Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 16 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_November_16

< 15 November	17 November >

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dartford Living

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

Seemingly non-notable free magazine with a small local circulation and no references for verifiability. Has interviewed some notable people but so have many other non-notable publications (e.g. student magazines) which we don't have articles on. Previously speedily deleted twice. DanielRigal (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are COI problems too. Please see User talk:DanielRigal#Dartford Living for confirmation that the author is editing on behalf of the publication. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

abdelhk here, author of the Dartford Living page. I must say that it's getting confusing with so many participants and I am unsure how to proceed from here. Sure I would like to dispute the deletion of the Dartford Living entry and I have placed a conversation I've haad with the editor who nominated the page for deletion below...

Also, above it is stated that there are COI interests - is this Conflict of Interest? and then goes on to say [for confirmation that the author is editing on behalf of the publication]....if confirmation is needed from the editor or from an @dartfordliving.com address to verify that I am acting on behalf of Dartford Living then this can be done, the same way that the photos and copyright were secured...

Please advise with what I have to do.... abdelhk

-- We wanted a reference point for people searching for Dartford Living on the web.

I have responded to your comments below. your comments are in brackets []..

[Seemingly non-notable free magazine] - this is offensive. non-notable? Dartford Living has good links with local organisations and residents and has been involved in local politics since inception.

[with a small local circulation] - you call 6,000 printed copies small? have you considered our online presence at our website and on facebook? (700 members within 5 months). We have also set up on twitter and within one month have 50 followers. We also have people downloading each issue form our website from all over the globe, and downloads are in excess of 400 downloads...besides...is there a criteria that asks a minimum number of copies each month before it can be conidered for entry on to wikipedia?

[and no references for verifiability.] - we can provide references if necessary.

[Has interviewed some notable people but so have many other non-notable publications (e.g. student magazines) which we don't have articles on.] - maybe because these publications don;t want to be on wikipedia, or not thought about setting an entry on wikipedia?

[Previously speedily deleted twice.] - true, because the entry sounded like an advert and because we didn't understand the copyright issues with photos (since cleared up). we have revamped it to make it more factual instead. we are new to wiki and are just getting to grips with it

There must be some guidelines we can refer to in this dispute - another view fron another editor as your comments are not just offensive but do not stand up to any scrutiny....I hope that we can resolve this amicably without removal of the page. if it needs changing or editing please advise us and we will do so. u need references? what kind of references? anything else we need to add or omit?

regards

abdelhk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelhk (talk • contribs) 00:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Not notable as in not fulfilling the notability criteria. Its not offensive. Please have your say on the AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please do not paste a comment I put on one page onto another one. It makes it look like I made it here, where it clearly makes no sense. You can quote me if you like but please make it clear that it is a quote. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Notability is not ascertained in the article. There are no third party reliable sources that mention this publication. The author has a very clear conflict of interest, and should not be writing an article about his own publication. The author seems to regard wikipedia as a hosting service, it is not about whether you want to be on wikipedia, but whether you are notable enough to be here, and if you are notable enough, a third party will write an article for you. As for this nomination being offensive, this is a borderline personal attack on the nominator. Martin451 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are deleting this entry. I love Dartford Living magazine. It has a big following in Dartford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.164.210 (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above user has made no contributions to Wikipedia other than the above comment. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any reliable media coverage to prove this then that would be helpful. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources that discuss the magazine other than self-published ones. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Radio 1 mentioned Dartford Living a number of times on air, and once for more than 3 minutes. I can provide audio files for proof if necessary. DJ Dev Griffin to be exact. That counts as media coverage doesn't it? --Abdelhk (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not as notable coverage. See WP:GNG, to whit:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention...

Note also that it says "Multiple sources are generally preferred", not "source", so just mentions on Devin Griffin's show seems un-notable for more than one reason. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Mustafa Sokolov

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

Unsourced biography. Can't find any sources about this person. Probable WP:HOAX. Disputed PROD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Could be WP:CSD#G10, but anyway articles about a subject like this should never be posted without verifiable references. Ivanvector (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reeks of WP:HOAX and a borderline WP:ATTACK. I removed one claim that I could verify was false – that he was awarded the Hero of the Russian Federation. KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Completely unsourced and perhaps made up. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smells like a hoax, completely unsourced, only hits on google are the article and a site that tracks edits on Wikipedia. Maybe could be G3'd, as it appears the attacking parts of the article were removed already and it appears to be a blatant hoax. AcroX 00:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The original author added a bunch of improper external links since removed per WP:EL, which makes me even more sure that this a hoax article. The article states he is a "major", yet his MySpace page says he is a "lt.colonel" That's a big difference and you would think the author would have gotten that right. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Torres

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

In all my years in Wikipedia, I believe that this is the secend article which I have nominated for deletion. The subject in question is non-notable. A quick google search only showed personal websites such as MySpace and FaceBook, but not a single reliable source to establish notability. This seems to be a vanity article of an unnotable person, Tony the Marine (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. J04n(talk page) 23:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability seems pretty clearly stated in the article, which lists a series of major championship wins and medals in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. A quick browse of the IBJJF website verifies most if not all of the claims in the article. If your "quick google search" provides no useful results, perhaps you could share the link in your nomination in case others can suggest more productive search terms? --Canley (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just added five WP:RSs to confirm his championships and second-place finishes. He's WP:N. J04n(talk page) 02:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawling nomination - Proper sources proofing notability have been added and therefore I am withdrawling the nomination. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Guard (film)

