealings with FINRA. The content is all opinion and lacks any factual content. This entry is more appropriate for a Linked-In page than Wikipedia. Baldwin is not relevant in financial or politcal circles (unless a Blackberry commercial qualifies him as significant). Truly successful financiers, which Baldwin is not, do not have the need to post their own articles. I am sure the examiner at FINRA that Baldwin specifically names would have an issue with the description set forth in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.210.97.56 (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 63.210.97.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep, but rewrite: the references already in the article demonstrate notability, but the article as it stands doesn't come close to satisfying
    WP:NPOV, and needs some significant editing to make it suitable for Wikipedia. I've tagged it as such, but am unlikely to have time to work on it myself in the next few days. Scog (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
talk) 00:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep but edit:The page needs editing but Baldwin is clearly significant. Trader 999 and the various unsigned comments seem to be POV pushing their own agenda. The original author placed in references from FINRA and the SEC that were removed when other Wikipedians mentioned relevant facts. Baldwin is notable and relevant. The article should stay. Historylover9 (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Historylover9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep but rewrite:The facts are verifiable; the page needs more of an NPOB. Mr. Baldwin has significant accomplishments.Investing In Truth (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Investing In Truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep but Edit: The page needs editing, however should remain. Baldwin's relevancy is clearly evidenced through the multiple references provided. What Baldwin has accomplished is noteworthy, therefore the article should stay.--Marketm5 (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Marketm5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


  • Keep but edit: The page needs continued editing. I believe that the WK:AGF is questionable per the last undisnged post. The unsigned author thinks that Wikipedia is an personal tool for punishment. The purpose is not for airing personal grievances. Greenreader7 (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Greenreader7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep Although this discussion is filled with many sockpuppets, Shawn Baldwin is notable. See this article from
    WP:BIO, so this article should be kept. Cleanup and tone issues are not valid reasons for deletion. Cunard (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Hang on: two within that list of four articles are actually the same as each other. The longest treatment I noticed was this one, which suggests that our man was, at the time of writing, a kind of faded business sleb notable for looks and one or both of incompetence and bad luck. If he's notable for having screwed up (or for having been screwed), then it's as the boss (or "CEO" or whatever's the current jargon) of a company that, rightly or wrongly, hasn't got its own article in en:WP. Famously, the lack of an article in en:WP on something article-worthy is no reason not to have an article on something less article-worthy. However, there's something odd about all of this: whether or not the article was a puff piece when it was nominated for deletion, it seems very society-pagey now. If this man was/is a businessman, readers should be told about his business; as it is now, there's more emphasis on such matters as who his fair-weather pals were. I'm not "!voting" yet but in the meantime I'll say that I'm unconvinced of his notability; further, I worry that if this survives it will be a magnet for one or other kind of BLP violation. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources in the article fully establish notability. There is a lengthy article about his meeting with the
    WP:BIO. The coverage in the above articles do not discuss him as having "screwed up"; these articles discuss his successes in the business world.

    Yes, I know that save for the two paragraph about Baldwin's conference in Qatar, the article does not cover much about business. I am not knowledgeable enough in business to write a decent summary of his business undertakings. Using the sources mentioned in the first paragraph of this response, I ask that you aid in making the article less "society-pagey". The shortfalls of the article should not mean deletion. Everything is sourced, so the article is not a BLP violation. All BLPs are magnets for BLP violations, so that argument does not apply here. The sources provided above prove that Baldwin is notable, not marginally notable, so this article should be kept for fully passing the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

    ]

  • As far as I know, he hasn't been written up in The Wall Street Journal or Financial Times.

    Even if you were to discount the article on docstoc.com, what do you think about the depth and quality of the other sources I mentioned above? These articles are well-researched and are definitely not recycled press releases. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • They don't appear well researched to me; rather, they're gushy or uncritical or both. Still, once the flimflam has been stripped away, there might be enough remaining for the construction of an article. I'm open to persuasion. Good luck working on it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we must disagree on this. I can't see how the articles are "gushy". They objectively present the facts about Shawn Baldwin; they do not promote him. Generally, the vast majority of news articles from reliable news organizations attempt to be — and are successful at being — uncritical - this is the same case here. There is one article that is critical of the subject and is a reliable source that presents significant coverage about the subject. You discounted this source in your initial analysis, but I do not see what is wrong with it.

