Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 16

< 15 June	17 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piecepack

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

This is a non-notable subject matter that is unreferenced. The external links are self-published sources. Miami33139 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can't find any RSes. Hobit (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Elementary School

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

Non-notable school. There is no school district article or education section of the appropriate city to redirect to. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This AFD's decision of delete was appealed and a different AFD opened on the same topic.

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

The result was delete. I have discarded the meta discussion about organising masonic articles as the relevant issue for this discussion is simply whether the subject of masonic temples is notable. To be notable the usual bar is sources that specifically discuss the subject in detail. There have been no sources produced that meet this criteria so the consensus according to policy is that this is not a notable topic for an article. This is not a super vote this is assessing the arguments and seeing what the most policy based arguments are. We do not keep articles by assertion and we do not keep articles because they are mentioned elsewhere in another context. Individual buildings may well be indpendantly notable, in which case we should write separate articles for them. None of these however, add up to keeping an article where specific sources have not been produced Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Temple

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

Notability of the topic can not be established through reference to reliable sources. I am the initial creator of this article. When I created it, I assumed that the topic of Masonic Temples was notable. However, after an extensive search, I have not been able to locate reliable sources that are independent of the topic that actually discuss the topic. I have found several sources that use the term... but none that discuss it in any depth. The closest I have found is a three paragraph sidebar in "Freemasons for Dummies". I had hopes for William Moore's Masonic Temples: Freemasonry, Ritual Architecture, and Masculine Archetypes, but that focuses on interior design and decoration and not on the buildings themselves. I am therefor forced to admit that my assumption was wrong, and the topic is not notable after all. Please note: there is a related AfD discussion for List of Masonic buildings Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This probably qualifies under G7, since not only has the author requested deletion, but the rest of the history indicates that the information has been placed elsewhere. The interior design of a building can be notable, of course, even if the outside isn't. A large part of secrecy is to have an outward appearance that attracts no attention. Mandsford 19:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G7?! Are you kidding me? If you actually read G7, you'll notice it says it's only applicable if "...the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author..." This is obviously not the case, and this article doesn't even come close to meeting any speedy deletion criteria. SnottyWong talk 19:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the basic assessment is wrong. I suppose the Detroit Masonic Temple is just trying to blend in. PeRshGo (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Mandsford changes his !vote to Keep below. SnottyWong talk 13:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Blueboar is escalating his disruptive behavior with this set of articles by starting this AfD. He has started multiple merging/moving discussions on various pages while at the same time nominating other articles for deletion. I am not sure what his motivation is, but this AfD is purely disruptive and is just wasting everyone's time. Just because Blueboard was the initial creator of the article doesn't mean anything, he does not own the article. All of the concerns that Blueboar has about this article can be fixed with normal editing. Many of the buildings that this article describes are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. If the exact term "Masonic Temple" is not the correct term to use to describe these buildings, then a move request should be made to move the article to the correct name. There is no reason to nominate this article for deletion. SnottyWong talk 19:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup. Artw (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't cleanup... it goes directly to GNG... no sources discuss this topic. Blueboar (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is nothing more than Blueboar trying to circumvent consensus. The article isn’t turning out the way HE wanted so he wants it deleted. “My way or the highway” has no place on Wikipedia. PeRshGo (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, keep this one. Out of Masonic Temple (disambiguation), List of Masonic buildings and Masonic Temple, I think that the original problem was that there were three separate lists which appear to be two more than are actually necessary. Needless to say, the opinions that any editor has about any another editor are not anything that needs to be vented here. Mandsford 22:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree that we currently have more lists than are needed but I see no merit in pretending something is what it is not for the sake of proper procedure. PeRshGo (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and question process: "Delete" is actually my !Vote, if the process for making decisions on the linked articles and dab pages and categories related to Masonic buildings is to be done one by one, spread out over many AFDs and Merger proposals. I am confused what related articles exist as of now. But, the AFD on List of Masonic buildings is headed for a "Keep" decision, and it is the oldest list-article (and source of most of content currently here, copied in) and I support its general name. There only needs to be one list-article probably and that is it. There is no need for a separate article defining the term "Masonic Temple". If that is a defined term, then a Wiktionary entry can be checked or created and linked from the disambiguation page about places named "Masonic Temple". Otherwise, there is little or no sourced content here, and whatever useful discussion about the Mason's terms vs. public terms should be included as a sentence or two in the Freemasonry article. This is more or less the same as my opinion about Masonic Lodge, currently a separate article. For other fraternal organizations, I believe there is one big article about the organization giving some of its terminology. For Boy Scouts and other organizations, there is also just one article i think, not separate ones defining what is a Girl Scout Troop vs. a Girl Scout Council vs. a Den or whatever. So, I don't like the AFD being opened separately from any one comprehensive proposal, but my own comprehensive proposal would currently include merging this topic into Freemasonry and the List of Masonic buildings. But, when/where is there to be a central discussion for comprehensive proposals? I have previously tried to promote such, but i am overwhelmed with the AFDs and separate discussions everywhere. --doncram (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folks... this is simple... are there independent reliable sources that discuss this topic? Yes or no? If yes, what are they? If no, then the article should be deleted. I am sorry that you dislike the nomination and feel it is in some way "disruptive" or "out of process" or "against consensus" for me to nominate this article... but raising an issue like this is what AfD is for. Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an article of this nature there doesn't NEED to be sources that discuss commonality. The fact that there are hundreds of Masonic Temples that are individually notable make the topic its self notable. Trying to take down this article on grounds of notability is ridiculous. PeRshGo (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at google hits alone. A search for "Masonic temple" -wikipedia yields 933,000 results. A search for "Masonic lodge" -wikipedia yields 1,220,000 results. An awful lot of people seem to like taking pictures of these mundane, non-notable objects. There's also a decent amount of news about them. Let's look at a couple of books on the subject:

Are we still arguing about notability? SnottyWong talk 03:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... because not one of those sources actually discusses Masonic Temples as a distinct topic or in any depth. (I would suggest you actually go to a library, as I did, and look at the sources and stop assuming things based on a google search and your opinion). Blueboar (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all of those sources discuss Masonic temples. How can you possibly argue that they don't? I'm preparing for the imminent wikilawyering: SnottyWong talk 04:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I actually went to a library and looked at them (well... ok... I have not seen Moses Redding's Masonic Architecture yet, but I have been able to check the others, and they don't discuss the topic of "Masonic Temples"). Blueboar (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They don't discuss "Masonic Temples"?! What about the one that uses "Masonic temple" in its title (Masonic temples: freemasonry, ritual architecture, and masculine archetypes)?! I have been to the library too, and I can confirm that all of these sources discuss Masonic temples in one way or another. SnottyWong talk 13:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize, of course, that Masonic temples are buildings, right? And what are the most interesting and notable elements of buildings? Their architecture, interior design, common uses, etc. Multiple sources which discuss (at length) the architecture of such buildings, the interior design of such buildings, and the common uses of such buildings do establish the notability of these buildings. In your opinion, what else would you need sources for Masonic temple to discuss in order to pass your interpretation of WP:N? SnottyWong talk 14:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep, but if this article is kept, the contents of Masonic Temple (disambiguation) should be merged into it. Considering the widespread use of the name "Masonic Temple" and the fact that there seems to be a little bit of WP:RS information on the meaning of that name, there appears to be some justification for saying that this is a notable topic that should be the subject of a short article. However, most of this article is a wikilinked list of buildings that have "Masonic Temple" in their names; and Masonic Temple (disambiguation) is also a wikilinked list of buildings that have "Masonic Temple" in their names. The distinction between the two lists is not at all obvious -- surely there is no need for two separate lists of buildings that have "Masonic Temple" in their names. --Orlady (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's end this AfD and start a merge discussion. SnottyWong talk 04:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mandsford's comment at 22:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC). I don't have a strong opinion about what the resulting article should be titled. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources no article. TFD (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Brit (and non-Mason), I'm unfamiliar with the term (Masons hereabouts meet in "Lodges"). However there do seem to be a number of verifiable Masonic buildings in the USA that are described as "Temples". I'd appreciate an article that clarifies whether this is a regional or a functional difference and offers me both explanation and etymology.

Good point. I think that can be easily done. PeRshGo (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that... I tried... no sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the term is minor, we only require notability not "major notability". There are already a number of wiki articles describing "Temples" with good references to support their naming as such. Arguing from the existence of numerous notable articles using the name "Temple" to a general article on the term itself is acceptably self-evident, even to our policies. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and possibly merge with List of Masonic buildings. There's around half a million GHits for "Masonic temple", so to claim the concept is non-notable seems ludicrous - and it's a stiff test of my ability to abide by WP:AGF. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you pick a few examples that you think are reliable and discuss the topic? I suspect that most of these hits are lodge websites that say nothing more than: "Fidelity Lodge #123 meets in the Masonic Temple on Main Street on the fourth Tuesday of each month." Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off the list, first ref. I believe this to be WP:RS that discusses the existence and naming as "Temple" of at least one building. Having demonstrated the notability of one "Temple" and assumed the existence of many similar (just for convenience), I'm finding it hard to see how an overall description of the term in general doesn't meet policy. However I suspect you might disagree with this, given your claim in the other AfD that Category:Masonic buildings isn't supportable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is little doubt about the existence of buildings called Masonic Temple, I'd agree with Blueboar that there is a dearth of credible sources that actually analyses them as buildings. There are other meanings for the term but again very few sources actually discuss them in anything more than passing. there is a related point about the proliferation of articles on much the same topic, whether that be Masonic Building, Masonic Temple or Masonic Lodge. It would significantly simplify discussion and progress to cull some of them and as with Doncram it looks as if the List article on Masonic Buildings is likely to have a majority of votes to keep it, so this one should go. ALR (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The idea that there are no sources is outrageous. Multiple books with the term "Masonic Temple" in their titles have been proffered, but the nominator is asserting that these books do not actually discuss Masonic temples? What are they about, puppy dogs and unicorns? The fact that there are numerous Masonic temples that are notable in and of themselves makes the category notable, even if for some reason dozens of people are printing books purporting to be about Masonic temples which never actually mention the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.134.36 (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the books that have "Masonic Temple" in their title are about Masonic art, symbolism, and decorative design. They do not discuss the topic of this article (the buildings themselves). What is the old saying... don't judge a book by its cover... the same goes for titles... don't assume you know what a book is about based on its title.

I realize how counter-intuitive this is... It is very hard to accept that there are no sources for this topic... I fully understand why everyone assumes that that there should be lots and lots of sources. Hell... I was guilty of the exact same assumption when I created this article... I started it based on the assumption that it would be easy to find sources upon which to build the article. But, after actually spending half a month looking for sources, and examining those I found, I was forced to admit that this assumption was wrong. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with the sources, but with your conception of what a source must contain in order to be considered a source. Books about the architecture, interior design, and construction of such buildings are sources, whether you like it or not. If you think they're not, then please tell me what aspects of the buildings a source must cover in order to be considered a source, by your definition. SnottyWong spill the beans 14:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are sources... but they are not sources that establish the notability of this particular topic (Masonic Temples). The article in question is about a class of buildings we call Masonic Temples (aka Masonic Halls, Masonic Lodge buildings, or several other terms). For a source to establish notability, it must discuss these buildings in general terms... it must give significant coverage (as defined by WP:NOTE) to these buildings as a class or type of building. It should outline what a Masonic Temple is... and what the purpose of a Masonic Temple is. It should discuss the common characteristics by which we identify such buildings and distinguish them from other buildings. Ideally it would discuss how such buildings developed and have how they have changed over time. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of an authoritative treatise on Masonic Temples does not bother me as much as it does you, Blueboar. The "for Dummies" source (which I haven't actually seen), plus numerous documents describing individual buildings called "Masonic Temple," (including many, like http://www.trentonmasonictemple.com/ , that use "Masonic Temple" as a generic term), ought to be sufficient basis for saying that "Masonic Temple" is a name given to many meeting halls and auditoriums built and owned (or formerly owned) by Masonic groups, particularly in the United States. That type of brief introduction, followed by a list of notable buildings called by the name "Masonic Temple", would make a reasonable contribution to human knowledge, consistent with the mission of Wikipedia. What bugs me most about the Masonic building situation is the proliferation of low-content pages with similar scope, including this page, List of Masonic buildings, Masonic Temple (disambiguation), and Masonic Building. Considering the widespread use of the name "Masonic Temple" for naming auditoriums or halls (something that could be considered "common knowledge") and the existence of even one published source documenting the specific meaning (or, rather, apparent absence of a specific meaning) of the name, I think that the topic of "Masonic Temple" rises slightly above the threshold of notability. At the same time, I have yet to see evidence of independent notability for a list of buildings somehow associated with Freemasonry, and I have seen no plausible reason for maintaining both this page and Masonic Temple (disambiguation). --Orlady (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in my desktop dictionary, I find that the definition of "temple" helps to explain "Masonic Temple." Definition 6 says "The headquarters of any of several fraternal orders, especially of the Knights Templar." It would be original research on my part to suggest that the term "Masonic Temple" evolved from names of places such as The Temple (London) (originally the precinct of the Knights Templar), but I imagine that someone has done that research and published it. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel evolution anyway, Masons take their "temple" from Solomon's Temple (as did the Templars), but not via the Templars. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka! If that can be reliably sourced, we might get somewhere. I see it discussed in this online book whose reliability I can't judge, and this online article does mention the "Solomon's Temple" relationship for a Masonic Temple in San Diego. --Orlady (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets try this a different way... can any one express what does make the topic of Masonic Temples notable? Can we even identify three traits that are common to all Masonic Temples? Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a page called "Masonic Temple" does not require that all Masonic Temples have traits in common. As I see it, this would essentially be a set-index article that starts with an explanation of the name "Masonic Temple" and then lists a bunch of buildings that have that name. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... lets start with that... do we even have a source to support an explanation of the name "Masonic Temple"? Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I remain completely mystified by this debate. Books about the architecture, symbolism and artwork of Masonic temples are so obviously sources for a page about Masonic temples that I can't even find the words to argue with Blueboar. What do you want the books to be about? In my mind, this is no different from a page about "churches" as a general category. It is self-evidently a notable subject, and Blueboar has provided sources which, in his own words, do adequate justice to the topic, despite what he seems to think.Minnowtaur (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The buildings are/were owned by the freemasons.
The buildings were built by the freemasons, or their construction was primarily financed by the freemasons.
The freemasons meet at these buildings.
The buildings often feature masonic symbols in their architecture and decorations.

There's four. Satisfied yet? Didn't think so. SnottyWong yak 19:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True.. In fact I would say that this is the only common trait between these buildings. But that raises the next question... is there is a source that mentions this fact? Another question: does being owned by the Freemasons make something notable? I don't think so.
Not true... many Masonic Temples were originally private houses or commercial properties that the Masons bought...for example: Masonic Temple (Kent, Ohio).
Not completely true... for example: Masonic Temple (Providence, Rhode Island)... not one single lodge ever met in this building. But I will admit that is an anomaly as the intent was for Masons to meet in it... next question: do you have a source that says Masons meet in these buildings?
Not true... Sometimes they do, but more frequently they don't... for example: Masonic Temple (Jacksonville, Florida).

Two out of three (or four)... so you've guessed right... not satisfied. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, maybe you need to realise that times have moved on since the traditional Aristotelian necessary and sufficient conditions. Prototype theory, for example, applies to many more real world definitions and doesn't require each condition to be satisfied to define something. Chris55 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to close Sounds like there is a consensus that a list-article of Masonic buildings is acceptable, but there are two of them, the longer-standing List of Masonic buildings and this current "Masonic Temple" article whose list section was started as a copy of that, with the deletion of red-link entries (which I believe were/are all notable places). This current article also received a mostly unsourced development of the concept of "Masonic Temple" which I submit could be stated in one or two sentences in both the Freemasonry and List of Masonic buildings articles. Since there are complaints on several related Talk pages that "Masonic Temple" is an inappropriate term (possibly U.S.-centric, possibly non-politically-correct by current Mason views, other), and since some/many of the significant Masonic buildings are actually named Masonic Lodge or Masonic Hall or Masonic Building or otherwise, anyhow, it seems best to stick with the long-standing article List of Masonic buildings, to resolve that it shall be a list of significant ones with significance to be continually defined at its Talk page, to close this AFD as a redirect to Freemasonry or that list-article, and then later consider at Talk:List of Masonic buildings a possible rename to "List of Masonic Temples, Lodges, and Halls" which has been suggested. Or it could be renamed even to "Masonic Temple", or otherwise, but later after more development of individual articles and development of the list-article to include photos and descriptions and allow for a more informed decision by editors who have actually developed the topic. Orlady and Blueboar have repeatedly expressed concern that the categories and the disambiguation pages overlap with the list-articles, and they do, but I think that is a non-issue, because by wp:CLN and wp:PURPLIST and much precedent and practice, it is okay and good to have alternative, complementary navigation systems. The disambiguation pages are needed to help readers looking for places named exactly "Masonic Temple" or exactly "Masonic Building" etc., including a few which are notable for non-Masonic-associated reasons and will not make the cut to be included in the List of Masonic buildings. The disambiguation pages have already been tested with AFDs already, too; it will not be further productive to try to delete them in favor of a lit-article/Set-index-article that has been proven to be subject to deletions and passionate argument. The disambiguation is technical and objective and should be left to disambiguation-focused editors in a supporting, secondary, technical type role, separate from the actual content development of individual articles and list-articles with changing inclusion standards. Whether there should be three or four separate disambiguation pages for the places named narrowly, or one merged one (which i think goes against the preference of most disambiguation-focussed editors), is a technical question of optimal disambiguation structure that need not really concern most editors present here. Just like how to set up categories is a technical matter that not all need to concern themselves with. By the way I appreciate that Orlady has done some development of the category system. I have started up some of the individual building articles and added a bit to the list-article. Another editor or two has expressed interest or started developing some of the related articles. In these discussions some information has come forward on sources and examples of good, culturally significant examples. Let's close this now as I describe here, and allow interested editors to work forward in developing the content. --doncram (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you can not express what makes the topic notable either... so you want to end the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to end the discussion, which is not productive. The deletionists are i think outvoted, and should let wikipedia-building proceed. Actually i don't mind if "Masonic Temple" as an article is kept to describe the apparently well-documented internal design/architecture of a Masonic temple/lodge/meetingplace/building/hall, and possibly also exterior architecture, as a supplement to the list-article "List of Masonic buildings". My proposal is mainly that the list should be in the olderList of Masonic buildings article. Any list here is a wp:Contentfork of that. Comments on whether the list portion of this current "Masonic Temple" article should be dropped from here, in favor of the "List of Masonic buildings" article, would resolve this. There does seem to be apparent consensus (some objections notwithstanding) that the concept of a "Masonic Temple" or "Masonic temple" is notable. I guess i favor now Close with keep but drop the list from here in favor of List of Masonic buildings. --doncram (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with Doncram's interpretation that "there is a consensus that a list-article of Masonic buildings is acceptable." As I have stated at the other AfD, I am unconvinced that there is any encyclopedic purpose in publishing a list of buildings that have some sort of ill-defined association with Freemasonry -- which is what List of Masonic buildings is. Rather, I think there is a useful purpose to be served by an article that explains the term "Masonic Temple" (the article and tis discussion has finally started to give me some inkling of what that explanation should consist of) and provides a set-index-article list of individual entities named "Masonic Temple."

Further, regardless of what the consensus might be, after many weeks of haggling about these articles (particularly between Doncram and Blueboar), I think it is very important for an uninvolved administrator to carefully review both of these AfDs in tandem before closing them. The principal disputants should not be announcing a consensus. --Orlady (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with most of what you say, and your preference that the list-article should be at "Masonic Temple". But, you are within the consensus that there should be a list-article. I have stated why i think the list-article should be the original one which is located at List of Masonic buildings and which i think has more content and relevant editing history and even a better name; we have to agree to disagree about which place it should be located at. --doncram (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I do not support a list-article. I support a set-index article. There is a large difference: a list-article indicates that there is some sort of notable relationship connecting the list elements, whereas a set-index article indicates only that the elements share the same (or essentially the same) name. --Orlady (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no great distinction. The wp:SIA states "Set index articles should follow the style described in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists", which just goes on to describe types of list-articles. I think a stand-alone list is any type of list that is not embedded in a different article. However, i would oppose anyone insisting that the numerous notable Masonic temple-type places which are named "Masonic Hall" or otherwise cannot be included within the list-article, as editors following your intent for the list-article might reason, so i reiterate that the original List of Masonic buildings is the better-named. --doncram (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A set index article assume that there is a reasonably finite set to index. The set of buildings named "Masonic Temple" runs into the tens of thousands. Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the first sentence. About the second sentence, so what? The list-articles under discussion are lists of notable ones, not every stupid meetingplace. And, if the notable ones run into the thousands (which I doubt), then the list will be split by geography or by some other sensible approach. --doncram (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But wp:SIA says "A set index article is not a disambiguation page". What I find odd is that the Masonic Temple (disambiguation) article also contains a long list of temples. Do we really need three such lists? Chris55 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think no one wants 3 lists. Disambiguation pages are not list-articles though. A set index article is a list-article and can include descriptions, footnotes, pics, while a dab page cannot. I think a narrow list-article, as Orlady wants, which is labelled as a set-index article, can substitute for a disambiguation page though. What Orlady wants, if i understand correctly, is:

Proposal A (doncram's understanding of Orlady's views)

Keep Freemasonry general article
Keep Masonic Building, a disambiguation page
Keep Masonic Lodge (disambiguation), a disambiguation page
Keep Masonic Temple as a list-article labelled as a set-index article, but allowing only Masonic halls named "Masonic Temple" and perhaps close variations like West End Masonic Temple, but not allowing Mason's Hall (Richmond, Virginia), the oldest U.S. Masonic hall in the U.S., and not allowing any other Masonic hall whose article name is Masonic Hall or Masonic Lodge or named otherwise
Delete List of Masonic buildings
Delete Masonic Temple (disambiguation) (well, actually it would be recreated as a redirect to Masonic Temple)
???? about Masonic Lodge
???? about Masonic Hall, a disambiguation page I think is also needed, and just created

I don't happen to think that it is tenable to allow a list-article on only "Masonic temples named 'Masonic Temple' only" and otherwise don't think that is comprehensive proposal meeting Wikipedia guidelines, and serving editors/readers. That proposal A involves keeping one list-article (the Masonic Temple SIA) and 2 or 3 dabs.

What i have argued for, i think more or less consistently, is:

Proposal B-1 (doncram's main proposal)

Keep Freemasonry general article, and add as necessary for it to provide definition of what is a Masonic Temple / Hall / and Lodge
Keep Masonic Building, a disambiguation page of places named exactly that or close variation
Keep Masonic Lodge (disambiguation), a disambiguation page (but move it to "Masonic Lodge")
Keep Masonic Temple (disambiguation), a disambiguation page (but move it to "Masonic Temple")
Keep Masonic Hall, a disambiguation page
Keep List of Masonic buildings, as a list-article of notable Masonic buildings of any name, and as the original list, only recently copied partially into new Masonic Temple list-article
Delete Masonic Temple, as its content is naturally covered in "Freemasonry" and in "List of Masonic buildings"
Delete Masonic Lodge, as its content is naturally covered in "Freemasonry" and in "List of Masonic buildings"

This proposal B involves keeping one list-article and 4 dabs. --doncram (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I fear that Doncram's attempt to simplify this discussion has complicated it further by adding a bunch of new red-herring topics. I had no clue that the continued existence and/or scope of articles like Freemasonry and Masonic Lodge were at issue here. Can we please agree to discuss ONLY Masonic Temple, Masonic Temple (disambiguation), and List of Masonic buildings? --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no one proposes deleting the Freemasonry article, and the proposal to delete the Masonic Lodge article does not need to be answered within this AFD. My point with the comprehensive proposals, for this AFD discussion about "Masonic Temple", is that there is no comprehensive proposal on the table which makes sense and which keeps "Masonic Temple" as a list-article. The Proposal A deletes one out of four related dab pages, and restricts the list-article to be essentially "Buildings named exactly Masonic Temple". Would it make sense then to create a new list-article "Masonic Halls named other than Masonic Temple"? I don't think that makes sense, to command a split of the "List of Masonic buildings" list by Masonic Temple vs. other name rather than keeping it whole, or than dividing it eventually by geography or age or something else. Proposal A as i understand it would not allow a large percentage of Masonic halls to be included in any Masonic buildings list-article.

I would also be okay with, call this Proposal B-2, the B-1 proposal amended to Keep the "Masonic Lodge" article and Keep the "Masonic Temple" article in some form defining the term and linking to "List of Masonic buildings" but not itself including a list. --doncram (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion is perhaps one of the best illustrations of the weaknesses of the Wikipedia version of democracy around. Lots of people contributing to discussion of a subject that they don't understand and using superficial google counts as a decision tool.

This debate is about the subject Masonic temple, not Masonic buildings, Masonic lodges or Freemasonry. The four are different things and even considering a discussion about convergence is ill-thought through, it's also in completely the wrong place, if it's a serious suggestion take it to the project page and discuss it there.

To be specific:

A Masonic Temple is the room within which a Lodge meets. Many buildings, particularly in the US, also use it in the name however that is fairly restricted to the US. There are a number of sources that talk about the decoration, furnishings and layout of temples although as above I'm unconvinced that they support this article, more likely articles about the individual furnishings.
A Masonic Lodge is what comes into existence when a group of Masons meet and formalise that meeting through ritual. The Lodge is an organisational grouping and may meet in any one of a number of places. The point is confused when the article in question is crufted up with photographs of buildings and bluntly I'd cull the lot of them now but given the behaviours demonstrated by a number of editors I'd immediately get reverted along with lots of finger pointing and accusations of bad faith.
A Masonic building doesn't appear to have a sourced definition although we have a number of arbitrary opinions expressed. Peraonslly I'm still not convinced that subject is notable but the closing admin totted up the votes and made a decision according to the majority. Even where the buildings have the name Temple this is probably the place to discuss them.
A Masonic Hall is a name used for a building and the idea that it needs its own article is laughable.

I would suggest some judicious use of redirects, there is little point in multiple disambiguation pages discussing the same things.