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

Press release for an unfinished film; fails WP:CRYSTAL Orange Mike | Talk 23:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as admitted spam. Wikipedia is not a PR outlet. DarkAudit (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out where the author admitted it was spam? Here they claim it is not intended for promotion. The COI is obviously present but that's a separate issue and not AfD-worthy. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's direct from the marketing department. In two sentences he both confirms and denies it's for promotional purposes. Just because he says it's not spam doesn't mean I have to believe him. This is a textbook case of abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Marketers using Wikipedia to "spread information about" their product is flat unacceptable. DarkAudit (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I believe that the three sources I've added to the article constitute enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL: none of the bullet points in the latter seems applicable, and the sources make the topic "verifiable, and the subject matter...of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". I say 'weak' because I admit the sources give relatively scant coverage and more would definitely be ideal; still, I think they're enough. I haven't yet had time to properly footnote the article and remove specific unverifiable claims, but that again is not a matter for AfD. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While definitely written with a promotional tone, according to the sources, principal filming has begun, thus meeting the criteria for an article at WP:NFF. KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ~~improvement~~ coments made since nomination. Article tone is to be adressed through regular editing, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the sources were added before nomination. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I have struck that word and replaced it. More, I will myself look into addressing concerns with sourcing and article format. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and later... as promised, I have just gone through the article to neutralize POV, to address the sense of undue promotion, and to add proper inline citations to insure that the article's assertions are sourced. I note further that the author has been made aware of the problem with COI and that he has agreed to not edit this article in the future. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All - many thanks for your contributions and my apologies for any earlier breach of rules. I am better informed now. I have requested a change of username and am awaiting to hear on this. In the meantime, would it be possible for someone to correct the list of producers for the film? There is a distinct difference between producers and executive producers and this should be refelected in the article. The distinction is clearly noted in references 2 and 3 - from Variety and Screen daily. Many thanks ElementDistribution (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Easily done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Michael. Would you also be able to correct the producer information in the main body of the article? The first line refers to the exec producers as the producers ElementDistribution (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And done as well. Keep in mind that now that the article is on Wikipedia, many others will be editing it over time. As filming progresses and it receives more coverage, and specially after release and reviews, the article will be tweaked or expanded and re-worked repeqatedly as it is kept encyclopedic and its tone kept neutral. Have a gander at WP:WIP and WP:IMPERFECT. Wikipedia is a constantly changing animal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, all requirements for an article have been met. Dream Focus 02:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has improved greatly since nomination. Reach Out to the Truth 19:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements by Mr Schmidt its clear that article meets our inclusion policies now that filming has begun and quality sources are reporting on the topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Vered

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

Being the former biggest one-day winner on Jeopardy! is a good claim of fame. However, I have not been able to find any sources at all after the fact, except for incidental coverage when Ken Jennings shattered his record. Absolutely no sources found covered anything except for his Jeopardy! win, making this a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Sufficiently mentioned in the list of largest game show winnings. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Except that it makes the claim that he's the first to sweep (whatever that is) Ben Stein. - BalthCat (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have not been able to verify in sources either. Searching for Jerome Vered + WBSM turns up nothing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still asserting more than BLP1E, making it a sourcing issue, not a BLP1E issue, and so not a good candidate for AfD as far as I am concerned. - BalthCat (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I still think the lack of sources is enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know how you're Google-searching, but a Google Books search for Jerome Verod + WBSM turns up a directly verifying source; and the standard search turns up hundreds of hits [1], and a related wikipage, American game show winnings records, has a relevant cited source. You really need to search more carefully. The comment that "Absolutely no sources found covered anything except for his Jeopardy! win" speaks only to the failure of your search methods, not the notability of the subject; it's clearly inaccurate. AFD discussions are messy enough when people stick to accurate comments; when you make clearly incorrect ones, even in good faith, the environment can easily deteriorate quickly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this directly verifying source? I don't see any reliable sources re his WBSM win in your search string. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Google Books search. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it enough? Do you believe the information is false, or simply unverified? (Note that unverified != unverifiable.) Sourcing issues are sourcing issues, not deletion reasons... especially if you don't even disbelieve the information asserted. We'd have to delete half of Wikipedia if we started axing everything without a rock hard source in place. - BalthCat (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The books source is only a two sentence mention. All the other coverage is only incidentals received after his Jeopardy! win, and then even more incidentals after Ken broke his record. Incidental coverage isn't enough, ever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said those sources didn't exist "at all." Can you explain how you came to that (incorrect) conclusion, because without a reasonable explanation it's hard to take your fallback position seriously. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I misread and was searching all over Google News instead of Books. The books source indeed verifies that he was on WBSM, but it doesn't say a hell of a lot else. Do you really think two paltry sentences are enough to base a great deal of an article on? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your comments about Google News were wrong, to, because there's at least one relevant GNsource associating WBSM and Vered. You said there were no sources verifying a specific claim; I pointed out you were wrong, and you argued, irrelevantly, that the source in question wasn't enough to base the entire article on, which was obviously a straw man argument. The point at issue there was whether your BLP1E argument was valid, not general notability. Vered fails WP:ATHLETE, too, but that isn't terribly helpful. Your comments in this AFD, and, from my experience, others, too often tend to reflect inaccurate or inadequate searching, resulting in hasty and inppropriate arguments, and that practice, together with your overheated defensiveness, is somewhat disruptive, and certainly doesn't promote reasonable consensus decisionmaking. When I make a mistake, my first instinct is to step back and try to figure out what I did wrong, not to immediately defend what often shouldn't be defended. Your editing would be more effective if you did that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think there's enough here for an article, though? He was a contestant on two game shows and that's all we know. Also, I don't know why my editing has been so sloppy of late, and I have the hardest time figuring out what I'm doing wrong — it's always the one thing I don't check. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think there is is (so Keep, since I somehow hadn't managed to !vote yet.) There's definitely enough to satisfy WP:RS and WP:V; and he was prominent enough to be a plausible search term. There's nothing wrong with a short article containing only material reflecting notability. Would it really be a significant improvement if the article included his romantic history, a few childhood anecdotes, and his tastes in music, even if they were well-sourced? Sometimes a bare-bones article is better. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, that's all I wanted to get from you, really. I disagree still, but I'll leave this open for consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I adore and cherish Jerome, so I'm going to recuse myself from adding a vote here, but in the past we've generally said that game show contestants not otherwise notable outside of their game show appearances are only notable if they were record-breakers. Jerome qualifies in that way, and perhaps only as an (apparently uncredited, according to IMDb) staff contributor to Win Ben Stein's Money otherwise. I don't think there's any "game show contestant notability" guideline but that may just be an artifact of there being sufficiently few of them for such a class of notability never to have been considered. Even the most outstanding game show contestants are near the bottom rungs of celebrity in that they may be appreciated by only a small class of devotee, people like Charles Van Doren and Ken Jennings being exceptional in that regard. Robert K S (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely one of the more notable game show winners, despite not winning a million dollars or more. His history in the game show world is definitely worthy of mention. I don't think that that we should only have articles on million dollar winners. For example, we have an article on Ogi Ogas, who did NOT win a million dollars on WWTBAM. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 00:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Vered was best American at this year's WQC. [2], everybody ahead of him is a sport quizzing star, Ashman, Bjortomt, Gibson and Bytheway are former world champs, Pattyn is a former Euro champ, Swiggers is a former world runner-up and Euro doubles champ, Kalliovelo was WQC 3rd in 2008. In comparison Ken Jennings finished 9th at the 2007 European Open. They are about the same level. Here is an article about him: [3]German.Knowitall (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure if this is still open or not, but I've added a couple of refs. Zagalejo^^^ 06:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Gras