    This is a valid article; the information that is currently in the article is sourced and encyclopedic. The sources clearly demonstrate notability. Cleanup/expansion issues should not be discussed at an AfD. Cunard (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, there is indeed some content in that FW article. My worry about it wasn't that it was unreliable, it was (and is) that its main point seems to be that Baldwin came a cropper. (Of course plenty of notable businessmen come a cropper and perhaps are now best remembered for this -- Robert Maxwell, the people at Enron, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but the article does call him "handsome", so he hasn't become a complete cropper. ;) Cunard (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thanks to good work by Cunard. -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the copyediting work you did on the article. By the way (even though this is not related to the AfD), what should be done when the sources contradict each other? This source says he founded Capital Management Group, while this one says he purchased Capital Management Group. (I think that Capital Management Group = Capital Management Group.) Both sources are from
    Money Magazine, so this discrepancy is very confusing. Cunard (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After discarding the duplicate "keep", consensus is that this person does not pass the notability guidelines. Kevin (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Fong

Angela Fong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP seems to be about someone who doesn't pass our notability guidelines. It contains four references, three of which are unreliable.

talk at 22:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Again, just appearing in WWE doesn't mean anything to prove notability. FCW isn't even the "top level" where a title win establishes notability. She hasn't done anything important yet. OWOW has not been proven reliable, but is permitted to be used only when it covers a non-controversial item, not 1/4 of an entire article.
talk at 10:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Same as above.--WillC 03:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per James Am and Justa Punk. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20 Hungry Piggies

20 Hungry Piggies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be a non-notable book by a redlink author. GlassCobra 15:36, 14 October 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) 00:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment - if there are reliable sources reviewing the publication they can be put into the article. This may then lead to the article being kept. In it's current form I would say Delete as it has not been proven to be notable. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please link to such a source Mandsford, or cite it appropriately? Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
"...since Mandsford hasn't come forth" LOL. Sorry, 10-lb., I was up on Mount Sinai on an important call, and my BlackBerry was out of range. Without revealing too much, I can say that there will be four new commandments, one of them having to do with government bailouts and executive bonuses. Mandsford (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, the stuff about reviews is on this link [40] that was already in the article. No major research was required on my part. Clickety-click. Mandsford (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Not enough in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Olifant

Olifant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although a good article on a single word, the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The primary difference between articles in an encyclopedia and in a dictionary is that the latter is about the word, and how it is used, whereas an encyclopedia article is about the thing that the word refers to.

This article is about a word and how it is used and derived and says nothing about the encyclopedic topic, which is the animal. This term is completely synonymous with the term 'elephant', but in the wikipedia synonymous terms are placed in the same article.

Further, it is characteristic of encyclopedia articles that they can be easily translated, as the article topic is not language-specific- whereas the topic here is simply a word in a particular language.

There already is a link to the Wiktionary:Elephant article in elephant which links to many different words for elephant, so it does not seem necessary to make this a soft redirect. Given this, I believe that the article should be merged with elephant and a permanent redirect installed.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any unique information to elephant, then delete the article and turn it into a redirect. As per nom, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the term doesn't have notability independent of "elephant". - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't merge and delete, that would violate GFDL because it'd be transferring authorship. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect any relevant info. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki to wikt:olifant as this is an extended dictionary entry one might find in the OED, so can be put into a "Middle English" section on wiktionary complete with an extensive etymology section. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Worth a mention in "elephant" (if it's okay with Stephen Colbert). I can't see separate articles about archaic spellings of a word. Oddly, even "Oliphant", which could probably be a dab page, redirects here. Mandsford (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into elephant and redirect this one. De728631 (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge content to elephant. This shows how elephant is transliterated into other languages. I suggest creating a section in elephant which will show oliphant.--JL 09 q?c 03:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article contains more than a definition; this particular spelling has been used in several notable works of literature. See

WP:NOT: "Although articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible", and other content is present in this article. PaulGS (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, but while it's been used in severable notable works and the article indicates how it is used, the wikipedia is not a usage guide, so it's inappropriate.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listing uses of a word is not a usage guide, which would tell how to use something, not examples of usage.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G3 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Oxford High School

New Oxford High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's just a copy of ====Avon Grove High School==== created by vandals who think they are funny. Richiemcintosh (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • G3 as misleading vandalism, no prejudice against recreation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singkamas, Makati City

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is pertaining to a village that is not notable.--