ALR (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is helpful. ALR uses Masonic Temple to refer to the interior room, and I think that argues for the Masonic Temple article being about that, and dropping the list of notable buildings that are misnamed (according to Masonic terminology) as "Masonic Temple". ALR uses Masonic building to refer to buildings and I think that agrees with keeping List of Masonic buildings named exactly that. I agree with ALR that the Masonic Lodge article should not be confusingly cluttered with pics of buildings named "Masonic Lodge" or named "Masonic Temple", both of which are misnamed according to official Masonic terminology. The Lodge article could carry a picture of the membership of a given lodge, like a graduating class-style picture of all the members at some event, which would properly convey that a lodge is a group of people. ALR does not seem warm to the disambiguation pages, but those are not articles and are simply needed to assist navigation to wikipedia articles of places named (or misnamed) exactly that (and 2 AFDs about them have been closed in favor of Keep already). So I interpret ALR's comments as most consistent with Proposal B-2, including with dropping the list of buildings included in the current "Masonic Temple" article. Also since the List of Masonic buildings AFD has been closed in favor of keep (no consensus otherwise), it is even more clear that the redundant list of buildings here should be dropped. --doncram (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The temples are notable parts of a notable organization. The discussion to merge and/or redirect is happening elsewhere. No reason to delete though. Dream Focus 18:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfD isn't cleanup. It seems pretty evident that the various articles we have on this subject right now (including the list article) contain enough referenced material to do something encyclopedic with, even if large chunks of it end up getting merged to freemasonry or the like. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close It appears we have just gotten back into the territory of organizing the data rather than deciding whether or not the article should exist at all. I move to close. PeRshGo (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pershgo, AfD's aren't closed by mutual agreement. Once the AfD has been open for at least 7 days, then an uninvolved administrator will analyze the arguments for consensus and close the AfD. This particular AfD started on June 16 (7 days ago) so it will probably get closed later today or tomorrow. "Moving to close" is not an applicable action with respect to AfD's. SnottyWong ^yak 21:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well they do tend to help show at least some level of consensus. PeRshGo (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bren Powers

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

Non notable athlete. Has yet to compete in the highest levels of strongman competition. Millbrooky (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I contested speedy deletion of this article as it contains a minimal claim of importance, with a reference to a local newspaper, but I can't find any evidence that the subject passes either WP:ATHLETE or the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged it for SD (this reminds me of 'Who killed Cock Robin'...) as I didn't feel the standard of competition and the success therein reached was high enough under WP:ATHLETE - and I wasn't too happy about the sponsor link. I've explained my position at reasonable length to the creator after he contacted me, but nothing seems to have happened. There seems to be potential in the subject - but potential is future stuff. If he gets to the finals of the UK Strongman, there might well be a strong case. I wish him well in the next qualifiers, anyway. (Got to - he's bigger than me.....) Peridon (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say userfy on this one, as the creator seems to be a well-intentioned new editor who's picked up on a toppic that isn't quite notable enough but may be in the near future (incidentally, to keep up the Cock Robin analogy, I'm the one who moved the article to the correct capitalisation...). Alzarian16 (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't disagree with that suggestion. Peridon (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the Blackpoole citation he seems notable. Article just needs expansion. AkankshaG (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One piece in the local paper excepted, the coverage lacks anything that could be called a reliable source. Doesn't match up to WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to everybody who has made comments, yes I am new to this and the page was created in good faith, if somebody could point me in the correct direction as to how I can improve things in line with Wikipedia then that would be great, as mentioned above Bren has only appeared in the online version of the newspaper but has been in printed material on several occasions, Blackpool Gazette, Lancashire Evening Post etc he is a very good athlete and all we are trying to do is boost his profile and let people know they have a local strongman who needs their support. As I said if anybody can be of further assistance that would be brilliant. Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter "Panda" Jones (talk • contribs) 08:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's one of the things Wikipedia is NOT for. For promoting someone, try LinkedIn and aboutus and so on. We're for recording stuff, not for making it happen. Good luck, anyway. Peridon (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly true, but on the other hand if the guy's been covered in local papers lots of times then he mightbe notable under WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Perhaps Peter could scan some of the offline articles and upload them as images so we can see if they qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SVIA HIV model

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

Original research, pure and simple. No evidence of significant independent coverage in the 8 unique GHits, including Wikipedia and mirrors. Nuttah (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero Pubmed hits, unpublished original research. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedias no original research policy. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR ~ Ciar ~ _(Talk) 23:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yura Železnik

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

This article is about a violinist that does not meet notability. The article includes one profile from the Epoch Times Isreal which is in Hewbrew. Using Google translation on the page, it appears to be a nice write up for an artists who is still trying to make it although it's difficult to tell sometimes how well the machine translation worked.

However, I can find no other sources writing about this musician. Although not a reason for deletion, the article appears to be an autobiography and suffers from neutrality problems, including previous versions containing copied biographical from the artist's web site. Whpq (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the two major contributors to the article are Mrzeleznik (talk · contribs) and Yurazeleznik (talk · contribs) whose only contributions are to this subject[1][2]. It seems like two accounts for one user. Further, both have warning notices about their editing habits on both their talk pages. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Can't find any reliable secondary sources that attest to this person's notability - all I can find is his own site, and myspace-type sites. Also, can find no evidence of commercially-produced work - only an apparently self-published "album". (My recommendation is "weak" because there might be other language sources that are good enough, and I'm limited to English). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm also aware that there may be non-english sources. There is the Epoch Times article in Hebrew is dated from 2007. But that article says the artists was still looking to get his first album out. In the intervening years, it doesn't appear that he has been signed to a major label (or any label at all). The biography on his website does some name dropping, and there is a claim to touring and playing in England. If any of that were notable, I'd expect to see something in English sources, but there is nothing. The band he was with in England, "Eugine Sokolot" also turns up nothing in a Google search. There may very well be non-English sources, and I would happily review them if they were available (and get a decent translation), but I suspect that there isn't likely much out there. -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence from WP:RS is provided in the article that he meets the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. Release of two or more albums on a major label would be evidence of notability, but I don't think he has anything on a major label. I tried to figure out if 'Tornado' was an actual album issued by some publisher, but there is nothing to that effect. Concert tours, if there were any, should normally produce press coverage. The 2007 article in the Hebrew version of Epoch Times seems to anticipate the appearance of an album some time in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout Girl: Growing Up and Drying Out in America

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

This book has no third party reliable sources that I can find, and therefore fails WP:NB. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(posted on talk page of article by article author)Hi, I'm trying to create a page for a book that I love. Sorry if it's taking me a while to get everything in order. I do not believe this page should be deleted-- it's a valid book with great reviews. I was kind of surprised that the book was not on here already and decided to add it.

We have notability standards; not everything that exists deserves an article on Wikipedia. The relevant guideline is WP:NB, which requires multiple, non-trivial reliable sources, which I do not see here. If you are Jennifer Storm, or are working for her, you should realize Wikipedia's strong policy against advertising, and the WP:COI policy. She has priorly attempted to write about herself and her books. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no, I am not her nor do I work for her. The book was nominated for one of the 40 best adult non-fiction books in 2008 by the PSLA. That's how I found it and why I added it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrown224 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. i think the authors website shows some evidence of notability, although it would have to be verified. mention in the Advocate, and an interview by dr drew, i think helps. see [3]. we cant use her site as a reference, but each individual source can be cited if found online or in print. her position as executive director of stated org, and profiles of her in major outlets, mean that her books (her second one out just now) probably should get automatic notability, as long as they are not trivial themselves (cookbooks, gift books, ephemera, etc). I am probably not ready to do the work to actually improve the article, but thats not necessary here, we just have to decide if there is a possibility the article can show notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge with the article on the author. Whe has more than one book, on the same general topic, and he information will be best combined. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 17 June 2010 (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) 00:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with author's article - I can't see any indication that the book meets WP:NB or WP:GNG. Claritas § 16:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5ive Star

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

Fails notability guidelines. The only claims to notability this article makes are that this artist wrote the song "Empire State of Mind", and "Over", neither of which claim appears to be true. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi stuart

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

Contemporary "artist of energy". More a CV than an article and no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non notable person, and even a copy vio. Check the sites listed, this guy just pasted the reviews. (I only tagged it for one CSD though) Undead Warrior (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summertime (Cody Simpson song)

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

Not notable. –Chase (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-hit from unnotable Justin Beiber clone. Nate • (chatter) 00:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-charting song, fails WP:NSONG. WWGB (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Song that did not chart. Fails notability guidelines. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:NSONGS. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this song, only a few passing mentions, the best of which is this article noting it's "becoming a hit online" and that a single was expected to drop in May. There's just not enough material in reliable sources at this point to warrant a stand-alone article. Gongshow ^Talk 04:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 pure advertisement. Non admin closure. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CompoCom

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

No third party reliable sources found, so this company fails WP:CORP. An IP removed my Prod without addressing the problem. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (make that practically speedy) as blatant advertizing.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. No indication of importance. I was unable to find any third-party coverage of the company. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 19:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 19:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as zero claim to notability. Also close to speedy on the blatant advertising front. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as pure blatant advertising. So tagged. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Guitarist#Notable guitarists. T. Canens (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of guitarists considered the greatest

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

Cruft list is a near-to-full duplication of a section already found in the Guitarist article. Misrepresentation of the list content in the title as it might be List of guitarists who have been included in print media top ten lists. Also note that the inclusion of the Rolling Stone section duplicated content from an article about the magazine issue which has been previously AfD'd from Wikipedia due to a copyvio issue over re-printing the contents of the Rolling Stone list. Wiki libs (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guitarist#Notable guitarists. --King Öomie 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore to this version [4] that was kept by consensus before. After the original keep, we've had two people who took it upon themselves to make a redirect to Guitarist, and another one who decided to "update" it [5] by trying to make it look identical to the section of Guitarist. I see no reason for doing that. Mandsford 19:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The key difference between the two is the longer table, which really isn't necessary. Why should that list be given priority above the many similar lists (and for the record, I think the Rolling Stone one should be trimmed too). -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Guitarists. I don't think there can be enough content to support a page. Once you ignore thbe lists, there isn't much, and I see no reason why that information can't be placed elsewhere. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no merge. The whole section of Guitarist#Notable guitarists was copied from this list into the article Guitarist by User:Dr. Blofeld [6] after he voted for deleting in the last nomination [7]. Therefore, it can not be considered a near-to-full duplication of a section already found in the Guitarist article (and it also violates Wikipedia's old copyright policy because Dr. Blofeld didn't mention the original author(s) when merging contents into the article Guitarist). Moreover, this article is well sourced, well written, similar to List of films considered the worst. Lastly, it would be a good example of a NPOV inherently subjective list of the article Guitar or Guitarist.--AM ^(talk) 04:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect/Merge' - to Guitarist#Notable guitarists as per Kingoomieiii. Codf1977 (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me that where Kingoomieiii's comment is. I see only a empty vote with no specific reason.--AM ^(talk) 01:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have content forked from one article to another without proper attributation but if the material is already sitting comfortably in another article that had a wider context I see no point in retaining this so I support the redirect as this will address any attribution issues as well. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a good idea to have an article listing the Rolling Stones 100 Greatest Guitarists, or other notable listing, or an article with multiple lists. However, this article doesn't seem to be going in that direction, or have any direction for that matter. The Original Research nature of the article name is also problematic. Thus, Delete with no prejudice towards recreation with a proper name and proper focus. --Pink Bull 01:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runglish (disambiguation)

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

This disambig contains 3 entries. The first is an article, that's fine. The second looks like pseudo-information referring to the first usage; it was actually brought in as unreferenced from the article - I can't see any encyclopaedic value to it, and if anywhere, I'd think it should belong in the article. The link to Volapuk...there is no mention of the term in that article, nor can I find a connection (from a reliable source. In conclusion, I think this page can just go. "Runglish" only seems to really mean one thing - a cross between Russian and English. It's also potentially derogatory, so I don't think we should have unreferenced claims via a DAB page. Chzz ► 17:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found two pieces of information in Runglish that didn't belong there. Since I didn't want to be the person who deleted that information from Runglish, and therefore from Wikipedia, I created Runglish (disambiguation) and added the questionable information there. If that information must be deleted, it's okay with me. HaŋaRoa (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A disambig page is supposed to disambiguate between Wikipedia articles that use the same term, so entry 2 shouldn't be there. Entry 3 makes no reference to "Runglish". That leaves just one article, so no disambig needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entry 2 isn't a link, so remove it. Entry 3 doesn't mention it, so remove it. Which leaves us with just one entry - so remove the page. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a case where someone creates an ambiguity in order to clear it up. I don't see anything that justifies a disambiguation page. Mandsford 20:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 2nd and 3rd entries are invalid. Boleyn2 (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no ambiguous articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Booth

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

Non notable footballer. Fails guidelines at WP:ATHLETE having not played a game in a fully professional league and does not have the coverage required by WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Having never played a fully pro match, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, and there is insufficient coverage about him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted G4; was already deleted via discussion once. — Timneu22 · talk 17:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1950s retro movement

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

Unsourced WP:ESSAY, and WP:OR. Not a single reference. — Timneu22 · talk 16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Retro style. I know that someone put this one up for speedy deletion fo CSD G4, but I think redirection is appropriate. Movementarian (Talk) 16:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this is a good synthesis but not for wikipedia. Happy to userfuly somewhere is someone wants to transwiki the material to a more suitable external site. Leave a note on my talk if you want to do that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of science fiction film and television series by lengths

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

This list is entirely redundant to List of science fiction films, List of science fiction television programs and List of science fiction television films. Per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:SALAT, we don't need an independent list which indicates the length of programs. If timings are considered relevant, they can be added to the main lists. The last two AFDs ended in no consensus, mainly due to keep !votes based on the fact that an earlier discussion in 2006 resulted in consensus to keep. Claritas § 16:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:SALAT. I can't imagine the usefulness of a list that sorts science fiction series and films by total running time. Movementarian (Talk) 16:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO/WP:NOTDIR. Days hours minutes? Come on! Redundant with better list articles where run time could be included if absolutely necessary (it isn't).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL aren't reasons for me to say keep. Although I appreciate the effort that was put into this, it's the very definition of "original synthesis", and even good OR is still OR, good trivia is still trivia, and good cruft is still cruft. However, I hope that the closing administrator will give the article's creator time to put this information onto the entertainment wikis for the various shows, where it would get a more favorable reception. Within Memory Alpha, for instance, it is useful and interesting to know that one could spend 23 days watching the Star Trek universe (or 4,014 minutes watching the original series, which works out to something like slightly less than 3 days). While I see no policy that would justify having this maintained here, the information would be most welcome in places where OR is accepted. Hopefully, the folks in Deletionpedia will leave the lights on as well. Mandsford 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to keep the content available, why not put it into your userspace temporarily ? Claritas § 20:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, WP:IDONTLIKEITTHATMUCH. Mandsford 22:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly per WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Reyk _YO! 23:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki this interesting piece of Original Research elsewhere, please. (...and then delete it, of course) I gotta admire the effort here, but really? As a rule of thumb, anything that talks about "canon" needs to have a cannon taken to at least that part of the article: we don't debate canon here. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
um, somehow preserve this somewhere else and give the creator a gold star for original research yes, this doesnt belong here, but its actually kind of brilliant. it needs to be made dynamic, so you can sort by total time, then it would be awesome. then, expanded to include all other dramatic works in series, not just SF. I wonder if people would actually PAY to visit the site if really fleshed out? oh, and of course, if the site this is sent to becomes notable for this piece of work, we can then create an article about it. good luck.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move somewhere else Definitely gold star material, but pure OR that should be saved somewhere. If nothing else, keep it as an example of OR that can't be kept here! htom (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and modify — I created this page over five years ago when I was a nerdy undergrad who didn't understand what Wikipedia was for. It seems out-of-place in the encyclopedia now, but I nevertheless am not sure that I can vote to delete. The information in it was derived from addition, so it's no more WP:OR than are age calculation templates. Furthermore, I've seen this list linked to from other sites, which gives me the impression that it is notable. I don't think it's redundant to the lists linked by the nominator because those are for just films or television series. I think it would be useful to have a list of series across media, although the list would need to be re-designed for that purpose. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that the addition of times is that straightforward. You, and others, have had to decide which shows were canon or non canon, research the runtimes, which are not always noted at their wp articles. i dont think this would be out of place here if it was simply listed somewhere else, and some indication of how many people viewed it could be provided. But i can see how a case can be made for the additions being trivial. unfortunately, sites linking to this article cant qualify as an argument for notability, but it does point to this information being valuable to some, thus potentially notable. cant find the links myself, but that would be hard to do.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It list the series, how many episodes they had, and how long every episode or film lasted. Some people might be interested to see how long things lasted. If any information is sincerely doubted as valid, you can easily find confirmation in the primary source. Amazon and other places that sell films, list how many minutes long they are. Dream Focus 04:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to reruns etc., there's no definite length of most series. It's basically WP:OR and WP:SYN to assume there to be one. Claritas § 06:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think it's an interesting piece so it would be good if it could be preserved somewhere - maybe there's a sci-fi wiki that could use it - but it is in essence original research. The added up numbers themselves are borderline but for me the real issue is that this method of classification seems to have no precedent. Even if all the information can be reliably sourced - which is in itself somewhat questionable - using it in this novel way is synthesis. Guest9999 (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 based on many precedents from similar past AfDs, as discussed below by users DGG, Calathan, Cyclopia, and Boing. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional penguins

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

Almost entirely unreferenced list of fictional penguins, which fails WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. This isn't neccesarily an appropriate topic for a list, and unless most of these entries are speedily sourced, WP:BURDEN implies that the list should be deleted. Claritas § 16:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most entries are linked to Wikipedia articles and those articles have references (as with many lists), so I don't think the list requires additional references of its own for every entry (unless perhaps the linked-to article doesn't actually mention the penguin in question). I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not usually a strong Keep argument, but there is a pretty big precedent in the shape of a whole load of similar lists - eg dogs, ducks, dinosaurs, rabbits, raccoons, weasels, worms, wolves (and that's just checking three letters of the alphabet). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No need to duplicate references between articles and lists. Artw (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the past, articles of this sort have regularly been kept. See for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional deer and moose, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional turtles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional raccoons, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional dogs (2nd nomination). I think the list should be sourced, however, even if the individual artilces are sourced. Calathan (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a popular article. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles on significant types of characters or theme in notable works are appropriate encyclopedic content. It does not fail not directory, because it's discriminate--it is intended to be only about those in works with Wikipedia articles (there are a number of others without such sources in the article at present, and they should be removed). WP:SALAT says "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists." Unfortunately the third sentence of this guideline is invalid, being in conflict with the very basic policy of NOT PAPER--there is no reason to limit the number of lists and more than to limit the number of articles. DGG ( talk ) 08:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:IINFO and WP:SALAT because the criteria for inclusion is too broad to have a discriminate, encyclopedic article built from it. What is left is nothing but namedropping and trivia. The contents of the article have nothing to do with each other besides the unencyclopedic cross-categorization of "penguins" and "fiction". I'm quite disturbed at the consensus above that ignores these key maintenance guidelines. It's lists like this that we should concentrate on deleting and I applaud the nom for the effort. Them From Space 11:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - three of the five keep !votes are based on arguments which are widely considered to be erroneous - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a justification to keep, the argument that it is popular is basically just a simplified version of WP:POPULARPAGE and the argument by Calathan basically ignores the fact that consensus can change and also shares problems with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'm not sure that any policy states that entries in a list shouldn't be sourced simply because the entities listed are sourced, and certainly not all the penguins listed have sources on their main article. There's also an issue that some penguins on the list don't have articles. If WP:SALAT is "invalid", you need to take that up on the talk page or at the village pump. At the moment, I believe it reflects consensus. Claritas § 11:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I'm not sure that any policy states that entries in a list shouldn't be sourced simply because the entities listed are sourced". We need to think about the purpose of sourcing - is it to blindly follow a rule, or is it to provide readers with a way to back up the assertions made in an article? It's clearly the latter, and readers have such a way, by clicking through to the individual Wikipedia articles - and if any of those are not sourced, that's a reason to challenge the articles themselves rather than the entire list. So, while I agree that the question of independently sourcing lists is a valid issue for discussion itself, it is not a reason for deletion - we delete articles that are unsourceable (rather than just unsourced), and most entries here are clearly not unsourceable, as they are actually (indirectly) sourced. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also a double-edged tool. On the one hand, we don't keep crap just because there's other crap elsewhere, but on the other hand, we develop Wikipedia policies by consensus - and concensus often relies on precedent, which is itself a form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So I think that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, while not a strong argument on its own, can make a valid contribution to forming a consensus - in this case, the fact that articles like this have historically been kept when brought to AfD makes a valid contribution towards the discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the consensus to include most of the other lists dates back to at least 2008, "precedent" is not really a valid argument, in that consensus may have changed since. WP:FL? implies that citations of reliable sources are necessary for lists. Claritas § 13:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree that consensus can change, yes - and I think it's good to bring such lists to AfD from time to time - but people can, and will, use precedent (even if it's two years old) to help make their decisions. And again, the absence of independent sourcing is perhaps a reason for adding available sourcing (which clearly exists - it's in most of the individual articles), not for deleting the list - we delete things that are unsourceable, not just unsourced or, as in this case, only indirectly sourced. WP:FL? defines characteristics for Featured Lists (which are considerably more than simple lists of links to other Wikipedia articles). It is not a rule to be interpreted literally and followed blindly for all lists. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOT as indiscriminate information because a list of fictional penguins is far too general and too broad in scope to have any value. (WP:SALAT) I've checked though the entries and found that only Chilly Willy, Frobisher (Doctor Who), Opus the Penguin, Tux, and Prinny that have stand-alone articles. The rest are redirects, links to character lists, links to the works the characters are from, or have no link at all. I would also have to agree with ThemFromSpace that the this is a list or repository of loosely associated topics, and thus fails the Wikipedia is not a directory of the WP:NOT policy. Just because there are other lists exist with similar issues doesn't mean that we give this list a pass as far a policy is concerned. —Farix (t | c) 15:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see how this list fails WP:IINFO or WP:SALAT. Whether something is a fictional penguin is easily determinable, and the number of notable fictional penguins would certainly be finite and of a manageable size for a list. Furthermore, being a fictional penguin links all of the listed characters in an obvious way, making the list well defined. The arguements for deletion seem to be based primarily on the poor quality of the current article, specifically that it currently includes a large number of non-notable entries. However, the solution to that issue is to remove the non-notable entries, not to delete the entire list. Calathan (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation in accordance with WP:Source list.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arguments like a list of fictional penguins is far too general and too broad in scope to have any value speak for themselves: what is general and broad about a subject as specific as notable, fictional penguins? It is clearly not indiscriminate (very well defined inclusion criteria) and clearly not as broad to fail WP:SALAT: in any case I'd like to remind that WP:SALAT is never a reason for deletion, but for reorganization: the guideline says: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists. The nom argument deals with sourcing, which can easily be done by editing, and as such deletion policy asks us not to delete. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Post Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence (PARMA)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Personally not convinced, but not enough to delete. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Tieleman

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

Bio of political columnist/strategist. Gnews returned results either by the subject of the article, or briefly mentioning him; not about him. Links in the article consist of (a) coverage of a break-in; (b) a brief quote by him in a blog; (c) his own blog; (d) a story on his Facebook page; (e) a bio of someone else entirely where Tieleman is mentioned a few times; and lastly (f) a paragraph bio on a political site. I don't see any of this meeting the standards for WP:BIO, and a Gsearch doesn't return anything that would make him notable. Speedy declined. Propose delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 16:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be vanital in nature. -Drdisque (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As the creator of the bio, I have no relation to the subject and in fact disagree with some of his positions. "Vanital in nature" would appear to be insufficient grounds for deletion argument. Canuckle (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —Canuckle (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2010 (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) 00:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of the article, I am biased. However, the nominator I feel is also biased due to their initial impression because I made the mistake of saving the unreferenced first draft live to mainspace rather than to myspace and the nominator tagged it for speedy delete within 1 minute of posting. After some clean-up, I put a comment supporting notability on the Talk page, but the nominator never engaged in any collaborative dialogue using the Talk page. Since the nom, additional sources have been added attesting to the notability of this prolific writer, commentator and self-promoter. The nom's points are also misleading due to lack of context: Gnews returns results by or mentioning the subject: Well if the 43,000 Ghits for 'Bill Tieleman' are his writings, that should be taken as a demonstration, not a detriment, of his claim to be a prolific political columnist and commentator. Nom mentions Gnews hits which actually demonstrate subject's claim in reliable sources to be a media spokesman for Oxfam and left-wing pro-Solidarity university group as far back as the 1980s. a) an (odd) break-in allegedly linked to the BC Legislature Raids so not your typical office lockpicking; b) the brief quote in a blog is I think actually an entire interview with the subject by a right-wing blog (subject is left-wing) on the topic of one of his claims to notability (STV opponent). His opponents (members of the citizens assembly) are on public record saying he played a lead role in the defeat of this notable referendum. c) his own blog - used to verify facts/his claims. d) a story on his Facebook page sounds innocent. the fact is he claims it is BC's largest group, he raised questions covered in mainstream media about whether there was political motivation to its temporary cancellation, and it is part of his notability claim as a HST opponent. His advocacy and Facebook page built and built until the political alliance was created to make a formal referendum petition -- which by all accounts (600,000+ signatures) looks to be the first to succeed in passing the notoriously difficult petition phase required by legislation. e) mention in a bio of "someone else." That someone else is the "grand showman" of BC politics Bill Vander Zalm. The reference to the bio demonstrates the notable three-party alliance (left-wing NDP plus right-wing Conservatives and Social Credit fossil) that is driving the notable and legislatively-sanctioned official proponent of the HST petition. f) a paragraph bio on a political site. this was used to source his university degree. It is the anti-STV society site, so is also proof that he was president of the notable organization that defeated STV. Canuckle (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BOARD International

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable company, no reliable sources provided and none found beyond press releases and marketing materials. TN X Man 15:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also spam, for yet another back-office tech business: the provider of a programming-free toolkit for the development of Business Intelligence and Corporate performance management applications.... More Gartner "magic quadrants" - sheesh! - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: advertising for a non-notable company. The article is also a possibly copyright-infringing close paraphrase of the official website, and may be eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G12. Intelligentsium 22:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Billionaires

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 20:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Entertainment Monthly

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable, defunct local alternative newspaper, circulation approx. 1,000. Sources listed are either a) not reliable/verifiable or b) do not mention the subject. Subject failes WP:NNEWSPAPER, the proposed guideline (no current guideline), also fails WP:GNG. Previous AfD resulted in WP:USERFY with so significant improvement. Appears to be a vanity piece. Non-encyclopedic. Minor4th (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nom claims "no significant" improvement" after userfy. Most of the references and a lot of cleanup work when into it before I put it back on the Main Page. How about we tell the truth once in a while and stop trying to rig the game? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

The article was userfied to allow me to add the appropriate sources and references since I still had to dig to find the Flipside and other articles that I didn't have in front of me initially. My mistake was starting the article on the Main Page rather than work on it first on my own page. Another high crime, I know, but please forgive my ignorance. I'm aware of the policy now. In any case, and once again, Minor4th has ignored policy and assumed the worst here. In truth, most of the references on the article were put there after it was userfied. Again, please check your facts before you go making accusations and incorrect remarks based fully on assumption. Any ref that doesn't mention VEM is there for purposes of citing a source for an individual that is mentioned as having been associated with the paper. If the cite wasn't there, it would obviously turn into this after about two seconds:

^{[citation needed]} Right? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as I said in the previous discussion, I looked for sources in America's Newspapers through the library and found no mention of this publication. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 16:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Turlock is a small town and the newspaper only ran a year. It is highly doubtful that it ran any "breaking news" that weren't covered by the Stockton Record, Modesto Bee or Sacramento Bee. I know because I live in the area and this is the first I've heard of the paper. Discounting that observation, no reliable sources could be found to establish notability. I tried as a WP Cal member. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above, as well as my rationale from the original AFD. History: When I first nominated the article for deletion, the author left some pleasant corespondence [8], [9]; I especially like "You and your kind will not win". Eventually I concurred with the proposal to userfy, pending the addition of reliable sources to support notability, and see now that the article was re-entered in main space with little or no apparent improvement in sources. Longterm and contentious sense of ownership suggesting conflict of interest. JNW (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I stand by my previous comments - nothing worth saving. Seems a short-lived local publication, unencyclopedic and nearly 20 years out of date, non-notable, and still no google hits, except wikipedia...Modernist (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not going to vote since I was the principal creator of the piece but I'd just like to say that 16 solid references including national publications does not make this subject non-notable. No internet back then, that's how we got our news, I found the old copies in the garage but didn't realize the crime involved in trying to write an article on a small newspaper that wasn't notable to editors that in many cases weren't even born at the time of publication. I'd advise anyone who isn't biased to actually read the article and explain how the content and people involved, including Stan Lee and many other famous contributors, is not notable.