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

Non-notable local television figure Orange Mike | Talk 22:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "She has been the recipient of over 160 journalism awards including six Regional Emmy Awards." is a compelling assertion of notability, above the usual fray of local TV folks. - Dravecky (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - local TV stations give these things to each other like popcorn; I suspect many of these are of the "Silver Sow Award for Hog-Related Reporting" variety. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per awards won. With respects to OM, denigrating 160 journalism awards does not show then as non-notable. And 6 Regional Emmys are not to be dismissed either, as regions still have to answer to their peers at the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences... and Regional Emmys represent major portions of the country. And let's not forget the 14 national Telly Awards.... not exactly local. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- amused comment - 14 Telly Awards? have you ever read any of the discussion of the Telly Award? As somebody said on the talk page, "You pay then 70 bucks for them to watch your movie. If they like it, you can send them more money to get a statuette. You could just as well invent your own award, give it to yourselvfand buy a statuette." It was the use of the Telly Awards to puff up her article which drew my attention to those things. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and with respects, I do realize that you were among the minority that felt the Tellys non-notable, and note that after the recent KEEP (not a "borderline keep" or non-consensus keep) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telly Awards, you expressed your irritation over its retention. However, and despite that irritation, consensus has spoken. The sheer volume and number of all her awards (Tellys included) and the recognition of her work by her industry and her peers shows her notability per WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough of those awards are notable, to make the person who won them notable. Dream Focus 15:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vato Loco Boys

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

No evidence that this street gang meets either the general notability guideline or WP:CLUB, the two notability guidelines that I believe apply in this case. NW (Talk) 22:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as completely unremarkable entity. Previous A7 was declined because of assertion of "largest Hispanic gang in Wichita". That assertion was reverted as unsourced. No sources of any kind, actually, so how do we know this gang even really exists? DarkAudit (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability, no sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources, notability. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 23:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and non-verifiable. "An obscure gang" rather speaks for itself. Nsk92 (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The gang definitely exists; however, I would agree that there isn't anything on which to hang the "notability" hat. I found very brief mentions at America's Most Wanted and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (as well as a pop culture reference in a fictional book[4]), but nothing that would be considered "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. Location (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete ridiculously obscure gang, doesn't pass the Google sniff test unless you count mentions on Myspace pages.74.248.93.61 (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 18:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Simms