Talk | contribs) 23:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) option one. There's no policy consensus on the notability of geographic locations but I'm inclined to subscribe to the inherent notability of verifiable geographic locations. Google searches reveal plenty of sources verifying its existence; adding them to the article is a cleanup issue, not an AfD issue. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. There are so many pages in Wikipedia that pertains to a barangay. Many of them were brought to AfD and but were kept. Villages are notable, too. It happens that it isn't notable to other people in the world.--JL 09 q?c 07:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there were others that were deleted as well :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many of those barangay AfDs closed with no consensus, which is a keep by default. No consensus is not coterminous with keep. --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    Makati City after deleting the directory-type content (barangay officials). Inherent notability of geographical places is not a sacred cow and was never a policy, and barangays, especially those in Metro Manila, do not have sufficient notability to merit separate articles. --seav (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment, and still keep. Per
WP:NPT option 3, places are inherently notable. I nominated this article for speedy partly because it has no context and that the place is not notable (Google hits show nothing but advertisement sites). But an admin declined the speedy saying that it geographic places are notable. We have articles like Whistley Green that was written like Singkamas, Makati except that Whistley Green has an infobox (I guess it is needed for Singkamas, Makati). Being a place in the Philippines especially Metro Manila or a Third World nation does not mean that they are not notable and does not mean to have own article. Stubbing, cleaning up and infoboxes are necessary, but places on the Third World does not mean we need to demerit its notability, something like that.--JL 09 q?c 14:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
You're citing a dormant proposal which hasn't been discussed in ages. WP:NPT in this case would probably only have as much impact as an essay does, accepted by some but not by others. --Sky Harbor (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lurking

The Lurking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the entries on this so-called dab page belong here. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a proper dab. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the absence of an actual article called "the Lurking"; "the Lurking" could be a reasonable redirect to any of the listed entries. (But I'll admit I'm not referencing policy there - if anyone wants to cite the relevant policy on disambiguation pages that'd further my education.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From
    WP:DAB#What not to include: "A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion[…]Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context." I don't think that's the case here, since none of those is called just "The Lurking." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Lounge raid

AfDs for this article:
Rainbow Lounge raid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The notability of this article is extremely questionable. Seems to dramatize a rather small incident. Jayson (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus here that the improvements have remedied the problems Kevin (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

José I. Lozano

José I. Lozano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for unregistered user. Reason given on talk is: Fails notability - only citations are a press release and a primary source. PROD removed without improvement. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments against this article are no longer relevant. Request review of the article by those who propose deletion.--ACRSM 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is that while there are some sources, they are insufficient to prove notability. Kevin (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guided Chaos

Guided Chaos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Badly referenced, promotional article about a non-notable sport, failing policies at

WP:N. Googling "Guided chaos" and eliminating blogs, wikis etc yields very few hits, most of which are to online bookstores. I'm sure it's a very fine martial art form but sadly nobody has ever heard of it. andy (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep 6 gnews hits including the new york times, 35 google book hits not all are relevant, but most are, and 14 google scholar hits, although most don't seem relevant although some are.--UltraMagnusspeak 20:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is extremely misleading. You're giving the impression that there's an undercurrent of interest in this subject by mentioning large numbers of hits many of which, by implication, are relevant. In fact the exact opposite is the truth. You mention a total of 55 possibly relevant hits whereas there are actually exactly three, two of which are simply sales pitches.
There's only one relevant gnews hit - four of the hits are about something entirely different and the other two reference the same NYT article.
Having entries in Google Books doesn't show notability, simply that you're trying to sell some books. But in any case most of those 22 hits are irrelevant (not 35 - go to the last results page to see how many hits there really are). I count exactly two that are about the subject of this article, plus one other that seems to be about a rival
And only one of the Google Scholar hits is relevant - and it links to exactly the same site as one of the Google Books hits, namely a look inside the book that the article's author is trying to promote.
andy (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


a new york times article (and video) and an article in Black belt magazine is more than Chuck Norris' style has. They have a reference to his book and some youtube videos. There are many martial arts articles that are more poorly referenced. This is an art that is the basis for the national bestseller for self-defense. That makes it noteworthy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_He_Ba_Fa has NO references. Norris' style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chun_Kuk_Do has as it's references: It's own book, two youtube videos, and a site where you can pay to advertise your school. This article is better referenced than that any day of the week, regardless of what web searches bring up. -Devin

  • The fact that other articles are even more badly referenced is no reason why this article should be kept. Why not nominate the others for deletion as well? One article in a worthy newspaper and one in a specialist magazine is pretty borderline for establishing notability (BTW the video is the video of the article, so that's one reference not two). And where's the evidence that the book is the national bestseller or even a national bestseller? andy (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 00:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Romney

Walter Romney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor. Limited GHits and no GNEWS. Appears to fail

WP:ENT ttonyb (talk) 19:06, 15 October 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 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sniff Petrol

Sniff Petrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no assertion of the blog's notability; wholly unsourced Karpouzi (talk) 18:45, 15 October 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, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Car Transportation

Reliable Car Transportation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nom for IP. Original nomination statement below, pasted from article's talk page. lifebaka++ 17:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of notability, severe conflict of interest and NPOV concerns. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:38, 15 October 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, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The argument that references may exist and will be produced have not come to fruition. Kevin (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Allen Smith

Jeffrey Allen Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-

notable person. Citations are either insignificant (mere listings) or do not verify facts in hand. PROD denied. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The following comment is transcluded from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Allen Smith.