It should also be pointed out that this article was nommed for a second time due to a conflict with an AfD with this article, Donald G. Martin, which Minor4th took as a means to create a justification for this AfD. Good show, Minor4th, I applaud your military skill.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot this...

Majority ≠ right

This user recognizes that even if 300,000,000 people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake.

Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Comment - having read Minor4th's comments on his talk page, I concur. Had he not nominated the article, I would have after the article was brought to my attention by an admin during the Don Martin debate. I also find it curious that you have a problem with the refs there after looking at the refs on this article. The article does not meet Wiki standards, pure and simple. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are my comments on the sources used in this article. Since many of them are not available online, I have referred to their availability in libraries around the word as searched for at WorldCat.

Valley Entertainment Monthly itself - No library holdings listed in WorldCat.

Listed because the data to be cited for reference purposes was contained in the Valley Entertainment Monthly copies which I used to get the facts straight.

The Hughson Chronicle - 1 library holding listed in WorldCat (Stanislaus County Free Library, Modesto, California).

Article appeared in this newspaper announcing the start of the publication.

Duckduckgo.com - Site appears to be based on mirroring Wikipedia; not an independent reliable source.

VEM is a defunct newspaper and is listed on an independent source. This is a fact and there is an online resource to support it.

Answers.com - Mirror of Wikipedia; not an independent reliable source.

The paper is mentioned in the article, whether they sourced it from Wiki? Unknown. There is a lot more information there than something they pulled from Wiki, though, so at least only part of the page is based on Wiki, if at all.

UFO Magazine - Does not mention VEM.

Backs up a statement about a contributing writer. Doesn't mention VEM but is a reference for the claim made about the individual. Is this not allowed? Sarah told me I need a cite for the Mr. Morbid paragraph, so I assumed I needed to reference each claim. I think I'm right on this, but will defer to more experienced editors.

Wraith - No library holdings listed in WorldCat for the particular Wraith described here.

Comic book from 1994. What can I say? I've got one, says VEM on the inside front cover. Should I make copies of these articles and fax them to Wiki? Yes, some of this stuff is esoteric and may have little web presence, but they support the Wikipedia standards by supplying the required refs.

Vortex Two - No library holdings listed in WorldCat.

This was a local UFO publication that ran an article on VEM in that issue. I would say this one is not a big name publication, just a localized newsletter.

American Art Directory - Does not mention VEM; in fact, it was published almost 80 years before VEM debuted.

This one is there to support the contention that the artist referred to in the piece is a "listed" artist as it says in the article. If I said she was a listed artist and didn't put that there, I'd get one of these real quick: ^{[citation needed]}

Penguincomics.net - Incorrectly cited web site. The reference should be to Penguincomicsnet.blogspot.com. However, the blog post at issue does not mention VEM.

Again, reference for the claims made about an individual contributor.

Bar-None.com - Does not mention VEM.\

Supports another claim in the article about Country Dick Montana of the Beat Farmers.

The New Millennial Star (or The New Mellennial Star) - No library holdings listed in WorldCat under either spelling.

Another UFO publication, this one a lot larger than Vortex Two. This one is mailed around the world to South America, Europe and the United States. Not surprising the WorldCat wouldn't cover it. How many UFO publications does the WorldCat cover? Also, if it is not in WorldCat, it can't be a reference? I'm confused.

Flipside (fanzine) - This one does appear to have 5 library holdings listed in WorldCat.

Huge publication, albeit somewhat underground, that has been available in every major city in the United States since the late 80's. For people who claim the paper was not notable, a major publication like that would not have covered it if it was some little nothing paper as most here would like to suggest.

Magus News - No library holdings listed in WorldCat.

Gaming publication. Sorry no WorldCat, but VEM mentioned.

The Sorcerer's Scroll - No library holdings listed in WorldCat.

Same as above. Issue contains article about VEM.

All responses by Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

There are also five web sites in the "External links" section, but none of them mention VEM. I realize that not everything is on the Internet, and to research some things it is necessary to go to a library and maybe even do an interlibrary loan. The problem is that most of the sources listed here either don't mention VEM or would be very difficult to locate. Other than the Hughson Chronicle and Flipside, I don't know if I would even be able to find any of the more relevant sources here. I'm not going to submit my recommendation yet, though, as the article might change between now and when the AfD closes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any references that do not actually mention VEM are intended to back up statements about the people involved and to that degree, the references back up statements about individuals involved somehow with the paper. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

I should also disclose my relationship to this subject. I was friends with Mr. Morbid and I kept a copy of each issue as it came out. When I was cleaning out my garage a few months back, I ran across all the old issues in a box. I thought Wikipedia would be inclusive of even a small newspaper, but I didn't realize that having an article on the site means having to win a popularity contest. As for the article, I'm not going to take it personally even though it clearly is personal. The timing makes it obvious it is punishment for some other crime. The paper, as I've said ad nauseum, was really exciting to a lot of us back then and we didn't have the internet. I know its hard to imagine life without the net, but back then we actually got our news through newspapers and this was the only one like it in the area at the time. Interviews with Stan Lee, Quiet Riot, Mart Nodell and many others, all nationally known celebrities, artists and writers. Yeah, real non-notable. I'd suggest some of you actually read it first, too, before voting because one of your editor friends told you to jump on the bandwagon. I'll also add that I haven't seen Mr. Morbid since 1994 or thereabouts, so I am certainly no proxy. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Delete. Per above Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For disclosure purposes, I made a few cuts to the article without realing I wasn't signed on. Sarah advised cutting the fluff, so it was basically a bunch of paragraphs cut out of the piece. They are all marked something along the lines of "improvements, per Sarah" and the like. Sorry about the oversight. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

This is an answer to Metro from my Talk page. I thought it would be appropriate as it very clearly sums up in a concise manner this whole affair:

"Some Questions Exactly how many cites does a subject need anyway? Isn't it something like two? The article has two solid ones. The Flipside article is being ignored like it is nothing. That is a nationally distributed monthly magazine as I've tirelessly pointed out, but you are focused on some small things, which I find ridiculously petty, but I respect your right to your opinion, obviously. The Hughson Chronicle announcement of the first issue is no joke either. I just think the material is not being reviewed properly. How common is it that a small publication like that would nonetheless have interviews and/or contributions from internationally famous rock musicians (Rick Wakeman, Country Dick Montana!, Ian Moore, Quiet Riot, Kevin Dubrow now deceased), the creators or Spider-Man (Stan Lee) and Green Lantern (Mart Nodell), a nationally syndicated psychic, a column by a leading UFO researcher at the time, as well as a particularly gory column specifically about B-grade slasher films? It looks like it will be deleted and I'm not going to get worked up over it, it isn't that important. But it turned out to be one hell of a learning experience and that's a really good thing. With that said however, I have to add that the publication described above would only be considered non-notable by an idiot. Just my opinion, don't take it personally."

Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Delete per nom. Source-wise, they're either VEM itself, passing mentions or are for related facts immaterial to the actual newspaper. Sadly, the creator seems to now be on some kind of personal crusade against the world. ninety:one 21:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess it is coming off that way, but I don't mean for it. Bottom line is I spent a couple weeks trying to get this article together and when there was disagreement on another AfD, this one was mysteriously nominated for deletion by one of the principal editors over at the AfD on Donald G. Martin. It had been left alone, with refs, for weeks with no comment or additional tags. Odd timing and would probably annoy anybody. I am on a war, though, with editors who throw around accusations, then ignore the responses. That's just plain wrong but seems to be fairly common on Wikipedia. Incidentally, there are two solid, nationally recognized refs (Flipside Magazine and The Hughson Chronicle), so I'm not sure what you mean by "passing references" only. That is an assumption and untrue. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Comment -- NN, your behavior when anyone disagrees with you makes it very difficult to work collaboratively with you and does not inspire others to give you helpful pointers. Nevertheless, you mentioned something in one of you earlier comments that struck me -- as far as notability goes, you mentioned that what is unique about this particular newspaper is that it attracted interviews of very important people in the comics industry despite its being small circulation and a free publication. In other words, it's not the big name interviews themselves that are really notable, it's the fact that such a small alternative publication could pull it off. Maybe make that the principle claim of notability and make it more prominent and clearly stated. I don't know if that will stave off deletion because I havent gone back and reviewed your edits or ref improvements since I nommed this. But that is one way I think you could improve this article that might help bring it into wiki compliance. Good night. Minor4th (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though arguably borderline as to notability, I'm satisfied that this publication made a contribution to popular culture. Outside the realm of articles that cause real-world problems (BLP or related matters), this falls for me well within the category of keeping more rather than less content where the content will provides some useful information without harming anyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - NN has written to Jimbo Wales concerning this and his editing (you can find on Jimbo's talk), and Jimbo has commented that the article "almost certainly doesn't belong in Wikipedia" Claritas § 13:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Keep: Jimbo also told us to ignore all rules so long as we are improving Wikipedia. I think content that is non-notable to whomever could be labeled with a category for excluding from projects where it matters, such as printing Wikipedia. I can't see that it does any harm otherwise. Lumenos (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summarise and Merge to Turlock, California - I see no reason why a historical newspaper of local interest might not be covered there. Claritas § 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Claritas.Minor4th • talk 20:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As a WP Cal member, oppose mention in Turlock. The paper is not historical as it did not produce any lasting works except for this AfD. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm no - The two should be linked but it is rather long for that article. wp:IAR would be more of an improvement I think. It becomes a nuisance only if the content is some place like that. Lumenos (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional New Zealanders

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

List which fails WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Considering the amount of fiction in all forms which has been published/broadcast in New Zealand, this list would be impractical and unmaintainable if expanded. In its current state it is simply unrepresentative. Claritas § 15:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much per nom (WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR all apply here). It's important to note that because each of these characters are from a different fictional universe, the designation of being a New Zealander is pretty arbitrary cross categorization. Them From Space 15:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any special problem with the list. It seems to be limited to notable characters from notable works. More could be added to balance out the superheroes and science fiction characters. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT → "List of people" section. These fictional people are not notable for being from New Zealand so the list is completely arbitrary. It is also way to broad in scope. If every fictional New Zealander was in the list, it would become an unuseful index but in its uncompleted state, its just a random group. Its a non-notable intersection and therefore, should be deleted. Tavix | Talk 15:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 15:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Sorry for the slippery slope, but if we start with NZ, we could do similar lists for, say the US, UK, Japan, fictional places... Think of the scope of those articles.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't going to run out of space, and those who don't like it, won't be likely to ever find it anyway. Dream Focus 07:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space isn't the issue, it's the "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" of WP:NOTDIR that is. Fictional New-Zealanders are not a notable subject as they have not been the subject of any other encyclopedia. That the list is short now has nothing to do with it. If you think of a similar article from a nation that produces a lot more fiction like the US, you'd put together a gigantic list of completely unrelated charactesr, from Huckleberry Finn to Philip J. Fry to Cheerleader #78 in Bring It On Again to Sarah McDougal from Love Hina. The list of fictional cats you mention elsewhere in this discussion has the exact same issue, the inclusion criterion is too vast and too vague and does not follow WP:SALAT.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional New-Zealanders are not a notable subject as they have not been the subject of any other encyclopedia. : Being the subject of other encyclopedias is definitely not our criteria for keeping articles, let alone lists (which have different criteria). See WP:NOTPAPER. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a category for fictional New Zealanders would work better. dramatic (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories aren't as easy to read, and don't allow for as much information to be presented. Dream Focus 07:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't honestly see how it is harder to refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_New_Zealand_people than it is to refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_New_Zealanders . And surely the place for information to be presented is in the characters' articles themselves, not in a list? Daveosaurus (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does not fail WP:SALAT: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). - This is exactly the case: the list is specific in scope, being about (1)fictional characters and (2)New Zealanders only. Also: Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles , and that is the case here. Also, An exception is nationality/ethnicity, and we're doing exactly that. Does not fail WP:IINFO, not falling under any of the categories specified; the list is well discriminate in scope and in content, containing almost only notable entries (notable enough to have a WP article or being otherwise well covered in WP). Does not fail WP:NOTDIR, since it is not a Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, but a list of characters tightly linked by nationality (see also above). The "impractical" argument does not hold, since we use to split in sub-lists any list that becomes too large, see List of people for an example of such hierarchical listing. Arguments about the current state of the list do not hold, since per deletion policy we don't delete on the basis of article quality. About the "slippery slope" argument, we already have such lists for other countries. About the "a category is better" argument, remember that categories and list are by no means mutually exclusive. The list is not a random intersection: it is a good starting point to investigate the role of New Zealand in fiction. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. Reyk _YO! 23:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of a category as per Dramatic. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More information there as a list article, and easier to navigate, than it would as a category. If you search for "List of Fictional" in the Wikipedia search bar, you will find 17,721 results. Everything from list of fictional cats to List of fictional Vice Presidents of the United States Dream Focus 07:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list (once subdivided by headings) can only be subdivided in one way. But an article can fit into multiple subcategories as necessary - e.g. a character in a book which is made into a film. Which makes the categories better for navigation. But that is a long way off since the list only contains one valid item at present. (Remember how list entries need to be sourced?) dramatic (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating. Yes it will be a long list, but it will be finite, as it will be in proportion to our coverage of NZ fiction. The relevant policy is NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPAPER is not a free pass for inclusion and as such should not be solely cited in a rationale. If that were the case, one could just cite WP:NOTPAPER for anything and use it for their keep !vote. Tavix | Talk 16:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think DGG comment addresses the rationale of who thinks that such a list would be "too large" or leading to a "slippery slope": we have no space problems, so those rationales make no sense. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it goes the other way too. Just because a list would be massive is no reason to keep an article just as thinking having a list that is "too large" is not a reason to delete. Tavix | Talk 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not--I agree the size of a list is irrelevant. (For that matter, hat a list has too few items is sometimes given as a reason for rejection, which is also irrelevant if its more than 2 or 3. Lists of finite size are objected to as finite, those of indefinite but large size as infinite. --none of this is relevant in accepting or rejecting). DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just hope no one creates List of articles that User:DGG has !voted to keep... :P (joking) SnottyWong ^squeal 23:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only to be dwarfed by List of articles that User:Dream Focus has !voted to keep..... Claritas § 10:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry. Both would vanish in front of List of lists that User:Claritas and User:Gavin Collins have !voted to delete.

--Cyclopia ^talk 18:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I don't really like most lists very much. Claritas § 18:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that. Which is sad, given that many users could find them good navigational helps. But oh, too bad, Claritas didn't like it... --Cyclopia ^talk 18:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a justification for !voting delete. I dislike most lists because most lists should be deleted from my point of view - they are indiscriminate and violate WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO, etc. Having said that, there are plenty of useful lists in Wikipedia, such as List of US Presidents etc.Claritas § 18:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're here chatting: Now, if tomorrow this list is deleted, and understanding that lists are navigational aids for our readers more than anything else, what has WP gained? What has our readership gained? This is something that baffles me. When we delete original research, completely non-notable entries etc. we help by not giving credibility to stuff which has no encyclopedic credibility. But in this case, of a list of notable entries? What users do you feel will be served by doing that? Articles are not kept on the basis of being useful, but lists, being navigational aids, are meant to be useful. So, what is the usefulness, the help, the service in doing that? I really can't get it. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be got rid of precisely because it doesn't do anything useful which a category wouldn't. It's a waste of editor's time to concentrate on improving something with no utility. Claritas § 18:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Our guidelines disagree in full with this point of view. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive : Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents, and see Category:Categories. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other. - Also, all else being equal, you shouldn't decide how other editors decide to concentrate their efforts. This is a volunteer project. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest two situations in which this list would be useful to the average reader of Wikipedia ? I can't think of any, either in this current state, or in any state. Claritas § 20:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if you want to know something about the treatment of New Zealanders in fiction, the list is an excellent starting point. Better than a category, because it gives some quick context to the entries, and as such one can quickly focus on something he/she's more interested in than others. Also, the fact that you "can't think of any" does not mean at all that such situations do not exist. It only shows lack of imagination. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a great starting point. At the moment, it is twenty or so indiscriminate entries. It may well grow to twenty hundred indiscriminate entries. Bear in mind that this list would contain most characters in NZ TV, radio and written fiction.... Claritas § 18:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a great starting point.: Better than no starting point, for sure.

It may well grow to twenty hundred indiscriminate entries. : Are there 2000 notable NZ fictional characters? If so, good, but then it is not indiscriminate. If not, it won't grow. It is all matter of proper maintenance.

Bear in mind that this list would contain most characters in NZ TV, radio and written fiction: Provided they are notable (which I doubt being the case for most of these characters, but can be for a reasonable minority), where is the problem? --Cyclopia ^talk 21:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that being NZ isn't a particularly notable feature for these characters. We might as well create List of fictional characters who wear top hats. WP:IINFO is the policy here. Claritas § 22:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SALAT: Nationality is explicitly indicated as a proper categorization. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real nationality and fictional nationality are very different kettles of fish. The fictional nationality is attached to a fictional New Zealand, and as the characters don't share the same fictional New Zealands, they also don't share the same fictional nationalities. Claritas § 07:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is clutching at straws at its best, isn't it?

--Cyclopia ^talk 12:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That characters from NZ appear in fiction is made-up? DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are missing the point, DGG. Characters from NZ appear in sources everywhere, except in a list. If there are no reliable, third-party sources for the list itself, then Wikipedia does not have a rationale for its inclusion. If there is no such list in the real world, then there should not be one in Wikipedia either. This article would make an interesting appendices to a book or paper on NZ characters, but then Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you are missing the point of 1)The purpose of lists, that is that of being a navigational help to readers, not a topic 2)WP:MADEUP which exists to prevent articles to pop about non-notable stuff that has been done one day 3)WP:OR, which is material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources., combined with any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.. Here (and in also all the other lists you !voted to delete with the same rationale) we have inserted no fact,allegation,idea or story not already published by RS , nor we advanced any position not advanced by sources. Gavin, you are really better reading policies and guidelines before appealing to them. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lists can have any number of purposes that are useful to editors, but that is not a valid rationale for their inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:NOT#OR says that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and if this list has not been published anywhere else, then if it is an entirely novel and original list topic that does not exist in the real world, it has no place here. What is needed is some verifiable source to show that the list itself (not just its content) is not original thought. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now deliberately ignoring what WP:OR says, that I quoted above. And WP:ITSUSEFUL says explicitly: An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.". --Cyclopia ^talk 10:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not ignoring you, in fairness. I have nothing to say about the content of list; rather it is the existence of the list topic itself that is being challenged. It if has not been published or defined as a list topic in the real world, then Wikipedia should not have a seperate standalone list article about it. Usefulness or naviation does enter into it - good or bad, that is your opinion, but it is not supported by any source. What is missing is an external source to show that this list does not fail WP:NOT#OR. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list does not fail OR. What I quoted above makes it extremly clear. The way we structure content has nothing to do with OR. Please read the above. I do not care if you ignore me, I care if you ignore the policies meaning. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you admit that it fails WP:NOT#OR. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Absolutely not. It doesn't fail WP:NOT#OR. It does not fail any original research policy, because structuring content is not OR, and if you actually read the policies you would hopefully understand that. Please tell me which part of WP:OR, WP:NOT#OR the list "fails". I repeat here what I quoted above, and this time please read it and comment on it, do not ignore it: WP:OR, which is material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources., combined with any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.. Here (and in also all the other lists you !voted to delete with the same rationale) we have inserted no fact,allegation,idea or story not already published by RS , nor we advanced any position not advanced by sources. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. SnottyWong ^verbalize 23:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic of fictional New Zealanders has pedigree and merit. Note for example one of the earlier icons of a fictional New Zealander: Lord Macaulay's visitor to a future ruined London: Ascari, Maurizio; Corrado, Adriana, eds. (2006). Sites of exchange: European crossroads and faultlines. Internationale Forschungen zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft. Vol. 103. Rodopi. p. 135 of 296. ISBN 9789042020153. Retrieved 2010-06-19. [...] one of [Thomas Macaulay's] visions of the future ruin of London, from 1840, endured as a rhetorical commonplace for the rest of the nineteenth century, being given huge additional currency by Gustave Doré's famous illustration, 'The New Zealander', in London, a Pilgrimage in 1872.[...] Macaulay's identification of the new Zealander as a symbolic tourist who will represent a new world when power shall have passed from the old one, [...] centres on the Thames. And fiction by New Zealanders too has contributed to archetypal images of fictional New Zealanders: recall the importance in New Zealand literature of the "Man Alone": Sturm, Terry, ed. (1998) [1991]. The Oxford New Zealand History of New Zealand Literature in English (2 ed.). Auckland: Oxford University Press. p. 157 of 890. ISBN 0 19 558385 X. Chapman commented that for the writers up to 1950 their 'way of examining the society they depict' was primarily through 'the individual isolated in every sense, who may or may not explode into violent gestures under the distorting weight of a pattern he does not understand'. [...] Although John Mulgan's novel gave this Man Alone pattern its name, it had appeared earlier in the novels of Lee and Hyde, and even its later appearances may not have been influenced by Mulgan, for his novel was not widely available in New Zealand until reprinted in 1949. But even in the modern period too, non-New Zealanders have expanded or revived the image of fictional New Zealanders as survivors and representatives of a post-apocalytic future. Thus "the Sealand woman" plays a significant role in the closing sequences of John Wyndham's The Chrysalids. (Compare Charles Sheffield's fictional universe of Cold as Ice and The Ganymede Club where a devastated Earth retains southern New Zealand as its last major populated region.) Wikipedia has the ability to build up lists of such characters and tropes. -- If the list eventually grows too large we can subdivide it thematically and chronologically as desired. -- Pedant17 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. This is not a useful list in any way, easily achieved by appropriate categorisation. This kind of pointless article is a time sink which diverts editors from actually improving the project. As such, it is actually damaging the project. Verbal chat 15:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Categories are not ideal replacements for lists, as they may contain articles which are not members of the list. WP:IINFO has nothing against this list. WP:SALAT's applicability is also questionable; this list is only one facet off from List of New Zealand politicians (politician -> fictional person). Arguing WP:SALAT in this case suggests that politicians are inherently more important than fictional characters, which is questionable in the long run of culture. WP:NOTDIR is the best policy against this list, but the existence of other similarly precise lists suggests that unless you are prepared to argue that fictional characters (who merit their own articles) are not culturally significant, it still does not stand up. - BalthCat (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "tto long potentially" is not, per se, sufficient as a reason for deletion. And, as has been mentioned above, a category would eliminate what would otherwise be proper in this list, and well-known enough for such a list, even is not "notable" enough for a separate artcle on WP (or more likely result in too many very short articles). All things considered - keep. Collect (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overly broad and thus indiscriminate. Fails WP:IINFO in terms of lists (see WP:SALAT). Shooterwalker (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the list gets too large, it can be subdivided into lists for characters from films, books, etc. --Pink Bull 01:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The open-ended nature of the subject (I'd wager that practically all local NZ literature features such characters) makes this unworkable, along with the still largely-unanswered problem that being from NZ does not unite these subjects in any way but rather simply collects them in as arbitrary a manner as a list of fictional characters by eye colour. Addressing the keeps:
- Pedant17's is interesting, but it rather speaks of the fictional portrayal of New Zealanders. This is a very different thing from an open-ended list of characters who may (and probably mostly don't) reflect the archetype given in his sources.
- Collect's comment makes a false equivalence: New Zealand politicians, by definition, work for the New Zealand government, and thus have a great deal in common with each other over and above their nationalities. Fictional characters have no implied shared characteristics except not existing. That a category might not be appropriate either does not force us to have a list; we can have neither.
- The rest don't make any arguments based on our guidelines as the majority of the project understands them.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Closing statement: The guideline Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says, "When closing an AfD about a living person whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. The degree of weight given to such a request is left to the admin's discretion." That's what we're left with here- we have plenty of editors on both sides- in fact, slightly more on a numerical basis arguing for keeping this article. We have a person whose notability many good faith editors disagree about... and a woman in the middle who just wants it to go away.

If it wasn't for that request, this would be a pretty easy no consensus close. As much as we are morally obligated to keep BLP's neutral and reliable, we are also obligated to do no harm with them. In light of the subject's request, and the decent arguments made that the subject is, at best, borderline notable, the result is delete and I can already see another week watching DRV in my future. Courcelles (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Macpherson

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

Mimi Macpherson is the sister of Elle Macpherson. But for that single fact (BLP1E) virtually none of her life story would have been in the press. Because little is known of her other than tabloid gossip that has surfaced around unfortunate incidents in her life, it is not possible to write a well-balanced biography of her.

Our guideline is clear that "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. " (See WP:BIO#Family.)

A look in google suggests that she is mostly famous for a sex tape alleged to be of her, which she did not release. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy strongly suggests that we should avoid vicitimization and that "This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions."

Finally, the subject of this article has requested deletion after an extensive discussion of the possibility of improvement.

Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sheer number and depth of articles found on through google news that satisfies the GNG. So she what if she was initially famous for being a relative or is now being famous for being notorious like a Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian. They are all notable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no question that Paris Hilton (with 2710 hits in google news) and Kim Kardashian (with 2240 hits in google news) are notable. Mimi Macpherson has 3 hits in google news, two of them just mentions, and the other one about how non-notable Mimi is, "Supermodel Elles sister works in a market".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - notability is not temporary so a search should also include the archives like the find sources link. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, and none of the sources contains any hint that Mimi would be notable, but for being the sister of Elle. Everything about her life has been under scrutiny for that reason only, and virtually all the press coverage about her is in relation to Elle. The press is interested that the sister of a supermodel filed for bankruptcy, works in a market, etc. The Internet and tabloids went wild of course in the early days of the Internet over alleged sex tapes, but again, this was only noticed because of her sister.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree with Jimbo on this. Her article is here because of her sister and if not for that these other things would render her totally non-notable. Sources are weak too and should be verified better before putting them in the article, esp one on a living person. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Elle's page and perhaps include a blurb about her at Elle Macpherson#Personal life. Elle is the notable one but since Mimi is her younger sister, some things that Mimi has done in relation to Elle would fit perfectly. Tavix | Talk 15:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Elle's article is entirely inappropriate and would give greater emphasis on the negative aspects. Gnan garra 06:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails WP:BLP1E; and I completely agree with Jimbo that WP:BLP#Presumptino in favor of privacy applies here; and we should definitely avoid further vicitimization of the subject, especially considering that the notability here "stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions" and per WP:BIO#Family Dreadstar ☥ 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that notability isn't demonstrated here. However, the level of sourcing is in line with that for many, many biographies of other marginally famous people which have survived AfDs. As such, I think that it may be time to revise the BLP guidelines to require some demonstration of intrinsic notability as well as sources - this would be in line with WP:PROF which considers the significance of an academic's work as well as whether they have personally received media coverage. Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and especially per Dreadstar. A existing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Muirhead sums up much of my personal antipathy to these articles. A marginally notable person gets involved in an alleged reputation-destroying incident and the response here at Wikipedia is to amplify and seemingly give credence to the allegations. I think Wikipedia should lean on the side of the subject in cases such as these-- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not having read the article, I actually have no idea what the alleged reputation-destroying incident is, but she's a long-time, well-known figure in Australia. Remove the damn BLP violation, write a proper article, problem solved. Rebecca (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep when this was listed on WP:AWNB I questioned why this is even here Mimi is recognised for her tourism ventures with whale watching in Queensland for which she recieved national(Australia) coverage over an extended period of time during which time she als recieved some business women award(not sure the awards is notable enough to endower notability on recipients). Yes I know she Elles sister but that isnt the basis of her notability its just another bullet point in her bio. at first glance on google news the first two entries are on her bankruptcy this 2008 article Daily Telegraph article gives a good balanced coverage of her. Coverage in Australian Story in 1998 as part of their wording not mine insight into one of Australia’s most famous families. Its definitely an article that needs to be cleaned and appropriately balanced but to say Mimi is just a WP:BLP1E and that its unable to be written with a balanced tone due to lack of sources isnt true. Gnan garra 01:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would the subject have been any more notable than the many, many other tourism operators in Hervey Bay other than for sharing some genes with a supermodel? While there is no end of sources, the overwhelming majority of them would refer to the subject as "the sister of Elle Macpherson". Her sister is the one who is notable, the coverage of the subject is dependent entirely on Elle's reflected notability. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, her bankruptcy was not particularly large or interesting and would not have been in the newspapers save for her being Elle's sister. It is not sufficient to establish independent notability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

response no doubt that her initial rise to fame was becuase of her sister, but her sister wasnt the reason for her recieving the Business Womens award, nor was the cause of her bankruptcy. If memory serves me correctly with the businesses both sisters put effort into distancing themselves from each other endeavours. Her other escapades with the exception of that video gained coverage because she has a tabloid media profile which sells, its not dependent entirely on Elles notability. BLP issues aside deletion of the article will only see recreation, merge into Elle's article is entirely inappropriate and would give greater emphasis on the negative aspects. Gnan garra 06:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts I missed the issue of Jimbo having direct contact with her and her request for the article to be removed I'd support a Deletion/recreation to remove the problematic history that is cause for concern. Gnan garra 06:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. But there becomes a point whereby a person receives significant coverage in their own right and is thus separately notable, even though the person wouldn't have received that coverage if not for their relationship to the notable person. See Bristol Palin, etc. In my view, Mimi falls into that category. Per Rebecca, we have ways to deal with BLP problems that usually don't involve deleting a whole article.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure your use of Bristol Palin adds to your argument, aside from it being a textbook case of WP:WAX. The Palin article, to my mind, is a prime example of an article that should be nothing more than a redirect to the person who is actually notable. i.e her mother. What has Bristol Palin ever done that is of notice in her own right? What coverage has Bristol had about her in her own right rather than as the daughter of Sarah? The answer to both these questions is, of course, nothing. The same answers to the same questions apply to the subject of this article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Trust that I'm not using Bristol Palin as an argument for why this article should be included, but an example of how people can be manifestly notable despite being nothing more than relatives of notable people. But as you would disagree with Palin being included, so be it.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but that's exactly what you're doing, using Briston Palin’s article as an argument for why this one should be included….clearly WP:WAX. What would be the difference? It’s using the existence of one article to help justify the existence of another. Instead, reasons should be based on Wikipedia:Deletion policy, neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability, biographies of living people and what Wikipedia is not, or on Wikipedia guidelines. Dreadstar ☥ 16:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell the difference between WP:WAX and using another example as illustrative of how one's argument plays out in practice? You're highlighting four words in my argument and whacking an inappropriate essay link to it to try to discredit the actual argument I'm making. Would you feel better if I struck the mention to Bristol Palin? Because my argument would be none the worse for it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - certainly enough notoriety in Australia (much of it self-propagated) to be included. The suggestion of deletion almost smacks of cultural insensitivity. I don't think "I want to be left alone" is a criteria for deletion as this would destroy the integrity of the projectPorturology (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - cultural insensitivity? I don't even know what that means in this context. I might understand if you argued for delete on the grounds that a "keep" vote amounts to cultural insensitivity to the plight of women victimized by tabloid press and a public morbidly interested in celebrities. In any event, I don't know of anyone who is arguing that "I want to be left alone" is a criteria for deletion. There is a longstanding tradition - quite valid - of appropriately considering the pain that a bad biography is causing for the victim as a part of our deliberations.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - I was just reflecting on the "much of it self-propagated" comment, and wanted to explain why I think that's not valid and not actually true. The details of her life that are known publicly that people are regarding as notable are all in and of themselves routine and not notable. If you had trouble with DUI, if you filed for bankruptcy, if you were victimied by having an alleged sex tape of you posted to the Internet - none of those things would hit the newspapers at all, "self-propagated" or not. None of those things are notable. None of this would be in the press at all, for any reason, save for her being the sister of a celebrity. That doesn't make her a celebrity of independent notability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I certainly agree that we should consider the pain that a bad biography causes its subject, Jimbo, but I'd hardly say this article, in its present state, could possibly be classed as such. She's pretty close to a household name, and the article has all of one dispassionate sentence describing a DUI charge, at the bottom of the article, and taking up less than 1/10 of the article, with the remainder doing an okay (if not brilliantly written) job of documenting her actual career. Considering that, this is a particularly bizarre example to jump on the soapbox about. Rebecca (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. - I agree, and she agrees, that the article is already much improved. However, it seems pretty clear to me that what remains does nothing to establish notability. That she is said to be "pretty close to a household name" does nothing to establish notability in the sense of Wikipedia, since the press coverage is virtually all only existing due to her relationship to her sister. I don't think anyone can plausibly argue that we'd have a biography about her, save for that one fact alone.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree she may not have reached the level of media coverage that she did if it was not for her sisters notability, but its her actions that have sustained her presence within Australian Media. Gnan garra 16:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more In 2001 she was a front person for Planet Ark pay per view, and a deckhand injured on her whale watching boat was named young Queenslander of the Year 2001. Interestingly in Sep 13 2006 the Courier Mail [10] wrote an article calling her a pioneer of the whale watching industry and pointed out that she was immediately recognised. Deletion isnt a resolution as the article will be continually recreated every time she appears in media release in Australia, something she has done every year since 1995. Noteriety Notability through 15 years of media coverage WP:GNG has been met....Identifable person in a crowd. TV personality on Discovery channel, radio personality in Queensland, model for Evolve Makeup, and final word "WHALE conservation luminary Mimi MacPherson" Warwick Daily news October 2009[11]. What ever is used to define Notability she has it in spades, Gnan garra 16:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I look at all that and I still think that there is nothing there that would lead to notability other than for her being the sister of Elle. There are hundreds of people involved in the whale watching industry, the subject's role was only of interest in all of that insofar as she was Elle's sister. If it wasn't for an alleged videotaped episode, she would have been out of sight and out of mind for some time now. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re:"much of it self-propagated" - I missed this comment earlier but it deserves a response. There is an unfortunate habit here on Wikipedia to conclude that some of the subjects of our articles somehow have a lesser right to protection under our BLP guidelines if they are perceived to have actively sought a public profile. While it may not be intended as such, this smacks of a "She it had coming" or "She deserves it" attitude that we would deplore if it was used as a rule for how to treat people in general society. Regardless of any perception of self-promotion, we owe the living subjects of our articles a duty of care that is not somehow lessened by their earlier actions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response - by "self propagated" I meant that she has become a celebrity through her own actions rather than relying on her sister - which I believed to be what this discussion is about. Having said that: if a person has achieved the level of notability to justify a WP article - it would be inappropriate to censor that article by only including those things which are perceived to be morally good, although there are some things, like the tape, that are best left unsaid for the feelings of a living subjects. Where the line is drawn is a difficult one. I suspect that MMs DUI and bankruptcy, like Paris Hilton's traffic offences, would be included in her biography if it is kept. The real point of this discussion, however, is if she is notable. I am surprised that you say she is only notable for the tape - scanning the 42 articles about her in the Daily Telegraph in the last 18 months and the 177 articles about her in the SMH, I could find only 1 reference about the tape and that was by Miranda Devine. Certainly many but not most articles start with "Mimi, the sister of..." but the articles are about Mimi - what society events she has attended, her TV career, her businesses and yes, her bankruptcy. I think 219 articles in the only daily papers in Sydney indicates significant coverage by secondary sources that are: reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject and this more than satisfies WP:BASIC. So I can get an idea of the basis of your argument about deleting MM and Andy Muirhead - do you consider that Antonia Kidman and Adriana Xenides should be deleted? Porturology (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I read the article the section on the tape had been removed - how is this now a bad biography and what does Ms Macpherson object to?. I would hazard a guess that in a survey of Australians most would have heard of her and not just because of her sister or the tape. She spent a large part of the 90s and 00s gracing the social pages and gossip magazines as what some people call a "B list" celebrity - Are you calling for all "victims of tabloids" to be removed - if so I think we will be spending a lot of time on AFD- what about JonBenét Ramsey as a random example?. Her family have been "victims of the tabloid press and a public morbidly interested in celebrities". The fact that Mimi Macphersom is unknown to most Americans is not a reason for deletion. Porturology (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Porturology (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jimbo. Public awareness of her begins and continues in most part because of her sister. We shouldn't confuse notoriety with notability. Notability depends on reliable sources notoriety doesn't. Per WP:Notability multiple, compliant sources are generally expected. Nor should we make a decision based on past mistakes on Wikipedia, if mistakes they are, in regards to the comment above on tabloids. More mistakes even more cleanup. (olive (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- This !vote doesn't make any sense. The article has multiple, compliant sources, with a veritable ton of further sources should someone decide to flesh the article out even further. There isn't a single tabloid piece cited or mentioned in the article. This discussion would be profoundly aided if some of the fly-through voters actually read the damned article. Rebecca (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to be notable a person has to do something notable. The GNG is not a guideline that says we must have an article on every person that technically meets it. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' as a local Australian, I have seen her on and off in news and entertainment. Yes she is Elle's sister, but has hosted (IIRC) TV programs and other bits and pieces along the way. I have not heard of any scandal, and my approach would be removal and semi-protection (or Pending changes or whatever). Article quality is no grounds for deletion. Note to closing admin, some of the keepers are Australian editors who are more familiar with the subject matter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The closing admin should note that some of the deleters are Australian editors as well, who are equally familiar with the subject matter. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets notability. Our rules for BLPs, if correctly applied, should ensure any questionable stuff stays out. Orderinchaos 21:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being the relative of someone famous can often result in notability - see Barack Obama, Sr. which is mainly based on Dreams from my Father. Nobody would have heard of this man if his son had not assumed the presidency. This not a case of WP:BLP1E - like it or not, deserved or not, there are multiple secondary sources about multiple events which have Macpherson as their primary subject. Also, it's been a few years now since the height of her fame - most of the news hits probably predate Gnews. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, as with the Bristol Palin example used above, I would ask two questions. What has Obama Sr. ever done that is of notice in his own right? What coverage has Obama Sr. had about him in his own right rather than as the father of the President of the USA? The answer to both these questions is, of course, nothing. Obama Sr. is a WP:BLP1E candidate for the same reasons as the subject of this article - they are both known for one "event" - having a famous relative. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Mimi from seeing her on foxtel, and the whale-watching as well as the planet ark spokesperson stuff. She may well have been initially benefitted from being Elle's sister but had picked up her own profile afterwards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Household name in Australia. Quick Google search of The Sydney Morning Herald brings up hundreds of hits from one newspaper alone. Another Google search of Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd papers is similar. You've got hundreds of reliable sources. Why would Australian newspapers have hundreds of articles if the person is not notable? That is clearly enough to settle this discussion.--Lester 03:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no dispute that the subject has been covered widely in reliable sources. I would argue that the nature of the coverage has been mere prurient interest based on the fact that she is the sister of a supermodel and not based around any notability of the subject herself. I am not sure pointing to quantities of articles addresses this argument at all and therefore, at least in my opinion, does not settle this argument. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean, there's no notablility surrounding her. She's been a TV presenter on numerous national TV programs in Australia. That should be notability enough. Are we going to delete the other TV presenters because they haven't done anything else? The above Google news searches reveal that the articles are about Mimi, not Elle. Yes, they always mention Elle (that's inescapable with 2 famous sisters), but the subject of the articles is primarily about Mimi. That proves public interest in a notable person. Otherwise, the alternative is to delete hundreds of Wikipedia articles on famous brothers and sisters, for example Paris Hilton's sister Nicky Hilton. There are hundreds more like that. Can't just choose non-US ones. --Lester 03:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme predjudice - Clearly fails BLP1E, just because she's related to someone famous doesn't mean she's famous. I also agree with Jimbo, right to privacy here is most important. And for the record Lester, using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at AFD is not a great argument, or a way to support one! I've found that out the hard way :) BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 04:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which one event would that be, TV Presenter, Radio Personality, Business Women of the Year, Model for Evolve, or was that "WHALE conservation luminary Mimi MacPherson" Warwick Daily news October 2009[12] all of which are sourced without reference to her sister, ? Gnan garra 05:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does generally help, if one is to assess the notability of a living person, and one is not familiar with said living person, to have actually read the bleeding article. "Just because she's related to someone famous doesn't mean she's famous" is a particularly stupid thing to say when she is famous (and in several fields, too), regardless of how she became so; while obviously, most relatives of famous people are not notable, equally obviously, this person is. Rebecca (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets notability. Have read most of the points for and against - believe that whilst her initial notability was as the sister of Elle, she has become notable for other issues, such as being a TV presenter, Environmental spokesperson, receiving Business Womens award etc. I have also checked numerous articles and whilst some refer to her as Elle's sisters there are many others that simply refer to her role as TV personality etc. Article has sufficent independent references to warrant its retention. Dan arndt (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She's a household name in Australia, and has been for about a decade. It's true that relatives of celebrities are not inherently notable, but that's because there are millions of people who are related to celebrities who never receive any sustained media coverage, and thus don't need a Wikipedia article about them. This particular person, however, has received sustained media coverage and has consistently been in the public eye. It doesn't matter that she's never done anything extraordinary, and people are only interested in her because of her sister. The fact is, they are interested in her, much more so than most celebrities' siblings.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.134.36 (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper which caters to the public's interest , and fame and public interest do not a notable person make. Perhaps, if the multiple sources that establish notability could be cited here that might help clarify matters. I'm not seeing that kind of source, myself. There's a difference in sources that support content and information once notability has been determined, and sources that establish that notability in the first place. What I'm seeing so far are sources that supply information to someone whose notability per the sources ( not popular opinion or public awareness) was and is related to her sister, and whose other pursuits are not notable. (olive (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, I am not getting your meaning. There are 20 or more compliant references on the page. She has hosted TV programs, had a successful business and been awarded national business awards. She has been a household name in Australia for 15-20 years partly because of her business pursuits and partly because she is a "celebrity" in her own right. Whatever you think of the moral value of "celebrity" status it certainly overlaps with notability. (Much as I dislike drawing comparisons, I feel she is more notable that Bindi Irwin or Antonia Kidman both of whom have independent careers despite having more famous relatives). On WP:ENT alone she qualifies as notable and this is sourced. What criteria for notability and what references would you like provided to salvage the page? - it should be possible to provide suitable references. Porturology (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We routinely add articles about men who won Australian Businessman of the Year award, such as complete unknowns like Robert Champion de Crespigny, while wanting to delete any woman who is awarded Australian Businesswoman of the Year, like Mimi? --Lester 07:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realise she's broke? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So is Donald Trump on occasion, what do you mean? --CliffC (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh she's certainly notable. But she's no Robert DeCrespigny.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, sorry Jimbo, normally I'm quite happy to use BLP1E for persons of marginal notability, but appearing on the front page of a nationally circulated magazine, and having a swag of awards and recognition as a notable businesswoman puts her clearly over the line of notability. Fix the BLP violations by all means, but deletion is not appropriate here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - The argument to delete here seems to be that she might not have become well known if she didn't have a famous sister. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter how she became notable, it only matters that she is. Which I think has been demonstrated more than adequately. Frickeg (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Household name in Australia. Ours not to reason why. Hesperian 06:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. For whatever reason, she does handily pass our general notability guidelines. Buddy431 (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, virtually all the references either associate the subject with her sister, or mention the sex-tape or the bankruptcy, which may give the subject some notoriety, but not notability. The article draws from the sister's notability, while feeding into further BLP:Victimization of the subject. The subject is not notable per WP:BIO, which states: "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary." All the sources are just fluff, nothing significant, interesting or unusual that’s worthy of notice beyond the fact that she has a famous sister. Sure, she may appear in multiple reliable sources, but none of those appearances are notable per WP:BIO. Not even the Women's Network Australia “Australian Business Woman of the Year” and Cosmo's "Australia's top 30 Businesswoman" awards provide her with sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article, if we can even source those outside her own self-published website claim. The article's sources merely support non-notable trivia that isn’t worthy of notice in an encyclopedia, it’s not significant or unusual enough to be recorded in an encyclopedia. She may be “famous” or “popular” in Australia, but she isn’t Notable and the article should be deleted. Dreadstar ☥ 02:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You could omit the Elle relationship and the sex tape and this article would still satisfy notability. Mimi is a noted environmentalist, a radio and television personality and won several national awards. She may not like the negative aspects of the article (and "someone" took this up with Jimbo), but Geoffrey Edelsten, Marcus Einfeld and Glenn Wheatley no doubt dislike their articles as well. And that's no reason to delete. WWGB (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable presenter, businesswoman and environmentalist. Her celebrity status was enough to get her a place on It Takes Two. St Anselm (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: being a "celebrity" does not confer Notability, it's the same thing as being "famous", or "popular", which are not primary criteria needed in order to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. As for being a 'noted environmentalist', yes she's done some excellent work, but there is a very high bar that must be met in order to meet WP Notability requirements, as can be seen by this list of Notable environmentalists. (Since so many on this page have invoked WP:WAX/WP:OSE comparisons, I might as well join in. :) The awards, while nice, are not notable themselves, neither are the sources of those awards. And the TV/radio appearances are also of insufficient notablity. All of these combined do not confer sufficient notability for us to have an article on the subject; what pushes it is the famous sister and now the brouhaha over the sex-tape, both of which go against WP:BLP as to conferring notability. Even if one believes these do provide sufficient notability, I say we still err on the side of "do no harm" and delete this article. Why do we need it? It's not encylopedic, if we take away the titillating, tabloid aspects of the content, there's nothing to base an article on. Dreadstar ☥ 17:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "tabloid, titilating aspects of the article", as you put it, haven't actually been in the article since it was nominated for deletion. What's there is plenty to base an article upon; a fairly lengthy, well-sourced list of her notable involvement in public life, which is precisely why she's a household name in Australia. Which comes back to the point I've made a couple of times here - dude, did you even read the article? Rebecca (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, dudette, I've read the article and not only do I still see references to the sex tape, the DUI, the bankruptcy and the famous sister (all titillating, tabloidy content), but we also have editors attempting to add material that makes it look like she's a criminal and a porn star, as well as dragging NN individuals into the article,[13]. Sure the article doesn't go into gory detail, but all my comments are relevant and I stand by them. Dreadstar ☥ 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The link you noted points to an edit where someone added the name of Macpherson's brother to her infobox. It notably does not contain anything that would so much as remotely imply that she was either a criminal or a porn star. While deserving of being removed, it's hardly what you're making it out to be. The sex tape sentence wasn't in the article when I last read it, and has clearly been readded; nonetheless, it consists of one sentence at the bottom of the article, which when deservedly re-removed won't affect the notability of the article one damn bit. I've got no idea what it is about Macpherson that seems to inspire such ridiculous hyperbole among certain editors here. Rebecca (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Um, that edit added a lot more than just the name of her brother. I suggest you review it more carefully, it contains exactly what I said it contains. Dreadstar ☥ 19:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I invite interested users to look at Dreadstar's linked addition of an infobox and see for yourself his wondrous exaggeration skills. Rebecca (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, please show me the error of my ways and how that edit only adds the name of her brother, not anything about 'criminal charges and penalties', 'drunk driving', 'fines', 'celebrity sex tape', NN 'half-sister and parents.' The infobox is a highly visible summary of the article's important contents - information there is naturally 'exaggerated' above content in the article's body. The content of that edit does exactly what I said it does. Dreadstar ☥ 19:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've just removed a couple of those titillating aspects from an info box where they were prominently displayed, so probably your personal comment is ill advised. I have yet to see a source where notability (not fame or notoriety) is outlined, and although I have asked if anyone can point one out, here, no one has. Until that point I don't see notability, and that means deletion... I don't see Mimi mentioned here [14] either. Although, she certainly seems to have been involved in good works in terms of the environment, once again, probably not notably so. I also don't see her listed as a notable Australian environmentalist in sources I have looked at, but maybe I'm missing something. Can someone point such a source out? (olive (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    - The distinction you're making is one that you're making up out of thin air. Wikipedia's actual policy on notability (WP:N) mandates that she have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It notably does not say a damned thing about "fame" or "notoriety" being some form of exception. Mimi Macpherson is a household name in Australia, which is backed up by an abundance of reliable sources, both those mentioned in the article, and a couple thousand that aren't should someone choose to expand the article even further. Whether you think she should be famous or not is completely irrelevant to this discussion; what matters is, according to Wikipedia's actual policies on notability, she's patently and obviously notable. I also think that what makes this case all the more bizarre, for anyone who's actually heard of the subject, is that, uh, she's not what you'd call notorious - which makes arguments that her notability is based on such rather bizarre. Rebecca (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps you should re-read WP:BIO, the notability guideline that applies to people; the first paragraph of the lede section clearly talks about the aspects of 'famous' and 'popular' as they relate to Notability on Wikipedia. Notoriety in and of itself absolutely can be an exception, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid victimization; in this particular case, any notoriety does not confer notability. Further, WP:N is not a policy, it's a guideline. Get your facts straight before accusing and insulting others. Dreadstar ☥ 18:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The abundance of sources documenting her career demonstrate that she's easily enough of a significant figure to have an article as per WP:BIO. It makes a mockery of attempts to ascertain actual notability through sources if all that it a deletion argument comes down to is that you find her too trite to have an article, actual sources of notability be damned. Rebecca (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No one that I see is commenting in a personal way on the subject of this article, so comments attributing that kind of behaviour to another editor are unfair, uncalled for, and a personal affront to the editors commenting here. Especially, the word trite when use in reference to another human being is your word and no one else's. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia is about sources and its policies and guidelines, so reliable sources that establish notability rather than even a plethora of sources that do not, some of which were not reliable, are necessary. That's the way the encyclopedia functions. We don't have the luxury of modifying the policies and guidelines to suit individual opinions and circumstances. None of this at this point is about Mimi Macpherson. Its about establishing quality in the encyclopedia, and its articles.(olive (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
        OK, I've reread WP:BLP and WP:Biographies of living people#Avoid victimization in relation to this AfD, and in the latter case I see nothing there that suggests that deleting the article is in any way a remedy for avoiding victimization: it says "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic", not "When in doubt, delete the article". I'm also rather perplexed that The Courier Mail, The Townsville Bulletin or the Sunshine Coast Daily aren't enough for some people, especially when none of these mention sister Elle and all give a pretty clear idea of Macpherson's notability. I'm not sure why sources that mention Elle are being considered irrelevant anyway; having a famous relative may be part of the reason she became well-known, but it doesn't make all the coverage of her null and void just because of that. Frickeg (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) - Article redirected, nomination withdrawn. SnottyWong ^chat 20:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal Film Studio

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

Delete or (preferably) merge to Jean-François Leduc. Deprodded by article creator, this company that does not (as yet) have any WP:RS to indicate that it meets WP:COMPANY. I have tried without success to find such reliable sources via Google. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN I've changed to a redirect Jean-François Leduc, per below. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no WP:RS. Simple. Jusdafax 14:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1- Amazon.com link to all Montreal Film Studio DVD releases (which confirms all MFS website entries) :

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddvd&field-keywords=Montreal+Film+Studio

2- Corporation Canada registry entry: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc.nsf/eng/cs04110.html (please search the page with "MFS", it's near the end of the page). (Sadcity (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added 2. You have proof of ALL titles as sold on Amazon.com. You have COPORATION CANADA's entry proving it is incorporated in Canada. (Sadcity (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

That's not enough. Simply existing is not enough. Do read WP:COMPANY. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, I understand. Then I will delete the page because I now agree with you! Thanks (Sadcity (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've taken the liberty of creating this as a redirect to Jean-François Leduc, who does have WP:RS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to relist this: I've withdrawn the nom and changed the article to a redirect, with the article creator's consent, above. Could someone please close this? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malina Rojel

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and Spike interview alone doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, fails GNG & PORNBIO. EuroPride (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the GNG and any relevant specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Looked and don't see other RS. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator: charting on UK dance charts makes it clear WP:NSONGS, no one arguing for deletion.—Kww(talk) 15:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Melancholy Hill

This is just an album track. No charts. No cover versions recorded by multiple artists. No awards. Fails WP:NSONGS. Efforts to redirect, as indicated by WP:NSONGS, have been thwarted. —Kww(talk) 14:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm expanding my deletion argument, because all the "keep" arguments so far show a lack of comprehension of the relevant guideline. WP:NSONGS is quite specific about what songs qualify for individual articles, and arguments to keep this one need to refer to that guideline. What I see about is essentially "it really is a song", which is not the stuff of which policy arguments are made. From WP:NSONGS:

"All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Specifically states that the requirements for songs include WP:N. The requirements laid down by WP:NSONGS are in addition to WP:N.

"In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting."

This doesn't apply to this discussion, as it is about albums.

"Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song."

Pretty basic guidance: in general, don't write separate articles for songs, cover them in sections of larger articles.

"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."

Here's the major exception: songs that have charted, won awards, or been covered by multiple artists can get articles.

"Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

Even if the article charted, won awards, or been covered by multiple artists, it may not deserve an article.