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

Procedural: Declined speedy due to some news coverage of a 9-year old basketball prodigy. Certainly not enough to meet WP:ATHLETE and may also fall foul of WP:NOT#NEWS, but bringing here for discussion. Black Kite 22:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, as the creator. Thank you, nominator, for listing in order to get community view and not speedy deleting, no matter the outcome. I will not make the same mistake I made defending my first article and passionately bludgeoning every commenter. I will say this, though;Article meets GNG. The asserted notability is in the fact that a 9 year old kid has such skills in basketball that professional NBA players sing ballads on him and CNN finds it appropriate to do a big story on the kid. Coincidentaly, the CNN article constitutes significant coverage. Other sources constitute additional RS that are all verifiable, and I only did a quick skim search. If one takes the delete route, please check sources first, and if still delete inclined, please present to me how article does not meet WP:GNG and/or WP:BLP. Thanks. Turqoise127 (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cf. WP:NOT#NEWS. Good for the kid, but really he's not done anything yet except generate a few news reports. Jnthn0898 (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails ATHLETE, fails under NOT NEWS, and fails the GNG. Well done to the kid for doing something, but until he plays at college level then he is not notable. Many promising young athlete tear a muscle when they hit puberty and never play in the big leagues, so wait until he actually does something more than fill the last five miuntes of a slow news day bulletin. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the references I can find seem to be based on the CNN report. One news coverage does not make someone notable. As far as I can tell he does not meet any notability guideline. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If all references seem to mirror the CNN report (I believed there were other reputable sources on this) per GB gan, and there are a few more delete votes, I concede to snowball. Turqoise127 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails NOT NEWS & ATHLETE. Welcome back if he does get signed in the future. Skier Dude (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and Very Weak Delete The problem here for me, is that the coverage in CNN is significant, focused on the subject primarily, and explicitly touts him as a prodigy of great prospects. To quote WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." A full length CNN profile qualifies on all those counts. This is not a news article about a passing event in the full spirit of WP:NOT#NEWS, even if it happens to be on a news site. That said, this is the only significant piece of coverage he has so far, and I don't believe he has demonstrated any enduring historical notability in the colloquial, rather than strict criteria-based, sense of the term. So, letter of the guideline says he passes, but so far there's not quite enough buzz for me to let it through. Ray^Talk 23:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment Ray. That is what I meant when I stated above at the end of my vote "If one takes the delete route, please check sources first, and if still delete inclined, please present to me how article does not meet WP:GNG and/or WP:BLP" Because the kid meets policy exactly as you described. The voters above are quoting WP:NotNews and WP:Athlete which is totally wrong and does not apply. Is this troubling?Turqoise127 (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why it bothers you. The thing is, what we consider when talking about notability really is enduring historical notability, since a good encyclopedia only covers those topics (yes, I'm very aware we fall short in a lot of places). Is Dakota Simms a 15-minutes wonder created by a bored CNN producer and a good publicist? Or will he go on to do great things, bring joy and admiration to thousands if not millions, etc. Right now, there's not sufficient indication of the latter, but there could be - that, for me, is what our notability criteria are getting at. That's also why I support userfication so that you can bring it out if/when the article's a more clear keeper. Ray^Talk 16:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tongue N' Cheek. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Road Rage (Dizzee Rascal song)

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

no context at all on page, song is not notable Alan - talk 22:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tongue N' Cheek, no reason to have an unreleased single that is receiving no pre-release press to have its own page. His previous singles have charted but WP:NOTCRYSTAL J04n(talk page) 23:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, then bring it back if it become notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Goldscheider

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

No releases by this subject are notable, there is no significant coverage by any other source, and no other criteria listed at WP:MUS apply here. ~~Alexander Goldscheider and Terezín: The Music 1941-44 (which was produced by the subject) I think can be treated together (so I have redirected the other AfD subpage here).~~ Both articles have been primarily contributed to by User:AGRR, who has self-identified as the subject. Previously, AGRR created a page Goldscheider, Alexander, which has since been speedily deleted per WP:COI and WP:Notability. The user has now been warned twice about his conflict of interest violations. —Akrabbim^talk 22:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, I just noticed that his company Romantic Robot seems to have produced Wriggler, Videoface, and Multiface, which are all articles that seem to have been around awhile without getting deleted. Does this help his case, or do they need to be nominated as well? I'm not as familiar with computing-type notability guidelines. —Akrabbim^talk 22:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just came across these notes, and they definitely need to be corrected:

If anybody googles Terezín: The Music 1941-44 there are dozens and dozens of references to this double CD, be it from BBC programs, Simon Wiesenthal Center, conferences, libraries, schools, universities, etc. from around the world. There are many further references under "Theresienstadt: Die Musik 1941-44" and "Terezín: La Musique 1941-44" as this set is known in Germany and France respectively.

Similarly, if you google "Brundibár Romantic Robot" there are 2,090 hits with pages and pages of references, and if you Google just "Brundibár", there are 90,500 hits! - hardly anybody at all knew about this children's opera before it was discovered on the above Terezín: The Music 1941-44 CDs. All the artists on the CDs have their Wikipedia articles in several languages, so does the opera Brundibár and again virtually nobody knew Gideon Klein, Pavel Haas, Hans Krása or Viktor Ullmann before these CDs existed.

To say that this is not a "notable release with no significant coverage by any other source" is simply incorrect, if not unfair as well. There were over 15,000 of this 2-CD set (i.e. over 30,000 CDs) sold over the years, a significant amount for modern classical music, let alone with the connotations of concentration camps! This set was also supplied to very many libraries around the world and it is still in demand nearly 20 years after its release.

Similarly, I cannot see why the Wikipedia articles on Multiface, Wriggler or Videoface should be nominated for deletion simply because they are connected to myself(!), and I rather hope they WILL help my case. I had nothing to do with these articles on Wikipedia, and there are 76,400 hits on "Multiface 1", 98,7000 on "Multiface One", 15,840 on "Multiface Amstrad" and "Multiface 2", 60,900 on "Multiface 3", 11,600 on "Multiface 128", 9,700 on "Multiface ST", then there are 30,700 hits on "Wriggler Spectrum", 10,200 on "Wriggler Amstrad" as well as 3,960 Google hits on "Romantic Robot Wriggler" and finally nearly 5,000 hits on "Videoface" combined with ZX, Spectrum or Romantic Robot - that is over 320,000 hits for just these three lines of products designed and manufactured by Romantic Robot!