  • I understand the policies, and I have deleted the information (specifically, that Jeffrey Allen Smith has three top-40 hits) that I was unable to find resources for. I also went through the article and found multiple back-up sources for other facts. I am in communication with the staff at Billboard and attempting to find the actual written proof of his three top-40 hits so that the article will contain information that proves that Jeffrey Allen Smith is notable enough to be found on Wikipedia. Providing I can prove the existence of these three top-40 hits, will the article be admissible for Wikipedia, or are there other issues that need to be taken care of? Thanks!

Cityassistant (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references included in the article as of this writing are either primary sources (the pastor's church website), or are insignificant mentions of Smith having appeared as part of a singing group, or don't mention Smith at all. A search of "Jeffrey Allen Smith" at Billboard.com lists two artists: one Jeffery Smith (not the same person) and a James Allen Smith (also not the same person). I'm not sure how extensive Billboard's online archive is, but if Smith has 3 top-40 singles under his belt, I would think he would at least be in their database. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the archives as well, and the problem is that for the specific chart that he had Top 40 hits on (Christian music) the Billboard archives don't extend as far back as 1993 and 1994. I am working on getting verifiable proof that the singles were hits. Question - if the proof is not online, but actually like a paper printout sent to me from Billboard, via fax or pdf, how do I cite that? Can i use non electronic resources for a wiki article?71.1.7.146 (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The printout will likely be a copy of the magazine articles which listed the songs, including the publication date, page numbers, etc. This would be a sufficient reference, as it would be verifiable by others who care to search their local libraries for archived Billboard copies. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 00:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Party Dark

Party Dark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

Talk • Contributions) 16:12, 15 October 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, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freecycle (software)

AfDs for this article:
Freecycle (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find

talk) 23:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 00:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After 13 days of discussion, there's a consensus that the subject is notable and nobody besides the nominator is arguing for deletion. Any

COI issues can be dealt with through the normal editing process. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Bedeutung

Bedeutung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails

WP:SPA
account with no other edits other than related to Bedeutung. Was speedied previously as Blatant advertising.

Self-promotion and product placement are

WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote bedeutung.co.uk Hu12 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 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, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James DeFrances

James DeFrances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a self-promotional article, can't find no google hits, just mirrors, and promotional info, nothing on google news as well Delete Secret account 13:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete along with all those happy snaps. NN. Josh Parris 01:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this rubbish! Some gawky self-publicist, not a musician! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.42.139 (talk) 21:25, 16 October 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, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all except The Champion. I'm surprised no-one's noticed, but bar the last one, these are all copyvios of other websites. Deleted and then redirected to the main artist page, can be re-created if they're written properly. Black Kite 13:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long Time Coming (eLDee album)
and others

Long Time Coming (eLDee album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles (multiple published here) seem to fall more or less afoul of

Eldee for deletion. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Also nominated are following:

Return of the King (Eldee album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Big Boy (eLDee album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
The Champion: The Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:19, 15 October 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, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 11:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Pentecostal Young People's Association

AfDs for this article:
Pentecostal Young People's Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization, for which I cannot find any significant coverage in Google News, only some passing mentions. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge to Indian Pentecostal Church of God, unless it is expanded enough to warrant an article of its own during the AFD period. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The hits on Google that I'm seeing (apart from the first several which are all primary sources and thus not sufficient under
    WP:GROUP) hint that it's possible to meet notability, but I don't think it's widespread and significant enough to merit its own article. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. cleanup would be very helpful here, but there's a consensus this person is notable.

a/c) 20:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Tyler Yarema

Tyler Yarema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician advertisement; could have been speedied, but declined by another editor, so taking it here Orange Mike | Talk 02:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Citing 3 Awards & Recognitions, I think the biggest problem is that the article is very badly written, and yet I cannot bring myself to defend it from a delete. Josh Parris 02:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Given that I wrote the page, I am curious to know what can be done to inprove it. It's true that you need a subcription to the Toronto Star and other periodicals so you cannot site this information via an online source. Having said that I can source it the old school way... Would that help? Saralarah13 (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Check
WP:BAND, figure out which 1 or more of the 12 criteria it meets, and reflect that with reliable sources. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_October_22&oldid=1142643243"