So, given all of that, the test for "passing WP:NSONGS" is "received coverage in multiple reliable sources" AND (charted, won an award, or been covered by multiple artists) AND "received enough coverage that we can write more than a stub". Coverage first, and then does something that qualified. This song doesn't meet those conditions.—Kww(talk) 19:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has been confirmed for release as a single and a music video has been released. Keytar Shredder : Talk To Me 14:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of which contribute to passing WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 15:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article, the song is due for release July, a cover is available, a video is available and is receiving considerable attention online, the song has been performed live on tv. --Jenx222 (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The single has charted in the UK dance chart --Jenx222 (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Have a music cover, a music video, a tracklisting, a release date, in my birthday :D, have coverage with reliable sources. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 18:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite having it's name dropped in a common scam, the consensus is that this bank exists and is notable. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanic Bank

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

OTRS ticket 2010061510050683 suggests that this article may be a scam, related to a Nigerian 419 scam. I don't have an opinion on the matter, but I think an AfD is prudent so that the wider community can decide whether or not this article is fraudulent or reflects an actual legitimate company. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was simultaneously handling the ticket and came to the conclusion it was not a scam (though the bank's name may be used in fraudulent e-mails). I'm totally fine with 3rd opinions. Article could be improved by citations to sources independent from the subject. Appears to be on the Nigerian Stock Exchange. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this aricle suggests that it is a legitimate bank as I highly doubt a hoax/scam would include a news article about it laying off a large portion of its workforce. -Drdisque (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bank's Google Finance listing has no information regarding any scam. Furthermore, bank's site states US$1.3 bn 2008 earnings, if article is a scam it is a notable scam. In addition, Google News search "oceanic bank" yields 20 news stories on first two pages (no scams indicated). Mr Accountable (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It isn't the bank's fault if the 419'ers use the bank's reputation to piggyback their schemes on, it is a notable national bank with stock exchange listings and sources. Nate • (chatter) 00:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the biggest banks in Nigeria.[15] - Ankimai (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: bank is legitimate but its name often misused for fraud. Dewritech (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Search Google News "oceanic bank 419" yields one result - http://www.independentngonline.com/DailyIndependent/Article.aspx?id=5113 - story does not have much to do with bank per se, but rather with ATM cards (from Oceanic Bank and Diamond Bank). Mr Accountable (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Greene

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN (in that has not been elected to anything), what coverage I can find is no more than you would expect for a candidate for U.S. Senate. No significant press coverage outside being a candidate. Has the feel of an extension to a campaign website. Codf1977 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep satisfies general notability criteria (see item #3 of WP:POLITICAN). The Hero of This Nation (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Does he ? - I was unable to find anything outside of him running. For example here. Codf1977 (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I doubt you've read the article. "then allegedly said to her 'Let's go to your room'" is not something you would find on an extension to a campaign website. His campaign (and other related events) have been covered nonstop for the last four days on every major news network in the United States. I understand that wikipedia is not an outlet for breaking news without enduring notability, but I'm pretty sure his story will endure. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Normally simple nominees are not notable enough for articles, sure. But this guy has been in the news for winning a primary in which he barely ran a campaign, for facing an obscenity charge, and for being bizarrely out-of-touch with basic policies and politics in several post-primary interviews. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Greene's candidacy has received significant coverage both nationally and internationally. Besides being a major party's nominee for U.S. Senate, there's widespread speculation that something's rotten in the state of Denmark. Gobonobo ^T ^C 15:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, obviously notable individual per WP:GNG -see the amount of sources in the article that cover him in detail. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Cyclopia. This is clearly snowballing in that direction, too. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moot. New article is about different subject that prior articles- which was speedied.. Courcelles (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hepburn

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

Appears to fail ARTIST based on a lack of independent sources available to substantiate impact. I find no matches in Google News or Google Books. The current text of the article has been pasted from the artist's own website. Fæ (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources no article. TFD (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Also listed as a potential copyvio, as I don't see any evidence that the author of that text has granted the appropriate license. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how we're supposed to judge the notability of an article if its content has been deleted on copyright grounds. However I saw the article as it stood before the deletion, it was me who put the notability flag on it, and I was about to prod it anyway. PatGallacher (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AFD discussion should now be closed as an admin has speedily deleted the article. The new Michael Hepburn article is about a different person. PatGallacher (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Afghan training camp. no consensus has emerged to suggest this is sufficiently notable for a standalone article but there are suggestions that this is an area where a clear article structure hasn't emerged. I'm IARing slightly to redirect this to leave the history intact in case of a later consensus of where to use this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ahrar training camp

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

Fails WP:N WP:GNG as one mentioning in one source does not add up to "significant coverage". All information already presented in Ali Abdul Motalib Awayd Hassan Al Tayeea. IQinn (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As I pointed out in a comment on another similar {{afd}}
- WP:RS state there were on the order of one hundred non-Taliban military training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal areas, pre-9-11.
- According to Felter et al, allegations that Guantanamo captives attended or were associated with at least thirty-eight of those camps were offered, in part, as justifications for captives continued detention, during their 2004 CSR Tribunals.
- For some of those camps WP:RS have identified them as having trained 9-11 hijackers, or other prominent terrorist suspects. Ahmed Ressam, the millenium bomber, attended the Khalden training camp. According to the DoD allegations, approximately one-eighth of the Guantanamo captives attended the Al Farouq training camp. Tarnak Farms training camp was not only one of al Qaeda's advanced camps, but was subsequently the site of a notable friendly fire incident. Derunta training camp was alleged to have been one of the camps where Iraqis trained militants on how to use Iraqi WMD. Some of these camps are clearly exceeding notable, and merit individual articles. Other article merit merging. I know of no one who is arguing that they should all be kept as separate articles.
- However, in my opinion, a series of {{afd}} nominations is a highly inappropriate way to determine which of these articles merit coverage in an individual article. Possibly it is our nominator's intention to one by one nominate each of the 27 camps not named in the bar chart.
- Should our nominator rescind all their individual nominations, and make one mass nomination? That would be a better approach, one closer to both the spirit and the letter of our policies, however, personally I think it would be better to have a non-{{afd}} discussion, because there are complications. I started a discussion over this issue in March -- Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?. I have attempted to get our nominator to engage in several centralized discussion when there were common issues shared by articles on related topics we were both working on. In every single instance our nominator has flatly refused to engage in those central discussions. I find their preferred alternate approach of WP:Wikihounding, of which the half dozen individual {{afd}} on individual camps they initiated yesterday are an instance, very unfortunate.
  - As I pointed out above the camps aren't all equal. Some unquestionably merit separate articles. Others don't. Nominations to delete multiple articles, IMO, should only be made when the articles are all clearly in the same boat -- and that is not obviously the case here.
  - The 38 camps listed in Felter et al are only a subset of all of those used to justify the continued detention of captives. OARDEC convened four additional sets of annual Administrative Review Board hearings, in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Those allegations were much more detailed, and added training camps not listed in the 2004 allegation memos.
  - On the other hand later sources have clarified some of the camps were referred to by multiple names, reducing the total number of known camps.
  - At least one of the eleven camps that Felter et al listed on the bar chart is not a separate camp, but is actually a sub-camp of one of the bigger camps. Another camp seems to be listed under two names on the bar chart.
- Joseph Felter, Jarret Brachman (2007-07-25). "CTC Report: An Assessment of 516 Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) Unclassified Summaries" (PDF). Combating Terrorism Center. Retrieved 2009-08-30. mirror

Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- In several of the essentially identical concurrently running {{afd}} our nominator has made they have suggested that all of the information in the article on the camp is adequately covered in the article(s) on the captive(s) alleged to have attended the camp. I believe this suggestion is one that erodes the value of the wikipedia for readers interested in these training camps. We don't currently have a list of all the alleged camps. I suggest we should. I suggest that those articles on camps we decide are not well enough documented to support a separate article should be redirected to the article that contained the list of all the camps known to-date. Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like one more of your filibustering replies without addressing the given arguments or to provide clear defined new arguments. You are right some article meet criteria for inclusion some not. That's what we are here for. I am mystified why you do not addresses the given arguments i must say i find that a bit disruptive. This particular article here fails WP:N WP:GNG as one mentioning in one source does not add up to "significant coverage". IQinn (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did address the content portion of your comments. (1) Some of the known camps lack sufficient documentation to merit individual articles; (2) there should be a central discussion as to which camps do or don't merit individual articles, so that the eventual results are consistent; (3) your suggestion that each of the individual articles on individual camps should be merged and redirected to the article(s) on the individual captive(s) alleged to have trained there seriously erodes the value of this material for any reader who is studying the general phenomenon that there were on the order of 100 camps in pre-9-11 Afghanistan and that on the order of 200 Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified due to alleged attendance at one. Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand this here is the Afd of Al Ahrar training camp nothing else, please stop filibustering and stop to disrupt the Afd of Al Ahrar training camp. We know you have a special interest in this topic and that you are the sole contributer who has mass created all these articles.

3. No that is wrong. I did not make this suggestion. I said that all information are already presented in the article Ali Abdul Motalib Awayd Hassan Al Tayeea.
2. No need for another fillibustering central discussion. Afd's are central and the place to discuss if this topic here merits an individual article Al Ahrar training camp. Highly doubtful as this article fails WP:N WP:GNG because there is no "significant coverage".
1. This is the Afd of Al Ahrar training camp. Your comment on other articles is not helpful here. So i am going to repeat my request that you address the given arguments that the article here Al Ahrar training camp fails WP:N WP:GNG as one mentioning in one source does not add up to "significant coverage". IQinn (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I suggest to some of the editors above that the use of the word "you" in a contentious AfD generally does not help matters. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Afghan training camp. At this time, there is no indication of sufficient notability to support a stand-alone article.--Pink Bull 01:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Khair Camp

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

Can not find additional sources. One mentioning by one source does not add up to "significant coverage" so it fails WP:N WP:GNG. The information and single sources of the article is already presented in Omar Mohammed Ali Al Rammah. IQinn (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transmittance (musician)

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

There is subtle wording preventing this from becoming A7. Author makes claims about LA Times reviews, but no citations given. This appears to be A7, WP:HOAX, WP:ADVERT, self-promotion, and just nonsense. This google search has no results. Further, the author has no other edits but one: to blank this page. — Timneu22 · talk 12:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion that WP:MUSIC is satisfied at all.Etrigan (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pod SnapShot

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

I can't find significant coverage on this file type in reliable sources to meet WP:N. The article also appears written from a promotional point of view. Most hits in reliable sources are to an unnrelated concept in physics. Them From Space 12:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice New file format that just isn't notable yet. No opposition to recreation if and when third-party coverage becomes available. 2 says you, says two 12:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of NorthWest

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

Unaccredited, non-notable degree mill, no non-trivial coverage, google and gnews turn up nothing. 2 says you, says two 12:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete as per norm.~~ Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC) KeepI did not know that there was a rule permitting the inclusion of all degree granting insitutions as pointed out below by terriersfan. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google Books search turns up a discussion of this school as an "accreditation mill" in a 2007 study from the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.[16] It pops up on some similar lists found via Google, e.g.[17] The school appears to be based in Pakistan and does show up on a list from the Pakistani consulate, but this doesn't seem to be anything more than a bare list.[18] I do not find more extensive coverage of the sort we have seen with some other diploma mills. Also, to avoid confusion, please note that "The University of Northwest" was apparently a 19th-century predecessor of the school in Sioux City, Iowa now known as Morningside College.[19][20]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is our practice to have pages on all degree-awarding institutions where verifiable information can be found. We keep such degree mill pages because it provides objective information on their non-accredited status. This page is likely to be consulted by both those considering obtaining a degree and by employers seeking information on the status of the institution. TerriersFan (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Phillips

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

I can't find significant coverage of this living person in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline and WP:BIO. Them From Space 12:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion that she even begins to satisfy WP:MUSIC. 2 says you, says two 12:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To her defense, being the President and VP of a few nonnotable companies is at least an assertion of notability, however scant it may be. Them From Space 12:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Karga training camp

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

One mentioned in one source does not add up to "significant coverage" so it fails WP:N WP:GNG in addition all the information in the article are already in Ravil Mingazov and there are no additional sources or information. IQinn (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources, --Nuujinn (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1541 Ultimate

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/1541ultimate

Articles for deletion/1541 Ultimate

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

An article on a Commodore 64 peripheral, sourced to such peerless references as YouTube (your one-stop primary source for WP:OR). Article reads as a personal essay or opinion piece ("The 1541 Ultimate's target group is fairly wide. Convenience is a dominant factor...") I am sure that both current users of the C64 will buy this, but the article as written is not compliant with policies on NPOV, sourcing and so on. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

What is your problem? The Article has undergone a previous deletion review, which means your speedy deletion violated one principal rule of speedy deletion already. First I had to undergo a block removal, because you blocked me as well on claims of sock puppetry totally without any evidence. Then it took me a week to get the article undeleted (with a 5:0 vote for undeleting it i might add) and now you come at me again? What have I done to you? I even removed the whole "public reception" part meanwhile, even though I didn't have to, and now you claim "fairly wide" and "convenience" is a valid reason for deleting the article? Give me a break! Also AFAIK the 1541u has sold over 500 units so far, so please refrain from ad homs like "both current users of the C64"... -- DeeKay64 (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason to mark this article for deletion. If you take issue with one or two sentences, you should point that out instead of marking for deletion (the wikipedia equivalent of trolling). The article uses both primary and secondary sources and is almost entirely fact-based. It seems you focus more on trolling the C=64 community than contributing to article quality. -- Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.86.70 (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— /213.140.86.70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - It indeed seems that this deletion proposal is grounded on personal issues rather than rational ones. The nominator appears to have been editing Wikipedia actively since 2006, so I'm sure that he is familiar with the procedures on how to deal with articles that don't demonstrate the notability of their subject matters well enough. Besides, this is a kind of product where the existing Wikipedia notability guidelines can't be directly applied, so some discussion about its inclusion criteria definitely needs to take place before considering deletion. To me, a manufacturing volume of 500 units for a new peripherial of a computer that hasn't been commercially available for over 15 years makes it notable enough. I'm voting for keep. --Viznut (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It would be a great disservice to the Wikipedia community if this article were removed due to the endless gesticulations of one singular intransigent editor. -- 67.34.98.154 (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC) -- 67.34.98.154 (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but remove sections 'Features', 'Specifications', and the list of changes under '1541 Ultimate II' as WP:NOTCATALOG. Interested users can visit the product site for this sort of detail. --CliffC (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the tech specs now, but I think the features should stay. After all that is what tells the reader what the cartridge is good for on one quick glance without much reading. That's what people expect for this sort of wiki-entry, compare f.ex. other hardware, e.g. the Action Replay utility cartridge, which is quite comparable to the 1541u. I also changed the 1541u II section from bulletpoints into text now, i think a wikipedia article on a piece of hardware should also cover different generations. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tagged this back in March as reading like an ad, and it hasn't improved much since. Lacks reliable third party indepdendant sources. i.e. Source to the originator of the product, blogs and a forum post all well short of wikipedia's standards --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously don't know what some people expect with a c64 cartridge released in 2008, but there's little chance Tom's Hardware will review a 1541 Ultimate any time soon! ;-) I did link to one independant review on retrohacker and retrozentrale (german), there WAS also a videolink to an independant video-review (deleted by someone). That's about as good as it will ever get, sorry. I removed the "public reception" part completely, added a section on the 1541u II and the opensource FW release and removed the tech specs - "hasn't improved much"? Hello? I'm growing a bit tired of the "reads like an ad" complaints from people that have no connection to the Commodore 64 scene whatsoever - even though nothing about its success is in the article anymore. The cartridge is hugely successful (by c64 standards!), pretty much every active c64 user I know has bought one (some even several!), what should I write? That nobody bought it and nobody cares? Here's a quote from the iPod article: "Since October 2004, the iPod line has dominated digital music player sales in the United States, with over 90% of the market for hard drive-based players and over 70% of the market for all types of players." "Pods have won several awards ranging from engineering excellence, to most innovative audio product, to fourth best computer product of 2006."- Reads like an ad, huh? ;-) Oh, and btw, i mentioned this in my undeletion submit already: I wrote the article on the MMC64, too, a competing cartridge of a different manufacturer. Should show just nicely that I have no connection whatsoever to the guy making the 1541u.. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can help you out on expectation for wikipedia regarding this or indeed anything else regardless of when released and what for. See the general notability guideline in essence to make the test more objective than what you and I find Interesting, Useful or whatever, the test becomes does the world at large considered it important, interesting... enough to write about it, if not then it isn't considered notable. If you are confirming that being a c64 cartridge released in 2008 is unlikely to be of interest to the world at large, then you are pretty much confirming it doesn't meet wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The independant reviews fail as 1 is a forum post which fails the reliable source part of the WP:GNG, and the other is a blog which suffers similar problems. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lecture, but the fact remains that Wikipedia is full of stuff that is not of interest to the world at large. OTOH, pretty much everbody I told about the 1541u was very interested. Maybe I should actually send one of my units for review to Tom's Hardware... Over 38.000 hits for both "1541 Ultimate" and "1541u" on Google show that it's of interest to more people than you claim. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No lecture - if you don't like the answers that's your problem. See Wikipedia:GOOGLE#Search engine tests and Wikipedia policies and WP:BIGNUMBER number of google hits are irrelevant, again wikipedia has long established the standards for inclusion, ones you say you can't meet. Also regarding other stuff and people being intereted in them see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Wikipedia rule is set in stone, and you know that very well. F.ex. there's a gazillion articles out there with bulletpoint lists - "Not encyclopedic", so it must all be deleted. I know you're doing your best to do just that, but it's just such an uphill battle, isn't it? I'm kinda tired of all this WP:BIKESHED... -- DeeKay64 (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is set in stone, the foundation mandates certain things and things like verifiability are beyond removal. " I know you're doing your best to do just that" again trying to attack me rather than address the issue of this article relative to wikipedia policy. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All that stuff about every active c64 user I know etc. is original research it's your impression/opinion which is leading to a conclusion now being presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Your iPod quote will be verifiable in reliable sources, not just something a wikipedia editor plucked out of the air. I'm glad you believe you personally know everyone involved in the c64 scene to the level or recognising their IP addresses. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You missed one important part: The section where this would matter has been deleted already. Tough luck... And yes, i know the majority of active c64 sceners, whether you believe it or not. But why am I even arguing with someone lecturing me on Wikipedia guidelines that does not even have an own account? -- DeeKay64 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Touch luck" - See WP:BATTLE. Quality of argument relative to wikipedia policies is the important factor. If the best argument you have is "look they edits as an IP" then I guess you're right the discussion isn't worth having. You might also like to see m:Foundation Issues point 2. If Wikipedia wanted to stop IP editing they of course could - they don't. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BITEME and WP:DONTCARE. It's not the IP editing that's the problem, it's you lecturing me on Wikipedia guidelines while you do not even bother to register you own account, preferring to shoot anonymously from the dark. There's a reason that stuff from IPs is largely ignored - fortunately... Since when are IPs allowed to have a say in an AfD anyway? Editing is one thing, but participating in a discussion where every separate opinion counts is another. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that's a strong line of argument indeed. I'm not lecturing you, you stated you didn't know what people expected, I answered. How is not registering for an account at odds with understanding wikipedia policy? There isn't a wikpedia policy saying you must have an account. I have used this IP for well over a year so hardly being anonymous if I called my self "XYZ1234" I'd be every bit as anonymous. Regarding if my comments are ignored or not, again this is a strength of argument issue, arguments grounded in wikipedia policy, guidelines etc. which represent a more general community consensus hold more weight than "I know it's really important and you are a nobody" type arguments. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep Sources are very (very) weak but IAR I think we should have articles on stuff like this, it's an area WP:N falls down. Ideally this would be merged somewhere, but I've no real idea on a targetHobit (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet again. Still unsourced and unsourceable, just like the last time it was deleted at AFD, and not one of the votes above (which is what they are) addresses this. Article creator has recreated this article close to a dozen times at various titles, edit warred to keep the unencyclopedic features list in the article, and lied through his teeth here and at DRV by claiming that the article had survived a previous deletion debate. (I'm frankly appalled that nobody at DRV checked.) —Korath (Talk) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Lied through his teeth"? I beg your pardon, the issues were obviously resolved when i re-added the article 2 months later with more sources, so this time there was no deletion and the article remained online for 2 years. Need I remind you that during the last AfD, it already was a borderline case? And back then there were no sources like the youtube videos of the 1541u being made or the retrozentrale review. Before release, there were *only* forum sources, so you could not even prove that the 1541u actually existed. Seriously: What more sources do you need? Or let's even go back a bit: What in the article is of such a nature that it actually would *require* sources? Are there any claims being made that need to be substantiated? It's just a simple small article on what the cartridge is and what it does, homepage is linked, as are tech specs and a review of it (and a video of its production, unfortunately no more) - what more do you need in a simple article like this? This is not an article on Scientology, abortion or anything controversial that would require sources galore!

Regarding your other unsubstantiated attacks: I have recreated the article exactly once, what are you talking about "close to a dozen times"? The redirects from 1541u and 1541Ultimate? You're not seriously summing that up into one big sounding number, are you? I did not "edit war" either, i rephrased and moved stuff around, it's not just simple reverts. Also, the feature list was put back in twice, and last I looked the definition of edit warring is three times in 24 hours... -- DeeKay64 (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I get to have one vote, too, so let me use it to sum up why i think this should be on Wikipedia: It is a piece of hardware that is both interesting for the Retrogaming and the active Commodore 64 scene, plus it has obscurity value for technically interested folks (think: slashdot crowd). It has sold over 500 units from what I know, which is more than many other items that have their own wikipedia entry (e.g. Bugatti Veyron). The passages that could be interpreted as advertising were removed, making it now a very simple, informative, straightforward article on what it is and what it is good for. There are no unverifiable claims in the article that need to be substantiated by independant sources, so the lack of "official" sources for such a semi-hobbyist project should not be an issue. Rephrasing debatable sentences in the article should not be a reason for deleting it, so feel free to edit. ;-) I'd just like to mention that the MMC64 article is the exact same thing as this article, and that has been online for four years without a single debate now, so why the issue with this article now? Also, I'd like to point out that the nomination for AfD was not based on reason, but personal revenge. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Insufficient coverage available to demonstrate notability and verifiability. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all: Significant restructuring and rewriting, please re-check! Also added another competing product to counter claims of advertising! ;-) -- DeeKay64 (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly lacks the required significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all: Added a lot more sources; Independant Review of the 1541u II, Several video reviews and CHIP magazine Poland on the 1541 Ultimate. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are blog posts without apparent editorial oversight. —Korath (Talk) 19:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, all the things you know. You have the 6/2010 issue of CHIP at hand? Cause I do. Says here: "Redaktor naczelny: Michal Adamczyk" You might wanna ask him.. -- DeeKay64 (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no significant coverage. I am struggling to understand the comments above but also struggling to understand the article itself it needs a substantial rewrite to be accessible to non enthusiasts. Teapotgeorge^Talk 00:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Teapotgeorge
Delete - sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ghanad training camp

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

Fails WP:N WP:GNG as one mentioning in one source does not add up to "significant coverage". Delete or merge into Ismael Ali Faraj Ali Bakush. IQinn (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources, and the listed reference provides only a passing mention. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 20:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star naming controversy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Star naming controversy

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

There is no controversy; this is an attempt to create a POV fork. The article creator has a conflict of interest in the star naming discussion and been attempting to use WP for advertising his business as when creating StarNamer. The article has no sources supporting his "side" of the discussion, only a self-published editorial; the rest is a linkfarm for star-naming websites. Killing Vector (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow article to stand. Sorry I removed the notability tag being a newbie here. I did however talk about notability in the discussion page. Article immediately was tagged for deletion. Can we restore to notability tag and allow me to work on the article further? Look when talking about the star naming industry only one side of the argument gets advanced. This is the astronomers opinion of commercial star naming. there is no forum for the industry view point offering the other side. There is indeed a controversy. This is not an attempt to create a POV fork. It is attempt to remove bias and a lack of neutral point of view. You say "the rest is a link farm" for star naming sites; that is not true I have also included the astromoner POV with two other links (IAU and Cornell). Glennconti (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned explicitly that this user is in the star-naming business, as per WP:COI policy -- Rick Van Tassel ^{user|talk|contribs} 13:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with star designation. The article cites sources to show the POV of each of the opposing sides, and it already has one source to demonstrate notability. The self-published editorial is appropriate because it shows the opinion of one side of the argument. There aren't yet any notable sources on the star-naming side, so it doesn't seem as much of a "controversy" but a disagreement. However, the disagreement seems to be valid, so I think the information should be moved into an article that already covers the topic deeply enough. For instance, if the Creation–evolution controversy was covered once on the evolution side, it wouldn't be important enough to have its own article, but it would probably have a section in the Evolution article, just to show the existence of the disagreement. -- Rick Van Tassel ^{user|talk|contribs} 13:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to put your recommended course of action at the beginning of your post in bold, using ~~strikethrough~~ with <s></s> if you change your mind. See WP:AFD#how to discuss an AfD for more guidelines on the discussion. -- Rick Van Tassel ^{user|talk|contribs} 13:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ There should be a general article about businesses like the International Star Registry that make money off of folks who seriously believe that a company has acquired the naming rights to the rest of the universe, whether it's called "controversy" or not. It's perfectly legal, but you'd have to be an idiot to believe that an astronomer would say, "We found a pulsar located near the star called 'Debbie'". I'm not surprised that there are other entrepreneurs who have realized that there's one born every minute, but even the ISR, which some people believe owns the heavens, is categorized only under Category:Companies established in 1979 and Category: Companies based in Lake County, Illinois. I wouldn't merge this with either star naming or star designation, although there should be a link within those articles. Mandsford 21:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This AfD candidate article claims a false "controversy" in order to promote a marginally ethical business based on selling interests in items that do not belong to the business and for which no title or interest can legitimately be transferred (such as the Brooklyn Bridge), in addition, this business preys upon grieving family members that are often in no position to question the veracity of the claims made or rationally evaluate what is really being purchased. This con deserves a footnote in the Stars named after people article and no more (which it has). Aldebaran66 (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw my keep, although I think that there definitely does need to be a page about the subject, and I'm surprised that there isn't one, considering the widespread and longstanding practice of the "novelty" of a company naming stars. I think that the author has sincerely tried to write a balanced article, although the "rebuttal" is sourced to personal observations of the author himself, which essentially means that the statement is the personal observations of the author himself, the very essence of original research. The proliferation of companies, of course, underscores the fact that anyone can sell a star to you. Maybe they can work out a deal on dividing the nighttime sky into 12 sections. Mandsford 16:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Aldebaran's emotional plea to dead babies and ad hominem attack wasn't what made you change your decision to support the article Mandsford. I think the overriding principle here is NPOV at wikipedia.Glennconti (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have star designation which discusses (briefly) the naming issue; we have stars named after people which also touches on the matter. I don't see any reason we need a third page on the topic in which to inflate it to the level of a "controversy". Redirect this title to star designation, discuss neutrally and in context there. Shimgray | talk | 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just three. All of these articles mention the controversy with only the astronomer's opinion. They all need to be changed. Star designation, International Star Registry, Astronomical naming conventions, Stars named after people, Stars. Glennconti (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles in WP call commercial star naming a fraud. My research indicates this is not the case. Commercial star naming is legal. Either opposing views need to be shown or the claims of fraud need to be removed. Glennconti (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Merge and reduce~~ ~~Delete~~ The arguments are summarised in star designation, and it doesn't appear to be a major controversy - just an issue which annoys a few pedants. The style is like an argumentative essay, which is not ideal and Shimgray has a good point that that this issue is covered on too many pages. But Glennconti is right that the star designation page appears POV - it should at least say why people name stars Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major controversy. The number of stars commercially named since 1978 numbers in the millions.Glennconti (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't see how that is a major controversy - The only victims are mildly irritated astronomers (and the odd person who doesn't read fine print). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This appears overblown and can be reduced to a few lines. Its would be the same as taxonomists objecting to common names of plants and animals - not really something they have any say in.