Frankly, if anything, I believe there should be an article on Romantic Robot as well, given all above figures. There are actually 25,800 hits on the sentence "Romantic Robot", and over 2,550,000 hits on the words "Romantic" and "Robot", many related to the company, but not all. Thank you. AGRR (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion related to Terezín: The Music 1941-44, now copied to the relevant discussion

If anybody googles Terezín: The Music 1941-44 there are dozens and dozens of references to this double CD, be it from BBC programs, Simon Wiesenthal Center, conferences, libraries, schools, universities, etc. from around the world. There are many further references under "Theresienstadt: Die Musik 1941-44" and "Terezín: La Musique 1941-44" as this set is known in Germany and France respectively. AGRR (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The production of art at Terizín, music, theater, etc, is a highly notable subject; I recently say an exhibition on it. I have no idea if this particular CD is notable, but the topic certainly is. A rename to Music production in Terezín and some c/e could be the ultimate solution, depending on availablity of sources for the CD, to preserve info. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete: Terezín: The Music 1941-44 AGRR, the notability is not based on the number of Google hits. Each article should contain facts verified from multiple, reliable, independent and substantial sources. I would like to help you, but I can't find anything. I recall an old review in Czech magazine Harmonie or Hudební rozhledy, however, I'm not sure if mentioned review described your product. It was a large anthology of compositions by musicians imprisoned in Terezín. I'm also a bit surprised by your statement that virtually nobody knew children's opera Brundibár and "Terezín composers" before your publishing efforts. I can assure you that all mentioned composers are included in major encyclopedic works on Czechoslovak music, such as Československý hudební slovník (published in 1963). I can also recommend you works by Lubomír Peduzzi, who spent a major part of his career researching lives and works of Jewish composers persecuted by Nazis, or more recent research and publications by Milan Kuna. I admire and support your work and I believe it is important contribution to the music history, but I can't support your articles here without reliable and independent sources. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Power.corrupts: Music production in Terezín (or perhaps Culture in Terezín) surely deserves an article here, however, the subject of this AfD is this particular CD: Terezín: The Music 1941-44. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Akrabbim: Perhaps you should split your nomination again, the subjects are too different.--Vejvančický (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alexander Goldscheider was a first Czech journalist who made an interview with Frank Zappa [5][6], one of the pioneers of electronic pop music in Czechoslovakia [7] (this is a blog, but I value their informations, they're surprisingly correct). It seems that he also collaborated with important Czech politician and diplomat Michael Žantovský [8]. The production website of children's opera Brundibár reprinted the sleevenote of his CD Terezín: The Music 1941-44 [9]. However, all of the sources are passing mentions. Unfortunately, I can't find out more. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. This is due to the subject's relevance to the Wriggler, Videoface, and Multiface articles. —Akrabbim^talk 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have created a separate discussion for Terezín: The Music 1941-44. I will make a copy of related comments posted here to that discussion. —Akrabbim^talk 17:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately, I can come up with nothing substantial from searching the library databases for "Alexander Goldscheider" or "Romantic Robot" at Syracuse University, where I am currently going to school. —Akrabbim^talk 20:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am very grateful for the comments of Mr. Vejvančický and perhaps I can add to them and clarify a few points.

I was, indeed, the first Czech journalist who interviewed Frank Zappa (published in "My69" and "Melodie"), and I also met and interviewed many others, mainly in 1968-69 when I lived in New York: B.B. King, Jimi Hendrix, Blood Sweat and Tears, Stevie Winwood (Traffic), Keith Emerson (The Nice, Emerson, Lake and Palmer), Paul Butterfield, Mike Bloomfield, Al Kooper, The Family, John Mayall, Ten Years After, Marc Boland and T.Rex, etc. I was for years on the editorial board of "Melodie", which was the most read music magazine in Czech Republic and reportedly in Eastern Europe, there are numerous articles, interviews, reviews that I wrote - if you open any issue of "Melodie" from 1969-1973 or so, you will find me there. I also had my radio series in 1969-70 on Mikrofórum called Mikro-Pop-Abeceda where I succeeded in playing a lot of Anglo-American music that was otherwise near impossible to play on Czech Radio at the time. My series also ended prematurely because of the music I played and insisted on playing.

I later wrote songs and produced records at Supraphon and Panton - if you checked the current Supraphon catalogue on the Internet (http://www.supraphon.cz/cs/katalog/databaze-titulu/vysledky-hledani/?hledany_vyraz=Goldscheider&kategorie=-- ), you can still (30 years after I left Czechoslovakia) find my songs on the current CDs of Hana Hegerová, Karel Černoch, Jan Rezek, Jana Robbová, Pavel Bobek, Valerie Čižmárová. I wrote songs for many others, and I also had my own SPs released on Panton Records, including the song you mention, "Mluví k vám robot", with the lyrics by Michael Žantovský, which you can see on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ0DSBZy41U . It is a Czech TV Video from 1979 as the song reached No. 3 on the Hit-Parade. I sing it through a vocoder and play it all on synthesizers (as I did on "Kdekdo Te Pomlouvá" for Valerie Čižmárová, "Hadrová Panenka" on the same named LP of Věra Špinarová, "Lady Madonna" with Eva Pilarová and on my own recordings for Czech Radio and TV, Krátký Film, Barrandov and Supraphon and Panton). I am fairly certain that I was the first to have used a vocoder in Eastern Europe, and I, indeed, used an Arp Odyssey and Roland JP4 before anybody else just as well! Incidentally, is not there a stipulation on Wikipedia that anybody who charted their music is eligible to be included?