I whole heartedly agree with your point about taxonomists. However, some astronomers get very agitated when they feel there is an attempt to usurp their authority. The IAU in particular. Glennconti (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After further reading I believe this justifies no more than a line or two on the any of the pages - Astronomers may have an opinon, but thats not relevant. Facts are people sell names that are not scientifically recognised. Not worth its own page at all. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with star designation after editing to address style and COI issues, as per Rick Van Tassel, Shimgray, and Clovis Sangrail. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with star designation. It reads like journalism. Rothorpe (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In a major victory for NPOV they just removed the astronomer's opinion that private star naming companies are frauds off the Star WP article. I argued that these were legal opinions and astronomer's opinions on law are not pertinent. This won the day. However, they now prefer to use the astronomer's opinion that private star naming companies were once "accused" of being "deplorable" without allowing any alternative opinion to be voiced. This was three days work and for my trouble I have been threatened again against speaking. Glennconti (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was short lived. They have reverted all of my work on Star and are again calling private star naming companies a fraud. Oh well, hopefully I can get an impartial editor to pass judgment on at least this article. There needs to be some NPOV on this subject. Glennconti (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate, and I understand what you're getting at, but this discussion isn't about the star article. Please stay on topic. -- Rick Van Tassel ^{user|talk|contribs} 11:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Courcelles (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Harper's Rose Chronicles

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

Non-notable per WP:NBOOK, unreferenced, zero hits online, no evidence that any of the books in the series actually exist, possible WP:HOAX, otherwise a highly obscure self-published work. Empty Buffer (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, detailing books in the series separately:

I am also nominating the following related page on the author of the books, with no other notability asserted. As above, I can find nothing about the author online:

Delete all. Nothing on Google, Google Books, WorldCat. No search results for the author's names, titles of his books or the names of characters. A hoax? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unverifiable. Possible hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, no sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shamsad training camp

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

One mentioning by one source does not add up to "significant coverage" so it fails WP:N WP:GNG. Delete or merge into Saed Khatem Al Malki but the information is already in this article. IQinn (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage in google news, reference link is dead. Not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrez training camp

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

One mentioned by one source does not add up to "significant coverage" so it fails WP:N WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, passing mention, no signficant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Badger (University Observer)

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

Made me smile, but not notable. Codf1977 (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Abductive (reasoning) 23:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen articles about less legitimate things than this. It is a real column in Ireland's biggest student newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catreeeona (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School for the Jihad

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

Possible misinformation. The term "School for the Jihad" is only mentioned once by one source and i do not see any source that verifies that "School for the Jihad" is/was an Afghan training camp. One mentioning in one document does not add up to "significant coverage". Possible fails WP:N WP:GNG WP:OR. Speedy deletion recommended. IQinn (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - The author of the article has just revamped and extended the article from an article about an Afghan training camp "School for the Jihad" (original version) to an article that list now all instances of the term "School for the Jihad" or "School for Jihad" or "Jihad school" because there are no sources for the original topic. But that does not help much because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and therefore i am still in favor to delete or delete and create an entry in Wiktionary. IQinn (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - One source in a document? Fails on numerous fronts, as Iquinn aptly notes. Jusdafax 14:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough significant coverage to verify existence. Claritas § 16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardo Bruna

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gerardo Bruna

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

This article is about a reserve team footballer who has played no professional matches (so fails WP:ATHLETE) and has received no other significant coverage. The information about his appearances for Liverpool is not supported by the references (as they never happened). Pretty Green (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:ATHLETE - Here, here and here are the details of the matches the article claims he plays in, none list him as playing so clearly the entire final paragraph is just fiction -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: was just checking this out myself and about to list for deletion too, when suddenly it was done already! Fails ATHLETE, only general tabloid sports journalism and article full of made-up information to try to fool other editors into not deleting. As an aside, article created by serial non-notable reserve player creator who has just had a half dozen other article deleted for exactly same reason...never made the first team, and after the first couple were deleted each was added with a first team appearance in a failed attempt to disguise notability despite being told it was so easy to verify via soccerbase. --ClubOranje^T 08:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 07:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Houston (trampolining)

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

fails WP:ATHLETE, simply being a 14 year old in the youth national squad is not meeting any notability bar. LibStar (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails ATHLETE and GNG -Drdisque (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G4/A7. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metania

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete as non notable and possible Coatrack article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability per WP:GNG, can find no coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Empty Buffer (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lnoger version of Metania was recently deleted. It is a POV against YSEE. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also removed a large tract of invective posted by the original author from Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellenes; see the talk page for reasons why. This seems to be a very minor organization with an axe to grind. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - speedied as a copyvio as below --B (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Orchard Road flood

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

Non-notable event, information about which should at the very most be included on the parent page Orchard Road. Etrigan (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not only does it run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS, its also nearly a word for word copy of this. 2 says you, says two 12:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 additional sources have been identified in the course of this AFD and there have been no arguments for deletion (and numerous for retention) in the subsequent two weeks. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gonjasufi

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

No substantial indication of notability for 3 months. All sources are first person or similarly not reliable sources Shadowjams (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 3 months! Shadowjams is on target here, good work. Jusdafax 14:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Click on the link to the article on his album and you'll see several sources linked, including Metacritic, which links to lots of reviews. See also the Allmusic biography. The following all come up in the first 2 pages of Google results for Gonjasufi, which makes the deletion nomination somewhat mystifying: BBC, Drowned in Sound, The Guardian, Pitchfork Media. Bringing articles like this to AFD without at least spending a few minutes looking for evidence of notability simply wastes the time of other editors. --Michig (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)...or, worse, results in an article on a notable subject being deleted.--Michig (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2010 (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) 00:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But an obviously notable one that already has sources (one URL was broken - I've fixed it). Why relist?--Michig (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just a quick glance at the Metacritic page given by Michig is enough to see that this artist has generated enough coverage and reviews in reliable sources to warrant an article. Easily notable enough. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's on my todo list to add all these sources to the article. I haven't had time recently but will get round to it when I can.--Michig (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now - see also the album article.--Michig (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The pointers given by Michig show that there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources, easily meets WP:MUSIC. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 07:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marsel Efroimski

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

not sure if WP:ATHLETE applies to chess players but simply being an under 14 world champion should not mean notability. does not extensive coverage [21]. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears in enough sources to convince me of notability. (Also see this and other sources.) Undead Warrior (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her ratings do not suggest that she is one of the best chess players in the world. -Drdisque (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2010 (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, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage of this individual from reliable independent sources. Lustralaustral (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kartiki Gaikwad

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

fails WP:MUSIC. and nominating for WP:ONEVENT. won a TV music show but has not spun off into a notable musical career. no extensive coverage [22]. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not yet.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC) ~~The result was delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

I am re-listing this AfD, as the creator contacted me pointing out that references had been added to the article, but that there had been no comments here after that point. I have restored the article so that it can be seen. I will contact the contributors to this AfD to ask if they would like to comment here again. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VisualMediaWorks

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

Delete No evidence of notability. The only independent source cited is http://www.cgtimes.com.cn/xwzx/zdyd/31387.shtml, which makes only one brief mention of VisualMediaWorks, as can be see from a Google translation. (Note: The article has been created by an editor with little or no editing history other than promotion of VisualMediaWorks.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This is a business that makes animations of proposed building projects. Clever logo, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Re-edited the Article with more citations from independent sources (Broadcast, books, magazines). Lwxmagix (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC) — Lwxmagix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately it is still not clear to me that we have any significant coverage in independent sources. For example, we have this. It gives one very brief mention of VisualMediaWorks. Also it is an advertisement for an event at which a representative of VisualMediaWorks was to speak, so it is scarcely independent. Then we had a video posted on YouTube. It shows people making 3-D animations. I don't get any sound with it, so I can't hear what is being said. Nothing that appears on the screen mentions VisualMediaWorks, as far as I can see, though it is possible that my attention wandered at the one moment that VisualMediaWorks got a mention. (Unfortunately the video has now been removed from YouTube, so it is unverifiable.) Then we have this, which gives one brief mention of VisualMediaWorks. And then we have this, which appears to be an advertising brochure for VisualMediaWorks. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry James, Most probably I was editing the references when you were going through them. Please try again on this 2 links: this and that. The 2 videos that you watched are extracts from ChannelNewsAsia.com which is an independent pan-Asian news network that showcase just on visualmediaworks for this 2 features. If you could not get the audio part, the title description for the interviewees on screen are stated "VisualMediaWorks" as well. I really hope that there is another reviewer who could get the audio part of it, as they are important references and sources for the article. Lwxmagix (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a more detailed explaination of the reference sources for the VisualMediaWorks article, especially for reviewers who are not familiar with the 3d computer graphics industry. Other than the 2 books cited that mentioned VisualMediaWorks' contribution in the field of architecture and design solution for an artist, there are references from SIGGRAPH Asia (- the Asian version of SIGGRAPH, which stated in Wikipedia, "widely considered the most prestigious forum for the publication of computer graphics research"), Autodesk (- a name that no computer graphics related industry will not know as they produced all the major 3d softwares like 3ds Max, Maya and Softimage, I think a company will need to have certain notibility to be invited to give talks in their regional events), CG Times (- A very comprehensive magazine on Computer Graphics in Chinese. From the summary of contents on the same issue that featured VisualMediaWorks, they featured CG Movie Astro Boy (film), District 9, CG Animator Brian Dowrick, CG Graphics for Puccini's Musical Turandot, and many more), Channel NewsAsia (- as stated in Wikipedia, it is a major Asian news broadcaster with programmes telecast to more than 20 Asian countries and territories. I think this source should be a major reference in terms of notibility and significant coverage), Lianhe Zaobao (- as stated in Wikipedia, is the largest Singapore-based Chinese newspaper and establishing a regional presence for itself, with subscriptions for its print edition from Southeast Asia, China, Hong Kong as well as organisations such as the United Nations. I think the source should contribute to some significant coverage as well). It is really a pity that these major reference news sources Lianhe Zaobao and ChannelNewsAsia could not be linked online as the news articles on their website only display for 7 days. All news articles before 7 days are taken offline. It is true that previously, there was an article on VisualMediaWorks that look like an advertising brochure to me. Hence, I have already removed it. Lwxian (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete ISDN ref is ok, but i'd like to see one more. I'm on the cusp of neutrality, I would not mind seeing this being kept. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All the contributors to this discussion have been notified that this AfD has been re-opened and invited to comment here-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments, one negative and one slightly positive.

Looking at the changes which have happened to the article since the last comment above I see there is just one new reference, namely this. It is an advertisement for a seminar in which VisualoMediaWorks was to be a contributor. The page has a brief schedule of the even, invcluding "2.35pm - Advantages of Using 3D in Interior Design Hon Kit, Managing Director, VisualMediaWorks". That is the only mention of VisualMediaWorks. By no stretch of the imagination is this significant coverage, and it is not independent coverage either. This does not justify reopening the discussion.
I have now been able to watch the video clips with sound. (I suppose there must have been a problem with the computer I was viewing them on before.) Yes, they are clearly about VisualMediaWorks, and the two clips give more significant coverage than all the other sources. In my opinion they bring notability to somewhere near the borderline level. It is not quite enough to push me to "keep", but enough that I now regard my "delete" as a very weak one. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am moving the following comments to the end of my earlier post, as I think putting them in the middle may be confusing. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James, if all the 'delete' !voters come here and say to still delete, then I will close this as a speedy delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My phrasing was badly chosen. When I wrote "This does not justify reopening the discussion" I was not intending that to be a criticism of Phantomsteve for reopening it, which is no doubt what it looks like. It was reasonable for Phantomsteve, having been asked, to give the article another chance by reopening. However, I am doubtful whether requesting a reopening was justified on the basis of that one, very poor, extra reference. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think Delete. Codf1977 (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the 2 comments... still working hard to add more references to push up above the borderline level... not too sure if linking to other Wikipedia articles that mentioned VisualMediaWorks will help... I have added 1 more reference linking to another Wikipedia article that mentioned about VisualMediaWork's contribution to the Alkaff Bridge (Singapore's ArtBridge). Lwxmagix (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can't use Wikipedia as a reference - you can link to the articles, but not use them as references -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have moved Smerdis of Tlön's re-iteration of their 'delete' here, so that other editors/closing admin can see it more clearly. I forgot to notify Joe Chill of the re-listing, so I am going to do that now, and await his comment here-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again. I looked at some of the new references, and the YouTube links. I still don't see anything that establishes that this business has historical, technical, or cultural importance, that it has any significant coverage outside of Singapore, or outside of works it has created on behalf of its clients. All the additional sources would seem to be generated by the business's PR department. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references provided are clearly minor. Miami33139 (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Taminsyah

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

not sure if WP:ATHLETE applies to chess. not simply being an under 7 world champion should not guarantee you notability. fails the greater WP:BIO with no extensive recognition [23]. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2010 (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, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination rationale. Lustralaustral (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sarah 16:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verity Charlton

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

clearly fails WP:ENT. no extensive career here or ongoing notable roles looking at IMDB [24]. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Has not had "significant roles" in multiple films, TV shows, etc.. Frickeg (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDB does not give nor detract notability. With its instruction that include "other productions", WP:ENT is set in place to consider more things than just film... and even having a short "film" career is not ipso-facto non-notabiliy if it an be shown the subject meets ENT's consideration of "other productions" or meets WP:GNG. For example, a quick search finds Charlton receives positive critical response for her work in theater. In reviewing Raised in Captivity (2003), The Age writes "The character of Bernadette (Verity Charlton) for example, gives an almost text-book characterisation of bipolar disorder, swinging rapidly from anxiety-ravaged shouting to beatific calm".[25] In reviewing Loyal Women (2004), The Age writes "Verity Charlton is superb as Brenda, gradually developing the character's strength and natural leadership as she finds a way of surviving against crushing odds. The ensemble of seven women that includes the guest actors Carole Yelland and Christine Keogh, work strongly together under Denny Lawrence's direction. They create an impression of a group honed by harsh necessity into a vengeful squad capable of violence and cruelty as repugnant as that of the men".[26] In reviewing Vincent in Brixton (2005), The Age writes "Verity Charlton's gently unobtrusive presence as Eugenie... ...complete one of Red Stitch's most assured, polished productions.".[27]. So it is seen that her career consists of much more than a simple {and uncitable) IMDB listing. Positively writing of a stage actor in context to her performance and specifically praising her work within that review, does not fall under the cautions about "trivial" coverage of lists and databases, and with the GNG specifically assuring editors that the person "need not be the main topic of the source material", it must be considered that she may indeed merit inclusion with a bit of work. This is what I found in just a couple minutes. What else was missed? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:23, 17 June 2010 (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) 00:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of county routes in Hampshire County, West Virginia. Redirects are, after all, cheap. Courcelles (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

County Route 8 (Hampshire County, West Virginia)

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

Minor, non-notable county route. Article does little to discuss route's significance (if any exists). Brian Powell (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete—per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 07:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:USRD/NT. --Rs chen 7754 07:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County routes are not generally notable. Notable sites along a road are not enough to confer notability to the road in and of itself. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. County routes are not inherently notable, and there doesn't seem to be anything exceptional about this one. – T M F 07:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Fails WP:USRD/NT. Movementarian (Talk) 16:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable road. Joe Chill (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of county routes in Hampshire County, West Virginia. Dough 48 72 15:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of county routes in Hampshire County, West Virginia. --P C B 19:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of county routes in Hampshire County, West Virginia. County routes aren't inherently notable, and this one has nothing to prove itself as an exception. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect—still a valid search term, I suppose, so redirect it. Imzadi 1979 → 19:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patusan

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

DELETE. This is a non-notable fictional location. There is a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage of this subject by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 17:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several pages of P. analysis in Conrad and Gender, Rodopi [28] Also in Real: The Yearbook of Research in English and American Literature, Volume 3, Walter de Gruyter [29], The novel and the globalization of culture, Oxford [30], Conrad and impressionism, Cambridge [31], Textual Practice, Issue 2 Routledge [32], and more. Novickas (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2010 (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, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tere liye

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

Delete. Not a crystal ball. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is about an upcoming movie which has not begun shooting, with its only source being a social website. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL ("Wikipedia is not a source of rumour, gossip or speculation.") No prejudice against recreation when movie is released. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This type of movie-to-be-shot article is not encyclopedic. Should be a speedy delete template for this category, as there is for non-notable music groups, to prevent clog at Afd. Jusdafax 15:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Explictly fails WP:NFF as not having begun shooting and lacks sources to support notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Housing Investment Company

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

Claims notability no sources to back up and appears to be a ocnflict of interest or self promotion article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It is verifiably one of the largest construction companies in Iran (as here), but I'm not immediately able to find English language sources giving it significant coverage. However, per WP:BIAS, foreign language sources can be presumed to exist and per WP:N and WP:BEFORE no deletion should occur until a serious attempt has been made to find such sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your google search doesn't show third party coverage in reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it most certainly doesn't, nor was I suggesting it does. I was suggesting it points to links verifying the claim that the company exists, and is of a certain size. One such link is here. Another is here. Given that information, as above, it's reasonable to assume that foreign language sources originating from Iran exist (government tender documents, if nothing else) and that therefore no deletion should take place until serious attempts to locate them have been made. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are found in Persian, I have to say delete. I don't think simply being the largest construction company equates to automatic notability. does the largest construction company in each country get an automatic article? LibStar (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does actually. However I was having problems finding sources for the Persian side. Likely this is because Ican't speak persian but I think we have a obligation to remove anything we can't prove conclusively. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agree, that's why I say delete in the absence of sources. LibStar (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can conclusively prove the existence of the company and its rough size from the sources above, so verifiability isn't an issue. The issue is notability, which is a separate and higher standard. The onus of verifiability is on the person adding content; the onus of notability per WP:BEFORE is on the person seeking its deletion. To argue deletion you are obliged to have made good faith searches for likely sources of significant coverage, and come up empty. Per WP:BIAS and WP:N that includes presumed foreign language sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my comment while implicit wasn't explicit enough. I couldn't find reference before I nominated it. I looked. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you searched Persian language news archives, through, presumably, some kind of Persian-oriented search engine? - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I note also that the article is actively under construction and is not obviously vandalism; the AfD may be premature and there may be merit in allowing the creator to continue developing the article before making a final judgement. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even possibly the bigger issue is a SPA Promotion account. H.I. Co.= Housing Investment Company Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's almost certainly an conflict of interest account, and it should be closely watched. And the article will probably need to be tidied when they're done, if it survives deletion. But conflict of interest is not, in and of itself, a reason to delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however it does add a mitigating factor when I consider it. I understand this isn't the case for everyone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 20:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the AfD tag has been missing from the article for five days [33]. I restored it. There are a few reliable sources available in Persian [34] (Google News does not cover Iran I believe, but there are some newspapers among the regular Google Hits). But in its present state this article has absolutely nothing worth keeping ... if we had an article on Bank Maskan (aka Housing Bank, which is one of the major banks of Iran and the parent company of HIC) I'd rather just propose redirecting it there. At the moment I am working on saving another article from AfD, but let me see if I can find the time to start such an article. cab (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Metropolitan90, then redirect to Bank Maskan (which I just started). cab (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyright violation of various pages on the company's web site; see [35], [36], and [37], for example. This company may be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but copying the company's web site is not the way to go about writing such an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J.Viewz

AfDs for this article:

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

Mostly a procedural nom per Jeff G's prod, which was removed by an IP primarily involved in editing this page. The underlying concern is substantial: no sources that aren't first person for a band, and no substantial editing outside of those select editors. Shadowjams (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note - It was AfD in late 2008, and recreated within 4 months thereafter, that version being this nom. Shadowjams (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The band is notable, at least in Israel. I added third-party sources, albeit mostly in Hebrew and removed the commercial parts of the article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2010 (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, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tama Matheson

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

fails WP:ENT, WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE . less than 2 appearances on 2 TV series. the supplied link is dead and 1 hit in gnews [38]. it is difficult to verify this acting and directing career which is not covered in reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2010 (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, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if everything in the article is accepted at face value, it doesn't add up to notability. A couple of small parts on television and some gigs as "assistant to the director" at notable houses; his other acting and directing credits are in very small venues. The article has been neglected for years, as evidenced by the note that he "will star in" something in 2007! Google search finds nothing of significance. --MelanieN (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 21:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Akdeniz

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

fails WP:ENT, has had 1 role on a TV series, and it is questionable whether being a participant in a games show counts as signficant other role. no real coverage in gnews either [39]. LibStar (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 5 episodes on one notable show, and 27 on another notable show, are both significant. After seeing your comments on [40] I'm certain you are going to go around nominating one entertainment article after another, based on your interpretations of that suggested guideline. Perhaps you could wait for more input from others, before doing any large scale deletion attempt. Dream Focus 05:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more input from others in this AfD has been received below and noted so far majority supporting delete. thanks. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Dream Focus 05:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are obviously following me around, suggest you cease. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

funny that Dream Focus, 2 votes below don't agree with your interpretation of the guideline. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the AFD, not other editors. Dream Focus 06:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KETTLE. LibStar (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Just read my earlier comment. I should've placed that on your talk page, not here. Dream Focus 06:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to AfD note - You both are not new, and I think you both known each other's predilections at AfD. Perhaps this recent wikihounding thread on Dream Focus's talk page could compel both of you to either seek some outside help or maybe abstain from AfD issues until that issue's concluded. I don't want any debate to spill over here, but just so there's context for everyone else, and some indication to you two that others have noticed this issue. Shadowjams (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad others have noticed if anything. LibStar (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Personal dispute above notwithstanding, I am unable to find significant coverage for this actor sufficient to found a meaningful encyclopedic article. Without such coverage, whether or not he passes WP:N, it is not possible to write a verifiable encyclopedic article on the topic. No prejudice against recreation, possibly after Tomorrow When The War Began is released and more coverage is (presumably) generated. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not he passes WP:N is what is important, not whether you personally feel it will be a meaningful article. Proper sourcing is a fixable problem. See WP:ATD.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Acting on a series only designed to fill time between shows is not only superfluous, but it might as well be classified on the level of an actor on a regular 30-second ad (and in only a few select cases do we have commercial actors having articles here). Only two other actors from the series have articles because they have had established acting histories, while this individual has not. Also I will probably say the Disney Channel Games "role" is in high probability incorrect, as his version of the series aired only on Disney's Australia and New Zealand networks, and the Disney Channel Games has exclusively American and Canadian actors from their US channel's series and it does not show up on his IMDb page. Nate • (chatter) 00:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DustFromWords and Nate. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources found to establish notability. Even if the article technically passes WP:ENT (which is tenuous, at best), it still fails WP:GNG and WP:N. SnottyWong ^squeal 23:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per SnottyWong, this article's claim to meet WP:ENT is unconvincing. Reyk _YO! 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to As the Bell Rings. Fails WP:ENT as he has not had significant roles in two productions. We'll likely be recreating this once Tomorrow, When the War Began (film) is released though. - BalthCat (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete or merge: fails notability guidelines and could not find sources. not appropriate for a stand alone article but seems like it could have a suitable merge or redirect target... Arskwad (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sourcing concerns. Upon further review, it appears there is one reliable source. Consensus is merge to Diarrhea#Other_causes Shimeru 21:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Habba syndrome

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

Article on the same topic, Habba Syndrome was deleted as per a previous discussion. This article also still fails to meet WP:N. Numerous other issues, including being an orphan. If this article is not deleted then a redirect to this article should be made from Habba Syndrome which at least, though deleted has another page linking to it. Gz33 (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could an admin please check if this is a G4-candidate? --Pgallert (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge Mentioned by high quality third party sources such as Uptodate. Can you link to the previous deletion discussion please? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was already linked but it's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habba Syndrome (caps). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Week keep~~, Merge, it was notable enough to be requested. Waiting to see what other people say.Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge It's worth noting that the so-called publishing in the American Journal of Gastroenterology was merely a letter to the editor. Also the habba syndrome website is, just like in the previously deleted article, blatant self promotion and so fails WP:SELFPUB There is no reliable source given as to the reality of this syndrome. Gz33 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC) [I agree with Tim, a merge does seem a better solution.]03:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned by Uptodate here [41] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Diarrhea#Other_causes. This proposed syndrome is based on a single publication, too new and too few sources to be a stand-alone article. Once other authors have studied this hypothesis and published their work I'd have no objection to spinning off a sub article but there is presently too little sourcing for this to be justified. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion Tim. I agree a merge and a redirect is best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, It is interesting to note that the suggesting parties recommending deletion are a chemist without any clinical patient experience and an emergency doctor who has never seen an outpatient practice or treated patients with this chronic condition. This entity DOES exist and thousands of patients have regained their lives as a result of therapy. Deleting it from Wikipedia will not effect the tremendous support that it achieved from the public who are desperately seeking help with "IBS-D". Leaving it can only benefit the public. I am clinical gastroenterologist and would strongly recommend keeping the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.154.6 (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC) — 68.192.154.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and don't merge it to anywhere. Fails WP:V verifiability, may exist only in this one doctor's mind. Dr. Habba's announcement of his newly-discoved and self-named "syndrome," in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, was actually a letter to the editor, not a peer-reviewed article.[42] One other person responded, also in a letter to the editor,[43] and that is IT as far as the medical literature is concerned; a search of PubMed finds only those two mentions of Habba syndrome. A search of Google Scholar shows that Habba's original letter has been cited by others only six times. Google Books finds no mentions. Clearly this "syndrome" is not established in the mainstream literature. It's significant that the webpage which turns up on Google search for this term is called "Habba Syndrome - About Dr Habba". I have a hunch this is all about calling attention to himself. It's not unheard of for a doctor to define a syndrome, name it after himself, and use it to promote his practice. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The article at UpToDate, that you all seem to find so convincing, mentions in a short paragraph that "an association between bile acid malabsorption and gallbladder dysmotility has been described (Habba syndrome)" and cites Dr. Habba's letter. No, thanks. I'll continue to base my opinion on the actual published medical literature, which clearly does not support the existence or significance of this "syndrome". --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question, Is UpToDate a reliable source? gz³³ (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is (which I don't know; it claims to be peer-reviewed but it is certainly not on the same level as a published, peer-reviewed journal) - even if it is a reliable source, it hardly provides the required SIGNIFICANT secondary-source coverage - with its carefully hedged comment that an association "has been described". "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability" per GROUP. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...So the article fails WP:N per WP:NRVE, as well as failing WP:V (WP:MEDRS:~~general systematitic views~~), no? gz³³ (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four votes for merge on vote for delete. I am not sure how the consensus is delete? BTW Uptodate has been deemed a reliable source by WP:MED Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NCCNHR

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Rename the article to lose the acronym. Be sure to search for the earlier name of the group if obsessing over lack of mentions. This one hit seems sufficient to assure notability: http://www.healthfinder.gov/orgs/hr1872.htm Carrite (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm at a loss to understand how the nominator was unable to find significant coverage, as clicking on the Google Books search linked above finds hundreds of reliable sources such as [44], [45] and [46]. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and immediately reduce to a neutral stub. Right now it's a promo piece. East of Borschov (talk)
Keep I side with Phil on this one. Many usable sources on this. I even suggest closing this as keep per WP:SNOW. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beki and the Bullets

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

fails WP:MUSIC. I query the citations listed as those sources usually come up in gnews. 1 hit in gnews in a Turkish newspaper. [47] LibStar (talk) 04:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I couldn't find some of the cited sources, even searching the NewsUK archive. I did find this brief mention from The Age and this interview from Time Out New York. The band does, however, contain at least 2 (maybe 3) members of multiple Aria Award-nominated (and certainly notable)[48][49] band The Mavis's, so I'm inclined to either keep this here or merge into that article, probably the latter at the moment.--Michig (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those sources can be found with Factiva and can be verified by anyone with access which is freely available in Australia through the National Library of Australia. Whilst a lot of The Age articles do come up in GNews I haven't noticed the other sources coming up a lot. What we have here is a band made up from members of two notable bands that also has coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- disclaimer, I started this article. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - here is The Age article, yes it is on the trivial side but I used for verification purposes. (found on gnews using Beki & the Bullets). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2010 (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, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Javad Málayeri