I also produced LP records of Milan Svoboda's Prague Big Band, Martin Kratochvíl, Eva Pilarová, Naďa Urbánková, Věra Špinarová, Helena Pilarová, Jitka Molavcová - I can provide all the details. I wrote numerous sleevenotes, be it for rock groups as Collegium Musicum, Blue Effect, or LPs of foreign artists such as Deja Vu by Crosby, Stills Nash and Young, Close to the Edge by Yes - I translated the lyrics for both albums as well -, Tamla Motown 2-LP sampler Černá Galaxie - all these are perfectly documented items.

You will find an entry on me in Antonín Matzner, Ivan Poledňák, Igor Wasserberger a kolektiv (1990): "Encyklopedie jazzu a moderní populární hudby, Díl II. Editio Supraphon, s. 159" and I also wrote some 250 entries on Anglo-American pop/rock singers and groups for the same Encyclopedia - except, as I was a political emigrant with a 3-year sentence, my name was not allowed to appear under the articles and the late Ivan Poledňák put his name under them.

I studied musicology at Charles University where I got a PhD for my analysis of the Beatles' songs - there is a link in this article being discussed for deletion. There were only very few musicological analysis of rock and pop-music in the 70s world-wide, and it was a lot of effort to be allowed to do that in Czechoslovakia in the 70's...

As for Terezín and its music, I am familiar with all the literature on the subject and I can assure you that virtually nobody knew Gideon Klein, Hans Krása, Pavel Haas outside of Czech Republic until my Terezín 2-CD set. What a pity that Eliška Kleinová, the sister of Gideon Klein, is no longer with us as she could confirm this better than anybody else: she devoted her entire life to promote the music of her brother and others from Terezín, who all perished, and she herself could not believe when I did produce the CDs and she could hold them in her hands. I am not over dramatising this and a lot of my knowledge and experience is first hand, as my father and uncle took part in the cultural life in Terezín (my father appears on a couple of Terezín posters), where they were imprisoned before being sent to Auschwitz, Schwarzheide, with the rest of the family perishing in Bergen-Belsen and Mauthausen. It is also no surprise for me that you may not find much material about Terezín everywhere (be it my CDs or anything else for that matter), as the topic is still, how shall I phrase it, unpleasant to deal with for many! Two Terezín composers may very well have been mentioned in the essential Československý hudební slovník in 1963 - neither Hans Krása, nor Pavel Ullmann are there at all!! -, but nobody heard their music until 20+ years later! And there were no mentions of them anywhere else in the world, whilst hardly anybody can read Czech.

I had enormous difficulties promoting the music myself, but promoting I did and there followed a whole string of products/material by many others on the same topic and, as I said, for instance Brundibár (not ever mentioned in the Československý hudební slovník) is nowadays known all over the world. Of course I realize that Google hits are not a measurement of notability, but frankly I feel an immense joy that there are now over 90,000 hits on Google re Brundibár, and I do take a certain amount of pride that my 2CDs played their part in that achievement. And I am absolutely delighted there are now thousands of people involved. I fully appreciate the efforts and achievements of others. I know Mr. Kuna, whom you mention, personally, he in fact helped me with the information on my double-CD and I credit him right after my thanks to Eliška Kleinová in the booklet accompanying the CDs (avaiable on the Romantic Robot website www.romantic-robot.com). Incidentally, Mr. Kuna's book great and laudable book "Musik an der Grenze des Lebens" was first published by the German publisher Zweitausendeins in October 1993 - after the very same publisher and mail-order company already sold thousands of my "Theresienstadt: Die Musik 1941-44" set since its release in 1991.

I do not make any claims whatsoever that I am the only person engaged in this topic, not in the slightest, but my 2CD set was a major breakthrough for the Terezín composers and Eliška Kleinová said that it achieved more than she she was able to do in 45 years. She also summarised the role of music in Terezín in the simplest words as "Music? Music was life!" And it was life, survival, for many, for thousands, tens of thousands - the role of music in many other camps has now been documented as well. And please take a look at the entire article on the 2CD set, the deletion of which we are discussing here. This is ALL it says:

"Terezín: The Music 1941-44 is a 2-CD set with music written by the inmates at the Terezín concentration camp during World War II. Vol. 1 contains chamber music by Gideon Klein, Viktor Ullmann and Hans Krása, Vol. 2 features the children opera Brundibár by Hans Krása and songs by Viktor Ullmann and Pavel Haas. The CDs were produced by Alexander Goldscheider and released by Romantic Robot in 1991."

Frankly, if these two sentences of pure and most basic factual information are deemed not to be worth their place in Wikipedia, then I rest my case. Already the fact that we are discussing it here shows how difficult it still is to promote the music linked to concentration camps!

I do not think it would be fruitful to go on and on here, and I shall be most grateful if you just go through my above lines.