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

Can't verify as per WP:V. Didn't see a single reference in Google News, although there is a Mohammad Malyeri (lacking the Javad) who seems to be a businessman, not a mayor. Doesn't appear to pass notability unless I'm mistaken about the name, nothing in the way of independent, reliable secondary sources to base a biographical article on. Unsourced for almost three years. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while a mayor of a city of this size would appear likely to be notable, there's nothing coming up for me. There doesn't appear to be an article on him in the Farsi language edition, either, so it's difficult to check for possible sources in Farsi. Should these exist, the article could be recreated but, otherwise, this is a biography of a living person with unverifiable details, and therefore need to be deleted. Warofdreams talk 15:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Gabriel

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

Declined prod. Is the daughter of Peter Gabriel but the sources here do not establish notability and I looked at Google news, web and book and there was nothing there that demonstrated independent notability either. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiano Scherner

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

Does not cite any reliable sources. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 03:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Google turns up just over 900 results on a search for Fabiano "Pega-Leve" Scherner. Some of these sources seem to be respected within MMA circles, but I won't make any claim to kow this for sure, or claim that they defintely do stand up as reliable resources. Darigan (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some links on article talk page Darigan (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has multiple fights in high level promotions (UFC and IFC) make him notable, IMO. The article does need a lot of cleanup, removal of "rumors" and most especially references added. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not the most comfortable keep ever, but the fighter does JUST make WP:MMANOT on the organisational level. Is worth noting that the fighter has competed against a handful of really notable fighters. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a p.s., I'm watchlisting him (can't believe I hadn't before) and will go about sourcing/cleanup once safety is confirmed (don't want a load of unneeded deleted edits). Paralympiakos (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It's difficult to determine at what point an MMA competitor is notable since there are so many organizations, many of them at a minor level. Reminds me of boxing, with its many titles, only a few of which are really important. In this case, I believe that given his UFC appearances, the subject is notable under WP:ATHLETE. I wouldn't make that argument for fighters who've only competed in low-level promotions, but the UFC is the highest level of the sport, and multiple appearances there (including one on a main card) are enough to convince me of his notability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has also been tagged as an unreferenced BLP. Personally, I think he's just short of notability according to a strict reading of WP:MMANOT. However, if his world championships in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu can be sourced, then he's clearly notable. Papaursa (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Can't take a position on whether he meets the WP:MMANOT or more general WP:ATHLETE standard, but the Google News numbers (and the sources listed therein) may be enough to meet the general notability guidelines.--Pink Bull 01:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of poorly performing college football coaches

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

Composed entirely of SYN and POV ElKevbo (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has great functionality as lists in Wikipedia do, including grouping article pages in one place for reference and navigation. Provides more detail than a category. Point of view and synthesis? Hardly--certainly losing 0-222 in a single game is a poor performance, and many experts state so. Losing 44 consecutive games without a win and holding the worst lifetime record in college football as a head coach would also qualify, as would having the most losses of any other coach. Could the "qualifications" be better stated and handled? Probably, and through collaboration that will happen. Some names will be added, others will drop off. Perhaps a better list name could be created as well. But the list itself should stay in one form or another.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is a perfect example of WP:SYNTHESIS, with gratuitous WP:BLP violations thrown in. Anyone on the Internet can find a primary source saying that X (a football coach) had a bad week, then add X to this list. Even if a definition of "poorly performing" were provided, it would be total synthesis to list all coaches whose teams (for example) had a certain-sized losing streak (perhaps the ten best players are in hospital after a bus crash). Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the title is currently written, it is entirely subject on the part of Wikipedians as to who performed poorly. Paul states some obvious examples that everyone might agree on, however, what about Amos Alonzo Stagg or Charlie Weis? Did they perform poorly or just not meets the standards of whomever makes the decision of their employment? I'm wondering if it would be more appropriate to name the article List of college football coaches fired for poor performance because it is a bit more objective with the ability of references to be found. Location (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Resonpse/Stagg - Amos Alonzo Stagg had more losses than any other coach, and more ties than any other coach. But here's my question: Can the list be salvaged, re-arranged, or improved to be kept?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response/Fired coaches - I think that a list of coaches "fired" for poor performance would be vastly different because 1) such a list would be huge and 2) such a list would not cover coaches who resigned, retired, died, or whatever.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this list is based on Wikipedia editors' subjective opinion, making it synthesis instead of an encyclopedia article. JIP | Talk 04:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. Records can be put in a list of college football coaches article. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the records can and are placed in the coach articles, but comparison to other coaches on a nationwide historical basis are not. Wikipedia does not have "drill-down" capabilities for data mining--we rely on lists.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Unless there was a significant rivalry or other notable comparison between specific coaches (say, SEC coaches), there's no reason for "drilling down" subgroups. I believe WP:NOT makes it clear that Wikipedia is not a source of indiscriminate information. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure original research, candidate for WP:FREAKY. LibStar (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response that's offensive. WP:FREAKY is a "joke page" and not a real argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'd concur with that assessment regarding WP:FREAKY. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it fits the definition of synthesis at all. Saying that losses equate to poor performance for a coach is not original research, it is a self-evident fact. However, the criteria for the list seems too open-ended and arbitrary. It could have a place perhaps if it were formatted differently, such as with sections for different criteria (longest losing streaks, longest scoring droughts, most career losses, etc.). Strikehold (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree.~~ Though I was the one to call attention to the synthesis issue with this article, I too feel that with less open-ended and arbitrary criteria, this could be salvaged. I've made separate sections as you suggested; how does it look now? Shreevatsa (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks a lot better already!--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a poorly-synthesized, indiscriminate trivia list. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response "poorly-synthesized" is another way of simply saying "incomplete" which the list is. "Indiscriminate" is inaccurate because the information is not random but actually selected (see WP:DISCRIMINATE). "Trivia" does not qualify, because there are reliable sources to support the links to articles already widely considered notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blaming it all on the head coach is WP:POV (even if it might be accurate). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response if the editors "blame it on the head coach" then yes. But the editors of the list are not "blaming" the head coach, the list merely reports on the results of the coach--and many a sportswriter will be happy to assign the blame. So the "point of view" is of the sportswriters and sources cited, WP:POV applies to any editor or the article itself creating the point of view... the POV has already been created by the outside third party.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But then it's a list of "Head coaches who have been blamed for their teams' poor performances". Making it a list with the current factual title endorses the POV of the individual writers and editors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response Like I said before, I got no problem with coming up with a better title for the page. Suggestions?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If we accept that it's really a list of "Head coaches who have been blamed for their teams' poor performances", then I think that makes it an unencyclopedic list, however it's actually worded. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research (Synthesis) & POV . Tzu Zha Men (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely original research. "Poorly performing" is just a matter of who is talking. Really bad POV issue here... Undead Warrior (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as misguided and biased original research. When Amos Alonzo Stagg shows up as one of only seven coaches on a list of "poorly performing college football coaches", that seems like a signal that the criteria for inclusion are misguided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He was head coach of more losing games than anyone else, and by a long shot. Also more tie games. Babe Ruth was a legendary home run hitter but also was a strikeout king.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cy Young also holds the record for career losses, but I'd seriously Facepalm any attempt to add him to a List of poorly performing baseball pitchers article. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would also note that the American Football Coaches Association gives an Amos Alonzo Stagg Award, and they don't mean it as an insult. And that Stagg was one of the initial inductees of the College Football Hall of Fame. And that the NCAA Division III National Football Championship is named in Stagg's honor. And that Stagg won two national championships. And that at the time of his retirement, Stagg was college football's second-winningest coach ever (several other coaches have since surpassed him). <sarcasm>What a poorly performing coach!</sarcasm> --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Step one: Tarc, I quote from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts: "Ensure that you have followed the directions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Avoiding disputes. Politely, in a non-judgemental way, raise the issue with the other editor; emphasise the desire to move forward constructively; and address how to move forward on the outstanding content issues whilst assuming good faith." I personally found your "facepalm" comment to be a threat and made me very uncomfortable. And followed up by Metropolitan90's sarcasm, I became even more uncomfortable. I would like to move forward on this discussion in good faith. without further threats or any comment that could be perceived as a threat. Is that all right with you and everyone else here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, actually, it isn't ok; thicken up your skin a bit, please. There is nothing threatening or even remotely uncivil about a "facepalm", which exists here as an actual template, i.e. pretty much implies that its usage is OK. I find your frequent comments here to be bordering on the silly, and I responded as I saw fit, noting a baseball analogy to show that the premise of this likely-soon-to-be-deleted article is a bit absurd. I would also note that the manner in which you have conducted your own commentary here...frequent, rapid-fire responses to just about everyone's post...is getting to be a bit off-putting. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Discussion this is an "Articles for Deletion Discussion" which means that we... well.. "discuss" the issue. That means that one person states something, another responds, and so forth.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I can assure you that nothing in my comments is meant as a threat to anybody. However, I would like to say that, in sports, one can often put together a list of great players or coaches by ranking those who have done the most of "good" things in the sport -- for example, the coaches with the most wins, or the baseball players with the most home runs. But it doesn't follow that one can put together a list of poor players or coaches by ranking those who have done the most of "bad" things in the sport -- for example, the coaches with the most losses, or the batters with the most strikeouts. The reason is that a person generally has to have a long career to set the record for those "bad" things, and if they have a long career, they were probably doing some other things well for much of that career. Most of the people who are utterly dire at playing or coaching a sport never even make it into the top rank of the sport to have their statistics compiled, or if they do, they don't stay very long and thus don't have the opportunity to rack up a lot of losses or strikeouts or other "bad" statistics. To put it another way, Kobe Bryant has missed over 10,000 field goal attempts in his NBA career. I've never missed a single field goal attempt in the NBA. But, nevertheless, Bryant is going to start for the Los Angeles Lakers in the NBA final tonight, and I'm not, and there are many very good reasons for that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SYN. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PROPOSAL would you be interested in a comprehensive List of College Football Head Coaches which includes win-loss-tie records, schools, teams, and notable events? That would be a huge page (at last count, College Football Data Warehouse lists over 6,200 head coaches by name), but it could be made sortable by wins, losses, etc. Or, would anyone have an issue with List of College Football Coaches by Career Wins? What about List of Winless College Football Head Coaches? My point is that there is a lot of rich data here that we can include and if people can just see past my personal inability to come up with a title, we can have several great list pages come from this.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm actually kind of surprised that I couldn't find an existing Wikipedia article for the List of college football coaches by career wins, which I think would be desirable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, however, it could be a difficult list to maintain for active coaches. Location (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SYN applies here, and it's point of view what "poorly performing" means - no real inclusion criteria. Claritas § 19:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a blatant violation of WP:BLP. Besides the original research issues, there are no reliable sources describing these coaches as 'poorly performing'; an admin who speedy-deleted this as an attack page (CSD criterion G10) would be wholly justified in doing so. Robofish (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - this is clearly an attack on the people mentioned, since it disparages them. It is also subjective, in that the term "poorly performing" could depend on how you view the subject, thus making it and its contents an NPOV risk. Quite clearly a nasty piece of work and needs to be removed with the utmost haste. --BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 02:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I'm pretty sure that Biographies of living persons does not apply to dead people. Maybe the two guys from Prairie view are still alive...? I don't think it's "nasty" at all, and certainly not an "attack" -- it's merely a reporting of which coaches had the poorest records.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response to your response :) - At the moment, 3 of the people in that article are not listed (at least here) as being dead - Ronald Beard, Hensley Saepenter and George Williams, so their inclusion in this list does violate the concept of negative BLP, since it is disparaging for them to be listed in a negative light with no positive information. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 03:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting dizzy Okay, I'm ready to userfy this one and work on the title. Maybe somebody can swing by my userpage and tell me how referencing Sports Illustrated is "synthesis" - but everyone seems to be convinced that it is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's synthesis because the Sports Illustrated reference simply points out that Prairie View University lost 80 consecutive games. It doesn't say anything about the coaches and whether they performed poorly or not. The rest of the references appear to simply be primary sources/stat pages used to back up an argument not made by any secondary source presented. --Onorem ♠Dil 21:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Userfication#What_cannot_be_userfied. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ooops copied back.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After some thought, I've realised my first impression was right, and this should be deleted as unsalvageable. This is a synthesis (and a terrible title) in several ways: (i) it is the teams that performed poorly, not the coaches. I don't know about American "college football", but blaming it on the coaches is not our call. The references only show that such-and-such a team had such-and-such results (not even "performed poorly"), they don't directly support blaming the coach (ii) The criteria for inclusion are entirely made up. This is awful. (iii) "Poorly performing" sounds too much like the present tense. [As an analogy for what's wrong here, this article is like combining this list, some box-office records, some commentary in books, and creating List of bad directors.] Shreevatsa (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS Perhaps this has a place on Wikinews if it was lifted from Sports Illustrated. Group29 (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. treating as prod Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide's cape

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

Notability. Already deleted once, a while back, so things might have changed. Chris (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following was posted on my talk page, and I moved it here:

Hello there...
I think that Adelaide's Cape has enough notable sources/achievements to be included on Wikipedia now (BBC, The Independent, mainstream festival appearances confirmed etc). He has surely achieved as much as The Kabeedies, who have a page here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kabeedies Would be interested to hear your thoughts. Hope I'm discussing this in the right place?
Lauren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigsawlauren (talk • contribs) 19:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that none of the independent references or sources you have given are actually about the band; they're all about the event. Let's see what other people think... Chris (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article is exclusively about Adelaide's Cape, and links to statements about the festivals he's playing surely provide relevant references? I've added in a link to the Wychwood website where Adelaide's Cape is listed now too http://www.wychwoodfestival.com/line-up/bbc-introducing/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigsawlauren (talk • contribs) 08:55, 17 June 2010 (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, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shyann McClure

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

fails WP:ENT. 2 known appearances does not cut it. LibStar (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation if or when this child's career grows. Currently it is simply TOOSOON for her article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blueline Medic

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

fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. no significant indepth coverage. a few gnews hits but not enough for significant coverage. [50]. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 03:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to two Fueled by Ramen albums I've now updated the article with coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2010 (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, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sarah 15:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peachfuzz

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

fails WP:MUSIC. could not find specific coverage for this Australian band. there's organisations and sporting teams called peachfuzz in chicago and UK but not the same as this one. [51] LibStar (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 03:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not a notable band. Fails all guidelines and even has a HUGE COI issue appearing on this one. (Schmozzle is used as the website, and as the user who made the article...) Undead Warrior (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is the user Schmozzle, who created the Peachfuzz entry. The reason you can't find anything on the web for the band is that it basically predates the era when the web came into popular use for musicians. I (Stefan Schutt) was in the band Peachfuzz, which was popular in Melbourne and nationally between 1992 and 1995, as the article states. I have dozens of reviews, articles and the like about the band, but these have not been translated onto the web. It is listed in the Australia Who's Who of Music (only available in hard copy) and since then other bands have taken on the name. The problem with using Internet references as the logic for removing the page is that this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy: the reason I created the entry was that the band's career, which was important to the local music scene, had not been documented sufficiently. There is a real danger of Wikipedia adopting a circular logic that will mean that anything created prior to the internet era that is still not in online circulation will be deleted from our collective history. This is especially the case for localised but significant cultural activities and organisations like our band. I am happy to scan and send any evidence of the band's career - but please don't assume that just because it's not seen online, it didn't exist or wasn't important. Thanks. Schmozzle (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Schmozzle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmozzle (talk • contribs) 00:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC) — Schmozzle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

non web references are permitted but you must cite them properly. most Australian newspapers are covered in online archives for past 30 years, so it is highly unusual for a notable band not to get significant online coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you call 'notable' and which papers you mean. In Melbourne, the only dedicated music coverage in the two newspapers is the EG in The Age - a foldout section on a Friday that had a particular slant on what it covered. This also ignores the street papers and magazines that no longer exist (eg the Form Guide). The local Fitzroy indie scene of the early 90s, of which we were part, was important in the cultural history of the city and the country's music scene, but was not always covered by the daily papers at the time. Also, online archives are selective and don't always cover specialist areas. In my case, I have hard copies of the articles and cite them.

Another point on the perceived conflict of interest: usually with smaller bands (as well as other cultural activities) that were around some time ago, the 'keepers' of the info on them is with the people who were involved with them. I don't think that's a COI unless it affects the tone or objectivity of the article written. Schmozzle (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Schmozzle[reply]

Further to the above comments: as well as the posting of references and other details on the Peachfuzz page, I have been looking at Wikipedia's notability criteria for musicians and ensembles.

It says that a musician or ensemble may be notable if it meets at least one of a group of criteria. I believe that Peachfuzz meets the following criteria:

  1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.[note 1]
         * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:
               o Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]
               o Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
               o Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Note: of the references I have added to the article, one is from a university paper (Lot's Wife) but the others are from the street press, one from a regional paper (Forte), one from a national music magazine (the now-defunct Juice), and the listing in the Who's Who of Australian Rock.

  5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

We had one LP released by Mushroom Record on their Temptation development label, plus two others with national pressing and distribution deals: MDS (also a Mushroom company) and Shock.

  6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

Peachfuzz drummer Cameron Potts is a notable Melbourne musician, who plays or played in well-known local bands NinetyNine, Baseball, Sandro and Cuba is Japan. He has his own dedicated Wikipedia page.

  7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Peachfuzz was recognised as a leading exponent of the Fitzroy Scene of the early to mid 1990s, which also spawned recognised bands such as the Mavis's and the Lucksmiths

 10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.

Peachfuzz had songs included in two national TV shows: Police Rescue and Simon Townsend's Wonder World

 11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

A number of Peachfuzz's songs (Hurt You, Beautiful Fire and Who Loves You) were on high rotation on national youth radio station JJJ.

 12. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

Peachfuzz undertook an extended live to air on national radio station JJJ in 1994

121.219.254.65 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Schmozzle (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Schmozzle (sorry, forgot to log in before editing)[reply]

Comment Regardless, you need to provide sources about the JJJ thing. Actually, you need to provide sources over all of those claims. Also, it seems to me that Schmozzle may have a COI thing going on with this band. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Undead Warrior: - could you please state the basis in the Wikipedia guidelines for your claim of a COI

- I have tried to find the references for the JJJ playlist but have not been able to find records. Again, the issue is whether or not records were kept and if they're available. I understand the onus is on proof but what if it does not exist in electronic form, except in the experiences of those who took part? In some cases, perhaps the fact that the claim is on Wikipedia means that, like in scientific papers when claims are made, it is in the public domain and open to challenge by anybody. I have tapes of the live to airs, the interviews, the APRA royalty statements for airplay etc, but how to turn that into sources in an online article?

What follows is a more detailed examination of this discussion to date, in the interests of furthering Wikipedia and how it works.

- further to my initial point about history in the age of the Internet: there's an arbitrary aspect to whether or not certain content appears on the internet, particularly when that content predates the internet. This is only partly related to the validity of the content. The web is a self-archiving system, and if our band had been around now, a lot of the discussion on it that appeared in fanzines and other offline forums would now be on the web. And even then there is variation. For instance, my partner played in a band called Snog in the 1990s. There is a lot more information on the web about Snog, partly because a) they lasted longer into the web age, whereas our band broke up when the web really got going, and b) Snog were an electronic industrial band, and the kinds of people who followed them were by default more into using technology than the people who were into indie rock.

- further to the last point: I wonder whether the kinds of people who have the time and energy to become Wikipedia volunteers are generally 'internet era' people, ie younger than people like me who weren't brought up with the internet. For those people, the internet has always been there, and so for them the default check as to whether something exists or is 'notable' is Google (or similar). There is a real danger here of missing a lot of localised pre-internet things that happened, that matter, but that have not left much of a trace on the web.

- Wikipedia is a reference resource - in that context, the online popularity of particular content is a flawed measure of its worth. You don't include or exclude content from an encyclopedia or dictionary based on how many people talk about it. Rather it's whether the content adds to the comprehensive coverage of a particular knowledge area.

- on the topic of Conflicts of Interest: the case for a COI is harder to make when the band has broken up, because there's no self-interest in promoting it beyond a certain desire to maintain legacy (as in my case). And as stated previously, those interested in maintaining legacy are usually those who have been involved in the activity - here I think of my local historical society, based on the site of an old prison, whose members are mainly warders etc of the prison

- Remember that Wikipedia article creators are learning as they go, and sometimes they don't know that they're doing something wrong. I keep learning constantly on things like the attribution of license to images, layout of articles etc. Wikipedia rules are complex and are sometimes discovered through trial and error. Finding the right way to do things on Wikipedia is sometimes not easy. Be patient with us if we are contributors with goodwill. For instance, I have only just discovered that there's a talk area for users, and so have only just seen a very useful discussion on an article for a current band of mine that I created and that was deleted in January.

- I have to say that I am disturbed about Undead Warrior's call for speedy deletion of the Peachfuzz article, but heartened by the fact that Wikipedia's internal checks resulted in the CSD being overruled. My understanding is that CSDs were designed to be used for content that is gratuitous, offensive, pointless or misleading. The Peachfuzz article was none of the above, and the CSD was based only on a questioning of the band's notability and the fact that more references were needed. A CSD could be used to shut down the kind of debate and discussion that is now taking place here, and that helps to inform the development of Wikipedia.

Thank you for reading.

Schmozzle (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Schmozzle[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The overly detailed defence is unnecessary, and unlikely to convince any editors, especially coming from a former member of the band in question. In fact, it screams non-notable. But for what it's worth, the Who's Who source and a few of the magazine citations seem like they might be valid demonstrations of notability (although maybe not - the book explicitly states that it covers even "obscure" bands). Could you provide some context, perhaps a quote from Who's Who? And for the magazines, we need a bit more information than just name and year - please add issue numbers (unless of course it's an annual).--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that feedback.

Sorry my reply was lengthy - but it was only partly about defending the article. In the end you guys will decide what is considered appropriate for Wikipedia, regardless of what I say. The other stuff I raised is more about the larger issues this example raises about what you see as valid as history or evidence: ie is it only considered to have existed if it's on the web? Wikipedia is now considered an authoritative and valued resource, has a huge reach, and as such I think this issue an important one to raise, because keepers of Wikipedia like yourselves will have a big say in deciding what part of our past is remembered and what is forgotten. (Here I have to out myself as a university researcher in history and the internet).

As regards the article, I will add magazine page and issue numbers (I had not put them in because the Wikipedia referencing guidelines said not to!) and will find the edition and quote from the Who's Who. Should I put the quote in the body of the article or here?

In deciding notability, the guidelines say that a band is considered notable if it meets one of the criteria (commented on above). So if it is deleted, will it be on the basis that it doesn't meet all of these? Or is it a more subjective decision? Similarly, is there a guideline that says that being a member of a band, then creating an article about it, constitutes a COI? I haven't seen it. I'm not trying to be difficult here, just to get some clarity about your terms of reference.Schmozzle (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Schmozzle[reply]

No, as mentioned above, offline references are fine, but they must be specifically identified, and much more importantly, reliable. The vast majority of deletions occur because the article could not be verified by multiple, reliable secondary sources. This page does cite sources, but are they reliable, and if they are do they demonstrate the notability of the band? That is, is their coverage by that source non-trivial? The magazine Beat, for example, seems to be a local Melbourne gig guide. This doesn't really count as a reliable source - it's basically promotional material. If their performances were covered by a newspaper that might give you a better argument.

If you want to give a quote from the source to help decide if it establishes notability, post it here or at the article discussion page, not the article mainspace.

Yes, writing about a band you were a member of constitutes COI, but it is not necessarily an issue as long as the article is written neutrally and in an encyclopaedic style.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Dickson

AfDs for this article:

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

Keith Dickson appears to be your basic moderately-successful member of the community: lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, elected to various minor local positions, failed candidate for the California state senate. None of this reaches the level of notability for a Wikipedia article.