If anybody needs more information I can also be contacted through the Romantic Robot website www.romantic-robot.com, where where it is also possible to get a lot more details on both the Terezín CD set and my other releases. Thank you. AGRR (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for your clarification. I added citations from the comprehensible Czech source Encyclopedia of Jazz and Modern Popular Music (1990), where Mr. Goldscheider is mentioned. This, together with other claims of notability, is sufficient for an entry here on Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree, inclusion in another encyclopedia is a clear pass for WP:N. I assume it is Encyklopedie jazzu a moderní populární hudby. [Díl] III, Část jmenná. Československá scéna - osobnosti a soubory / Antonín Matzner, Ivan Poledňák, Igor Wasserberger. Praha : Supraphon, 1990. This is the fourth example of WP:BIAS I've come across this week of a non-English subject, for which little information is available online, and does not show up in Google. If the information is WP:V enormous caution should be exercised for non-English subjects to be deleted due WP:N concerns, based on lack of Google footprint, which easily turns out to be an argument from ignorance. It is correct to tag it as COI, and it could need pruning, AfD is not for clean-up though, and I am always more lenient when it is an openly self-declared COI. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I gave Mr. Goldscheider some advice on how he should be involved from now on, by staying on the talk pages and providing sources, while avoiding further direct contributions to the article. I'm kind of glad how this discussion turned out to provoke further research and improvement of the article, where before it was hard to detect the notability behind the COI. —Akrabbim^talk 18:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Given that the nom and all editors participating are now in agreement.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism and the Changing of Gender Roles in the Last Six Decades

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

Unsourced essay. PROD contested by author. Cassandra 73 (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously, but in the spirit of WP:DONTBITE someone should perhaps point the editor in the right direction, so that he or she can learn how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written. I would suggest reading WP:BETTER and WP:V to start with. Lampman (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An essay. Joe Chill (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And not a very good essay. Folks, please don't post your homework on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essay. It's all original research and no verifiability. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and hope the creator can learn from this not to post essays as an article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. What can I say that hasn't been said? This essay completely violates WP:OR, WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:RS, you name it. I think it fits the criteria for speedy deletion... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax Enigma^msg 03:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Toshan Gunness

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

Nominator's rationale: I can find no evidence that he ever played professionally per WP:ATHLETE. Or WP:RS indicating that he satisfies the most basic requirements of WP:BIO. I cannot verify his award for "most improved player" at Yeading FC; not verified by my Google search. None of the supplied references refer to the article subject/article creator in any way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the whole idea of Gunness being an "international" level player is so unsupported that I've put a hoax tag on the article. If someone agrees and wants to speedy it on that basis, please do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)</smal[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Club level as a youth player does not meet the standards of WP:ATHLETE. No evidence of international play. DarkAudit (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Berakhah. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safek Brakha Daoraita

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

Essentially a subarticle of Berakhah, dealing specifically with blessings in Judaism that may be Biblical rather than rabbinic in origin. The article is completely lacking context, relevance and understandable English. No scope for merge, so delete suggested. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Shlomke (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable scholarly issue. Best left as its own article because its more of an in-depth issue then Berakhah, which is more general and basic. The article has a long way too go before it's wikified, but the main text of the article includes sources so there's no policy basis for deletion at this time.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Berakhah per nominator. IZAK (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shrink and then merge and redirect to Berakah. No need for an extended entry on this. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After cutting out all the scholary discussions (pilpul in Hebrew) the meager rests can be merged into Berakhah. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regrettably. Anything relevant can be merged into Berakha. This article is written like a Pilpul lecture and belongs in books examining the details of Halakha. Shlomke (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Berakhah per nom --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Nominator suggested deletion, not merger. Shlomke (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social matchmaking

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

Contested PROD. Unsourced, reads like an essay or a copypaste from someone's website. GlassCobra 20:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced essay that's pure original research. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete search doesn't reveal that this is a common phrase or a subject worthy of an article. -Drdisque (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Streams

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

A disputed speedy where the article's creator notes, rightly, that the speedy deletion criterion does not apply to schools. An examination of the website (http://learningstreamsclass.org) reveals that this is apparently some kind of fee-paying tutoring operation for elementary students, not part of the state's school system. As well, there are no reliable sources to indicate that this commercial or semi-commercial entity has any notability and I found none in a brief search. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I tagged this for a speedy delete beforehand, but there doesn't seem to be a catagory for schools so it ended up here. The page is obviously just nonsence and shouldn't be kept on here.If the article was completly rewritten properly I do think it should stay but not in its current guise. Tresiden (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can not find any significant coverage of this. The general consensus is that most schools are notable, but this one does not appear to be notable. This appears to be the website for the school. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Harris County, Texas

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

This would be better served as a category than a list. Harris County is quite large, and it is unusual to see any source discuss "Harris County schools" in general. Most sourcing for this would be synthesis - source Z says that school A is in city B, source Y says that city B is in Harris County, therefore school A must be in Harris County. The sources currently listed (used as part of the synthesis) are self-published anyway. Karanacs (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Categories suck. Nevertheless, both categories and lists can co-exist. Harris County (Houston, TX and suburbs) has lots of independent school districts Harris County, Texas#Education , so a list that can avoid being too indiscriminate or too much like a directory can be a useful navigation tool. Mandsford (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the Houston, Texas area is notable for its plentitude of parochial schools and charter schools. A list can be compatible to a category. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists work well, especially for schools that won't have articles. (example: "Foo Elementary has 420 students..") tedder (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lists and categories serve different purposes, have different strengths and weaknesses and often work best together. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Certainly there are lists with less notability than this that live in WP so I'm not going to suggest that this one is less notable than most. But Karanacs is right that to make this list complete it would have to be huge. The question here is what is the real educational value compared to trying to keep the huge list up-to-date? A list of school districts in the county is perhaps bordering on a lack of sufficient merit. But IMHO listing each and every primary/secondary school in a county is a bit over the line. The category, though it obviously is not designed to serve the same purpose, is sufficient in a situation like this. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - does not cover parochial and private schools. They should be added or the list should be renamed "List of Public Schools in Harris County, Texas" Racepacket (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If they gain increased coverage in the future, then we can recreate this; for now, notability is existent but not sufficient. m.o.p 18:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine (U.S. band)