In the event that the article is kept, it will need a good deal of pruning: it currently reads like a promotional puff piece. --Carnildo (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE, subject "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". In addition, AFD is not for cleanup. Not sure why the nominator has not at the very least even attempted to discuss concerns on the talk page, where I would have happily done my best to address them. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NOTNEWS. It's all puffery. The guy has some mentions in local coverage relating to purely mundane news about school board management and what not. It is not significant coverage about the person. ETA: Also, why was the actual second nomination and discussion deleted and not mentioned at all in this third one?--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator used the deletion page to attack the BLP in his nom statement. An admin deleted that prior page per Wikipedia:CSD#G10, and warned the nominator for violating WP:BLP, specifically, WP:BLPTALK. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can understand the puffery concerns and while it definitely meets the General Notability Guidelines it is "on the border" where I could understand an argument against it (the GNG gives a presumption of notability not a guarantee). That said it is very well referenced and I'm comfortable with it being on the project. James (T C) 02:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable. The content is very poor, and needs fixing - but that's nothing to do with AfD. Chzz ► 02:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NOTNEWS, and, with all due respect to Cirt, the article is a classic example of WP:MASK. I'm tempted to also cite WP:BLP1E, but the subject is not even notable for one event. The article reports no "claim to fame" or reason for notability, and merely pieces together tidbits of information gathered from a campaign website and three small newspapers (i.e. The Press-Enterprise, The Valley News, and North County Times) who are reporting to voters the subject's views in the context of local election coverage. Addressing the current arguments for "keep", it should be noted that guideline never trumps policy: WP:NOTE/WP:GNG are only relevant when a subject passes WP:WWIN/WP:NOTNEWS. Location (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. This is a very ordinary individual. His career in the USAF is the equivalent of your every day local lawyer that practiced law within a local community. The only difference is Dickson handled contract law which means he probably saw big cases but it wasn't like people flocked to him ala Perry Mason. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Counter to nom , I don't believe it is a WP:MASK ATTE...(damn caps lock)mpt. The sources I saw had him as a primary figure, or at least a main secondary interest in the article, and there were 50 secondary sources. he is not notable for just one event, but secondary sources have been covering him before his attempt to gain the senate seat. WP:BLP1E in the past has always been that a person is cited for one single event across several sources, this is not a case of this the secondary sources are spread out over 13 years, 27 of those 50 sources occurred prior to his senate attempt.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—he doesn't seem to have done anything which qualifies him as notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 07:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Retired soldier who lost a few local elections. WP:GNG does not apply (if it is met, notability is presumed, not established) because none of the claims that are backed by sources lift the subject over the notability threshold. --Pgallert (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And a comment: It would have been nice if the admin who deleted the ongoing AfD copied over all votes that did not violate our attack policies, or at least notified all people to !vote again. I spent 10 minutes wondering where my previous comment went. --Pgallert (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:POLITICIAN by a country mile. Herostratus (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An editor blanked this page, on (I think) the grounds that some of the material was scurrilous. I'm not very happy about this, and I'm not at all clear to me that that is kosher. A number of editors' comments and their research and work was lost, and If I were them I don't think I'd be very happy either. An admin could restore the comments, but this would take some effort perhaps better spent on articles, but at any rate the closing admin should at least view and consider this material. Herostratus (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 50 sources! This article may not be on the most famous politician in the state, but it is well-written and deserves to stay on Wikipedia. Coffepusher brings up some good points above; bottom line is that Cirt's effort here meets all relevant Wikipedia requirements. Jusdafax 14:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable either as a military member or a politician or in general. Failed primary candidate. Sure, there are a ton of references, but most are purely local, namely the Riverside Press-Enterprise and the Valley News. (Jusdafax was impressed that there are 50 sources, but 38 of them are from the Press-Enterprise.) He got a couple of trivial mentions in the North County Times; he had one report in the regional paper-of-record, the San Diego Union-Tribune, when he declared his candidacy; he seems never to have garnered a mention in the super-regional paper, the Los Angeles Times, even though his district is in its coverage area. Also, almost all the press references refer to the election rather than to the person (he declared his intention to run, he made a campaign appearance, etc.); this distinction has been used to delete failed candidates in the past as showing that they are not notable aside from the election. As noted above, the article is highly promotional. Example: the twice-repeated assertion that "Dickson beat Joel Anderson in votes cast in the Republican primary in Riverside County, California, but Anderson won the election itself; with Dickson receiving 20 percent of total votes." Sorry, he didn't "beat" the other candidate by doing better in one area of the district; he LOST the primary election, rather badly. Like others here, I am annoyed that my previous comments disappeared into the void when the page was blanked. I am curious whether Cirt was the administrator who did that; if so I feel it was inappropriate, since Cirt is the author and primary editor of this article and thus is not neutral. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See [52]. -- Cirt (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that. I also see that you were the one who brought that situation to the BLP noticeboard, and you also solicited for someone to close the debate here. I do feel that your heavy involvement in the closure process was inappropriate, seeing that you are the author and prime defender of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you fail to also see that it was an issue involving wanton violation of WP:BLP. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that was your argument. As I recall the previous deletion discussion, it took you four or five days before you noticed the "wanton violation of BLP" and started using that as an argument for blanking the discussion. My opinion stands. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect assumption. I had wanted to avoid that discussion, but after consultation with admins realized it needed to be addressed due to the BLP issue. The ruling that it was wanton violation of BLP was not my wording, though I do support it. -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly satisfies the general notability criterion in a rather overwhelming fashion. Content-specific guidelines don't supersede the general notability criterion. If there is substantive non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, then a topic is notable - he doesn't lose his notability because he was on the school board or in the military. --B (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if his "notability" is limited to his own community? Doesn't there have to be some wider notability than just coverage in your local paper? --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:B is absolutely correct, notability does not decrease due to an individual's positions from some sub-guideline, especially if the general notability criteria is eminently satisfied. -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to DeleteKeep Yes he fails Politician/Milperson or whatever that subcriterion is, but he does fulfill the primary requirements of Notability which means keep. A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed on the right. There are articles explicitly about him in reliable notable sources, so while our secondary criterias may not recognize him, we have to pay attention to the coverage he gets elsewhere..---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither you nor B have addressed the question of notability of a purely local nature. If a person is known only in his/her own community and receives no significant coverage outside of that community, does that really qualify them as notable? --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in WP:N or WP:BIO that would lead me to believe otherwise. Nothing in WP:RS says it doesn't count if it isn't the Washington Post or New York Times. As long as it's a legitimate paper covering him and not a school newspaper or some guy's blog or some such thing, he looks notable to me. --B (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think carefully about this. If you accept purely local notability - just within the local community, doesn't even have to be regional - you are opening the door for wikipedia articles about every minor local official in every small town in the country. Not to mention every failed political candidate, every local high school principal, every executive of a local company. I have been mentioned several times in my neighborhood paper for my volunteer efforts; I'd better get busy writing an article about myself. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the paper has substantial coverage of the high school principal or failed political candidate (beyond simply reporting their existence or their one-off comment about some situation) then maybe they should be considered notable. --B (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about the quarterback of the high school football team? My local paper gives the team at least two articles every week during football season; generally the quarterback (as the most important player on the team) gets a half-dozen paragraphs or more. Does the resulting 25+ articles covering him mean he satisfies the notability guidelines? --Carnildo (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the requirements for GNG again. They are:

significant coverage --- Yes this criteria is met, multiple articles that appear to be more than trivial in nature.
reliable--- Yes, this criteria is met. A respected regional newspaper.
sources ---At first glance ok.
that are independent of the subject--ostensibly this one is met as well, although one can raise the question that a regional/city newspaper might over hype local personalities and thus might not be fully independent.
presumed---well it is presumed, so I guess it is met.

When you look at the criteria for sources, it reads (in part), The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Multiple sources from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. In other words, all of those articles from the The Press-Enterprise have to count as a single source---not 38 independent sources. Get rid of them, then you do not have much left over, in fact if you count them as a single source, then you really are forced to fall back on WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:POLITICIAN where he fails.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my !vote was removed when the first version of this nom was deleted, so I'll re-register it. For those claiming that the number of sources verify the notability of the subject, let me remind you that the sources used to justify his notability need to be about the subject himself, not the school board/election/whatever else he's been a part of. I don't want to minimize Cirt's work, but I just don't think Kenneth Dickson's accomplishments warrant an article. If he wins a major election at some point, all well and good, the article can be recreated. But he hasn't yet. Parsecboy (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Parsecboy above, especially considering my vote was deleted and not re-added. Skinny87 (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa, because I think I was wrong. In the debate Gwen Gale deleted, I began by !voting "delete" on the grounds that notability isn't inherited from the election to the failed candidate, and then I retracted that, saying something to the effect that I wasn't sure the nomination was in good faith because certain comments on the Wikipedia Review led me to believe that there was an anti-Cirt campaign in progress. I still think there's an anti-Cirt movement, but I now think that Herostratus is uninvolved in that and the last debate was meant in good faith, though the wording was unfortunate.
And that's all from me at the moment—this isn't in any sense a !vote. For now, I'll simply note that there seems to have been a commendable amount of energy gone into adding references since the last AfD. The rest of what I have to say belongs at the inevitable DRV rather than here.—S Marshall T/C 18:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has some notability, and I admit there is some coverage around, but basically, he doesn't quite meet WP:GNG, and definitely fails WP:POLITICIAN. Claritas § 18:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? Surely the GNG is about significant coverage in reliable sources. Which of the many sources are unreliable? Or are you saying that the coverage in them isn't significant?—S Marshall T/C 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability presumed ≠ notability met. And there's still WP:ROTM, although only an essay. The Weather in London has far more sources and an incredible influence but still no article on its own. --Pgallert (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The person fails the WP:GNG notable criteria for significant coverage in multiple sources. There is no apparent coverage outside of the single source -- a local community newspaper. The majority of the article attempts to establish WP:POLITICIAN, but a careful reading shows it is a WP:MASK for non-notable community service.— Cactus Writer ^(talk) 05:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not think that coverage only in a couple of local newspapers counts as significant. To the extent that 'wikipedia notability' is meant to reflect 'real world notability', there needs to be some sort of coverage outside of the local area. As MelanieN mentioned above, you would expect him to have received some sort of coverage in the LA Times, if he were notable. Quantpole (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, he has coverage in some local newspapers, but he also has print coverage from the The San Diego Union-Tribune. When you're talking Riverside County, California, it seems that the San Diego paper will be less of a local paper than the Los Angeles Times would be. Nyttend (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment San Diego is less than 88 miles from March Joint Air Reserve Base and within the Tribune's media footprint. When I was at the base when it was active duty, we used to laugh that the Press-Enterprise was the un-official "official" extension of the base newspaper because we constantly saw their reporters with our Public Affairs Officer. As a WikiProject California member, I am familiar with the JRB, its local media and even this individual. As per Balloonman's observation, this AfD candidate does not get significant press coverage. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify the article about Dickson in the The San Diego Union-Tribune - I cannot find it in this article. There is only a reference to Joel Anderson titled "Anderson announces state Senate run". — Cactus Writer ^(talk) 21:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are looking at the large number of sources and not realizing that if you ignore the local paper, that his coverage is trivial at best. The one's from the San Diego Union Tribune appear to be one's about the person who won the election...and at best mention that he defeated Dickson.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that it doesn't give Dickson significant coverage as well? That's the only San Diego reference that I see as well. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I read the article and it doesn't cover Dickson. — Cactus Writer ^(talk) 06:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking on the San Diego Union Tribune website and searching for Kenneth Dickson gives only 2 articles, both only mention Kenneth Dickson's election result. Thus, again, it fails WP:POLITICIAN. The often cited local source is mundane coverage of local schoolboard politics. Simply not notable acccording to WP:N.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for his two passing mentions by the San Diego Union-Tribune is that the seat he was running for - the 36th state senatorial district - includes portions of both Riverside County and San Diego County, and thus falls within the U-T's coverage area.[53] [54] --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite the initially impressive look of this article, on closer inspection it appears to fail our notability guidelines. He's only locally 'notable', and there's nothing in the sources provided which indicates he's received the level of significant long-term coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. Robofish (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seeing how the individual's WP:GNG standing has been debunked, as previouisly mentioned, individual presently fails WP:POLITICIAN & WP:MILPEOPLE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overwhelmingly trivial mentions in exclusively local media. If this person meets notability guidelines, we'd need a page for virtually every small-town alderman, every high school quarterback or point guard, every owner of a local business, every Rotary Club president, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnowtaur (talk • contribs) 05:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominating this article for deletion the first time around was one of the first times I got involved in an XfD, because the article is so outrageously overblown and pufftastic that it's almost a self-parody. His kids' high school grades? His former boss said that he "did a 'great job'"? "He was very much a team player, always asking, 'What else can I do to help?'"? The guy is a local school board member, fairly average attorney, and political primary also-ran. Like anyone who is on a school board and runs for a local political job, his local papers have occasionally mentioned him. I give Cirt credit for writing the best-formatted, most thorough, best-MASKed article imaginable on this generally unknown local personage. Still, just as we do our best not to let a crappily-formatted article from a poor English speaker sway us toward deletion, the underlying (non-)notability of Kenneth Dickson cannot be affected by purple prose or by fifty footnotes to minor local press clippings marshaled in two columns. Minnowtaur is right: he is no more notable than "virtually every small-town alderman, every high school quarterback or point guard, every owner of a local business, every Rotary Club president." I.e., not particularly notable within the context of an encyclopedia of global scope. I'm sorry so much work went into the article, but that's just the cost of doing business. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Glenfarclas - despite the article's size and number of references Mr Dickson doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. I note in particular that the references are to local newspapers and generally aren't about Mr Dickson in particular. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads like an advertisement for someone with an eye on political office. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close This was literally closed 4 days ago. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Martin (public affairs) If you think it was closed incorrectly, then you can discuss it with the closing admin or take it to DRV, but you don't restart an AFD 3 days after an AFD closes simply because you do not like the decision. Especially as the final verdict was a landslide in favor of keeping.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donald G. Martin

This article is about a regionally known real estate developer and public relations consultant. This is the second AfD nom for this article and several editors have worked tirelessly to clean it up to Wikipedia standards, but language that is designed to neutralize the article is consistently reverted by new unknown editor after editor. Several people involved in the creation of the article are known to be close in some way to the subjuct and the subject of the article himself has been very vocal about what language is kept or discarded. The biography of the individual nonetheless lists his various development projects, who funded them, available square footage, builder and occupiers of office space and finally websites designed to advertise the properties. Sources are sketchy in some cases and references have not been easy to verify. The section on the subject's business, Don Martin Public Affairs includes an exhaustive list of corporate clients, though the article is not about the business, but the man. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Delete Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of gangs in The Warriors

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

No third party sources could be found to describe the cultural impact of these gangs. Precedent for deleting this type of article found at these two fictional gang lists. (Although those were confined to video games, the original film version never attracted much attention to the numerous minor gangs in the fictional universe.) There are some articles about "the warriors" but they only cover reception of the film or recap plot details about the protagonists. Fails WP:V and WP:N, and would otherwise be a WP:CONTENTFORK about the plot. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability for the majority of these gangs. Article has no sources and appears to have a large amount of original research. (I've both seen the film and played the game and the majority of this information does not appear to be obvious on the face of those two pieces of media.) Would in any case be an excessively detailed amount of in-universe detail that makes no attempt to establish its real-world significance or cultural impact. (This last point makes it an unsuitable candidate for a merge.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is well written and the external links at the bottom of the page reference the material written.-- WölffReik (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this fancruft has no secondary sources and appears to be mostly original research. As DustFromWords says, most of what's in the article is not obvious at all from the game or the film and takes considerable effort and interpretation to extract. Reyk _YO! 06:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a list of characters already. Need a list of gangs as well. There is a book, a film, and two video games in this series. Listing all the gangs allows a greater understanding of them all. Most encyclopedic. Dream Focus 03:41, 13 June 2010 (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) 00:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very useful article. Artw (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The essay WP:USEFUL suggests that that is not considered an especially strong argument. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable due to no secondary sources. No idea why anyone flagged it for rescue. Can't be improved because no significant sources exist. Seems people came here to vote and not to actually improve the article. AFD is not a vote. 74.198.28.196 (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondary sources to establish notability. In fact, this article is completely unreferenced. The definition of WP:FANCRUFT. SnottyWong talk 22:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does appear to be pure cruft. The !votes for keep do not provide valid reasons to keep it. ("Very useful article" and suggesting another list due to a previous list just don't cut it.) Undead Warrior (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Laserna

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

I can't find significant coverage for this person. Fails both WP:CREATIVE and WP:PROFESSOR. Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this non notable biography. --Stormbay (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject seems to be an expert and respected authority in the field of sociological and economic research in the South America. I found only brief biographical mentions about him [55], [56], [57], but a large number of publications and citations at Google Books, Google Scholar, WorldCat indicate the importance of this scientist. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely quoted in major media as an expert, not just in his own language but in the Christian Science Monitor [58], Boston Globe [59] [60], New York Times [61], Newsweek [62], and BBC News [63]. These aren't nontrivial sources about him but I think they indicate a pass of WP:PROF #7. The article we have is short and factual and although it is currently unsourced the sorts of things it says look like they should be easily sourceable. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2010 (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, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets notablilty by all the sources given above; WP:N: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Dewritech (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per the references provided above.--Technopat (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to close this "keep" as that is the consensus but seeing that the article is currently unsourced (but sourcable), I recommend that it be userfied or incubated and then moved back into mainspace when sourced. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) (non-admin closure) — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdallah Al Rowaished

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

Unable to locate any reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or pass WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 11:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you search Google News under his name written in Arabic [64], you get quite a lot of hits, most of which are to this singer, and in reliable sources. Below are just 3 a few (with dreadful machine tanslations):

BBC (Arabic service) [65]
Asharq Al-Awsat [66]
Al Arabiya [67]
Panorama [68]
Al Rai [69]

Might be worth contacting a WikiProject that covers Arabic subjects. Voceditenore (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Arab world. – Voceditenore (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Google News archive search for the spelling "Abdullah Al Ruwaished" finds a few sources in English.[70] I'm sure that there are many other possible spelling combinations, as there is no generally accepted standard for transcribing Arabic names into the Roman alphabet. Note that there is another article about the subject at Abdallah Abdalrahman Alruwaished, which is also being discussed for deletion. Is there any way we can combine these discussions? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2010 (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, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Numerous mentions in the Arabic press, along with many in English in a variety of spellings. Subject is reasonably well known throughout the Arabic world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnowtaur (talk • contribs) 05:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient references exist to demonstrate notability. (References don't have to be in English.) I'm going to suggest a merge with the content of the other article, though. Robofish (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2010 (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) 00:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP and can use some more sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - users claim notability but the article has no independent citations and as it is needs deleting. Off2riorob (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it took me ten minutes to find two non-trivial sources even in English and add them to the article. More are clearly available in Arabic as mentioned above. Obvious evidence of meeting WP:BIO. cab (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of coverage in the Arab-speaking press, as seen above. Two non-trivial sources have been added in English and I'm going to put some of the Arabic ones in the external links. The sources do not have to be in English. Voceditenore (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Boone

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

~~Individual who fails WP:GNG - I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested without comment.~~ Claritas § 19:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Take another look. The article was bare-bones, but a little research reveals that his book was reviewed in the Chicago Tribune, and he personally recieved a White House award presented by the First Lady. I have added the info to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Coverage is just about enough for WP:GNG, although I don't blame the nominator for not finding it. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2010 (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, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article needs further information (e.g. bio), but author meets WP:N according to sources. Dewritech (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I just added a little biographical information; more would help. --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough here to give information on a published, reviewed author. Let's keep it in. Jusdafax 15:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From the other side of the Atlantic, I must admit to being pretty impressed by the Chicagoan of the Year. Surely that adds to his notability? --Technopat (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looking at the source material now found, I can't claim to support deleting this any more. Claritas § 07:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. He played at the highest level of the sport. (curling) therefore passing WP:ATHLETE NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Carroll

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

Subject does not meet WP:BIO. Provided references are not establishing notability and are profiles of the person on not reliable sources. Former Speedy A7 was declined by the author. — Zhernovoi (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What is considered the highest level of competition in hurling? I have no knowledge of hurling at all, and to me this question is very important for determining the notability of this person. If one or both of the leagues he played in were top-level and fully professional, the page would likely meet athlete notability standards. If not, I don't think sufficient notability is established by the sources, though I do note that the first is apparently to an official organization, which may not establish notability but is not necessarily unreliable. Again, my lack of knowledge of the sport precludes me from being sure in that regard. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject has played at inter-county level of hurling in Ireland. Inter-county level is the highest level of competition in hurling, which is an amateur sport with no professional competitions. Thus, subject meets WP:Athlete Criterion 2: People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships. - Teester (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2010 (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, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's nationally notable by our modest provincial standards, but could we have the actual years instead of "1970s and 1980s".Red Hurley (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think every player to ever compete in inter-county hurling is inherently notable. It's paradoxical that the bar for notability should be placed so low simply because hurling is such an obscure sport and no higher levels of play exist. If this individual is or was particularly well known within the hurling community, there should be sources attesting to that fact.Minnowtaur (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. The situation (and see my comments on the AFD below) is that just about everything is notable in Wikipedia:WikiProject Gaelic games that would not be notable otherwise on mainstream wikipedia. If someone were to set up a "WikiProject Irish tiddleywinks", it seems that they can then describe all the players of that amateur sport as notable. I don't know where wikipedia draws the line - does anyone?Red Hurley (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Teester. Strikehold (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davon Washington

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Notable individual that has been written in several publications in his field including Billboard Magazine as listed in article references WP:RFD#KEEP. (Coogi15 (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)) — Coogi15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Unfortunately, there is no evidence the individual is notable using Wikipedia guidelines as a criteria. The references either do not mention the individual or they do not meet the criteria in reliable sources. I can't tell about the Billboard article because I cannot get a copy of it; regardless, a single article is not "non-trivial" coverage. ttonyb (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like a resumé. Basically he was marketing director briefly for Def Jam, and that's it, that's his claim to fame; he's now trolling for business as an independent. No sourcing to indicate notability or verify the claims made. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2010 (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, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find significant indepth coverage of this individual. there are namesakes. [71]. LibStar (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with MelanieN Shadowjams (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UEI College

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

Non-notable trade school; not a degree granting institution; could not find any sources to establish notability. MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google News Archives does turn up several dozen references under the institution's prior name, United Education Institute [72]. Note for example [73][74][75]. For the moment, I'm reserving my opinion on whether these are enough to show notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a start. There's a story at Fox Business news about them changing their name, and a couple of passing mentions in the LA Times. The item in Forbes turns out to be a press release, though. Still, more of this kind of thing might establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2010 (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, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We generally consider high schools to be inherently notable. In my opinion, given this policy, any accredited institution which grants Associates degrees, as this college apparently is and does, should clearly be considered notable as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnowtaur (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10/18

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2010 (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, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While this is obviously a foreign language publisher and foreign language sources may exist, I am unable to find any and the article doesn't provide any. It therefore fails WP:N and should be deleted, without prejudice against recreation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though, the sourcing does need an upgrade. Courcelles (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Heilbrunn

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

BLP that relies entirely on primary sources Stonemason89 (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. Gbooks, Gnews, and Gscholar show plenty of independent sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an editor and writer. Again, most of the Ghits are things he has written, rather than independent sourcing ABOUT him, but there are enough other writers quoting him and talking about his opinions that he qualifies as notable. Some sources need to be added to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2010 (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) 02:18, 9 June 2010 (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, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep serious published writer. TFD (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lade, Trondheim. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Djupvika Beach

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

Not notable beach. Deprodded with the rationale "places are notable", but that is wrong; populated places are notable but not this tiny strip of land. Geschichte (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I deprodded. It got lots of norwegian press coverage over the nude beach battle, see, e.g., [76], [77], [78], [79]. Ladestien reports that is in fact a popular beach. So I didn't think deletion would be uncontroversial. I think it can be improved and is worth keeping. Me deprod comment was "if verifiable, places are notable, at least this one is. deprodding." I didn't say every speck on the earth gets its own article.--Milowent (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lade, Trondheim, giving the major dates and points of the public debate. There is coverage, but it's in the context of Lade. (And that article needs expansion and referencing anyhow).Yngvadottir (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect and merge may make sense, if I am correctly understanding that the beach is located in Lade.--Milowent (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2010 (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, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American King Music

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

Non Notable record company. Codf1977 (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2010 (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, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to have significant coverage in reliable independent sources: [80], [81], [82], [83], [84]. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - Gossip pages, blogs and mentions in articals about other topics does not equate to "significant coverage"- falis WP:CORP and WP:GNG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codf1977 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru 21:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The London Institute Junior & Middle School

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The London Institute Junior & Middle School

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

This school fails to meet the notability criteria for schools. From WP:CLUB: Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or local chapter of a club) may be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead.
The article was already removed in the Spanish Wikipedia as it was considered a clear example of self-promotion (es:The London Institute, Infantil y Primaria). A previous {{prod}} template was removed by the creator of the article without providing any real argument Ecemaml (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not demonstrate notability - and per usual Wikipedia practice, schools below the high school level have to demonstrate notability to have an article of their own. Could be merged to The London Institute, the parent organization, if it has a Wikipedia article. (The London Institute currently redirects to University of the Arts London, which seems to be something different.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the current practice is to merge elementary schools not to delete them - see WP:OUTCOMES#Education. TerriersFan (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to locality, per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Luxic (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Incubate. Would be a delete on the merits, but since it seems likely sufficient information will be available soon, I'm going to incubate it at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Kelly Rowland Shimeru 21:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Kelly Rowland album

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Untitled Kelly Rowland album

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

Album that is going to be released in 3 months, no title and tracks listing confirmed yet×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 17:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Keep. THe Album has been titled, has a set realeased date, and three confirmed singles[reply]

Why delete it?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS: no title and an incomplete track list. This should be covered at the artist's article at least until those two are verified. Cliff smith ^talk 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, *UNTRUE. The album is to be called "Kelly Rowland". It has a release date of September 14th 2010. It has 3 singles confirmed, 2 U.S.A singles "Grown Woman" & "Rose Colored Glasses". It has the Europe, Aisa, Austraila 1st single Guetta produced track "Commander" which has already hit top 10 in the U.K & Ireland. It is doing very well across Europe and she has promoted it everywhere. There are offical covers, Official Dates, Offical tracks confirmed & Official Title.

THE PAGE STAYS IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.8.93 (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk about the single Commander, it doesn't matter if it charted in several places, but the album hasn't a tracks listing yet, so it fails WP:NALBUMS..and it's too early, I think it shouldnt be added before the 1 September. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 14:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete motivations above ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 14:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator comments, there is not enough information to warrant a detailed enough page. There are not enough credible sources etc. It doesn't have a cover, track listing or confirmed release date - just media vaguely reporting September 2010. By the way i striked Merynancy's vote because by nominating the article you automatically vote for its deletion. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too early for this... most of the article is information simply about when the singles were released and not much about the actual album. CloversMallRat (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC

Keep, No it hasn't got an official tracklisting yet, That might not even be posted until a week or 2 before the release but she did just throw a litening party a few nights ago, Which means the album is complete and promo is starting. The source is below about the party where they played 6 songs that is confimred to make the album "Grown Woman", "Rose Colored Glasses", "Shake Them Haters Off", "On & On (The Sound)", "Forever and a Day" & Heaven On Earth". If you check Rap-Up T.V (url below) there is a interview with Kelly herself about the production of the album, Which producers she has worked with, The sound of the album ect.... If you check her official website you will find there is a release date of the album and also the 3 singles. Another link below is of an interview just last week where Kelly talked more album the album including the title, producers, dates ect... What more sources do you need than from KELLY herself. The only thing missing is the tracklisting & the cover. She has been doing promo for the single "Commander" and the album all over the U.K and alot of radio stations in the U.S. She has been interviewd on Perez Hilton about the upcoming album, She is also just been confirmed to perform at this years B.E.T Awards. This era has already began and people are intrested and want information!! Thats what wikipedia is for right, To inform people? If this was Britney, Rihanna, Gaga or Beyonce the page would be up for months. The relase date is less than 12 weeks away.

Note that i have striked the unreliable sources. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[The anonymous users can vote????You should discuss about this, it would be better if only users registred at least one month ago and with at least 50 edits should vote..too easy to hide behind an Ip address..] And answering to 92.4...... in my opinion and in other people's opinions, these informations aren't enough, and for the registred and concrete users who voted this page should be deleted, and 12 weeks are TOO MANY!!!!!×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 19:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment: Look, Wikipedia's guideline about music notability (WP:NALBUMS) says: "Generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." Now, since this deletion discussion began, the title has apparently been confirmed. But the track listing is still incomplete. There is already information about this album at the artist's article, which is where it should remain until the track listing is complete. As far as "Britney, Rihanna, Gaga, or Beyonce" are concerned, WP:NALBUMS also says "an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it," "However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects." There's about two paragraphs at this article presently. It can't really stand on its own just yet. Someone could WP:INCUBATE this, though, if so desired. Cliff smith ^talk 19:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment dont worry the number of votes cast doesn't affect the outcome. its the quality of the opinions give. so far IMO there is no substantial support or suitable argument for keeping the album. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki'd

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

Deprodded by article creator. Essentially, WP:MADEUP.-- Syrthiss (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gsearches return many false positives, but I was unable to find any coverage in reliable sources of the game. WP:MADEUP applies. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 19:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete which is a shame because it seems like a fairly neat idea, but I can find no RSes. Hobit (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This game sounds very similar to 30 other similar games listed on my user page which have been deleted before. Delete per all of the AfDs referenced there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering how this differs from games like Wikipedia:Wiki_Game. How was this verified? Or should they be deleted as well? Corey (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it differ from Wikipedia:Wiki Game? Not much, as far as I can tell. With regard to verification of Wikipedia:Wiki Game, I don't think sources are really needed. People say that this is an activity that can be done while clicking through Wikipedia, and obviously it is possible to do, so a description of the game is basically self-proving. If people were making claims about how many people play it, or who invented it, or who is the most skillful player, those kinds of claims would need verification. But I'm satisfied with Wikipedia:Wiki Game that it's been around long enough that whenever other people write articles in the mainspace about this game, I can say that we already have this subject covered in the projectspace and we don't need an article about the 31st iteration of the game. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is quite similar to Wikipedia Races, which is also under AFD at the moment. Either made up or original research. Claritas § 16:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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