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

Non-notable band, only active since 2007, and has only released 1.5 albums... fails WP:BAND... Adolphus79 (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Having more than 2 albuns is one factor of notability, but not a necessary one. Even if we do consider that they have 1.5 albuns, that would still not be a reason to exclude it. With an article on Terrorizer magazine and several profiles on websites such as reverbnation.com, the band seems to meet the necessary criteria. Maziotis (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two albums have to be on a major record label for that factor to be present. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "having more than 2 albuns" factor has not been used. Maziotis (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it being used in addition to the WP:GNG. Also, anybody can create a reverbnation account. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine has been covered in a number of profiles, some of which are not open to anyone.[10][11][12][13] I mentioned this since I believe that this indicates notability, along with the references on the magazine, Terrorizer. Again, the number of albuns does not exclude a band from being considered notable. You may argue that this band does not satisfy the 2 album limit in a major label, but no one has used this as a reason to keep the article. This criterion is not a necessary condition.Maziotis (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band with albums released on a non-notable label. We have no article for (paraphrasing) "F*** City Records". Too f***ing bad, but that's the way it is. Mandsford (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need one. The band has not been considered notable on the grounds of its label by anyone.Maziotis (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would seem to fail WP:BAND. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. We have been discussing the criteria used in that policy, above.Maziotis (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your objection. I'm saying that it fails to meet WP:BAND, ie, it passes none of the criteria listed on that page. Or, in other words, it fails them all. None of the references you cite seem to indicate otherwise. Purevolume [14] has about 2 sentences of information. Storminside lists gigs [15]. iVolume [16]] literally has no information, other than links to download. And OpentheCages [17] seems to indicate they performed at a NN event and gives a few paragraphs of info. None provide in depth coverage. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those websites were not referenced as providing in depth coverage. Terrorizer magazine article was. Maziotis (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But still, we would need multiple, reliable sources. It looks like we have found one. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorizer alone offers more than one. Aside from a source that provides significant coverage, Andy Hurley's record label has been covered on the news, which makes it reliable as a source. So, pointing to that essay might be misleading. Maziotis (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On notability: 1.5 albums on a major or notable label; the label F*** City is owned by Andy Hurley, drummer of Fall Out Boy. Though it is a relatively recent label, the work to push it through larger venues is currently in the works. However, being the direct project of a Fall Out Boy member seems notable. F*** City records is a label of Fall Out Boy, Misery Signals and Burning Empires (members of Fall Out Boy, Misery Signals, and 7 Angels, 7 Plagues).
The founder of the band, Kevin Tucker, is a notable person/musician. He has been subjected to Grand Jury Subpoenas as a part of the Green Scare, whom Peregrine has done benefits for. He is a noted anarchist writer and the band is one of the first anarcho-primitivist bands. Two former members were in The Knife Trade with direct ties to front running death metal acts Arsis and Black Dahlia Murder. One of those members has a band with a member of Baroness. Jordan Villella was a member of The Zimmermann Note (Nuclear Blast Records) and Circle of Dead Children (Willowtip). That makes four notable musicians, the criteria is for two.
Furthermore, Peregrine are the originators of a sub-genre, "black and green metal".
In response to references: Terrorizer Magazine has run two bits on Peregrine. Storm Inside has two write ups about the band's albums, noting their significance, but DOES NOT list gigs for the band. Try Babblefish next time. Other sources: Peregrine on FC records, Encyclopedia Metallum entry, Spirit of Metal entry, Flagpole Newspaper write up on the band (Athens, GA), and Anti-Christian Metal interview.
I'd contest the lack of information found easily on the internet isn't for a lack of information, but difficulty in searching a band with named after a bird of prey. (AnarchoPrimitivist (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The band has also toured with Misery Signals and After the Burial. (AnarchoPrimitivist (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

WP:NOTINHERETED. My nonexistent garage band could tour with (what's left of) The Beatles, and that fact wouldn't make my nonexistent garage band any more notable. Also any band that is "br00tal metal" lands on the metal archives. at one time or another That page shows no notability. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Together with other websites like this one, it served to argue for evidence of public interest. This point alone is not even close to meeting the criteria for notability. So, what's your point? Maziotis (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public interest means next to nothing according to WP:N. TheWeakWilled (T * G)

Did you read my reply? Maziotis (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burn This City (Sonic Syndicate song)

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

Yet another Simonpettersen (talk · contribs) creation... non-notable song which fails WP:NSONGS... Adolphus79 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable, unlikely to ever be. Rehevkor ✉ 16:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed, article was deleted already at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burn This City. Speedy? Rehevkor ✉ 02:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How sad that I can't even remember already putting an article up for deletion... yup, tagged G4... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The nominator has a good point that this term is not well defined: there is at least one other "Krugman's Law" floating round the blogosphere. JohnCD (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krugman's Law

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

Seems to be a non notable neologism. There are some google search results for "Krugman's Law", but those seem to be exclusively blogs or self-published, and also deal with a great many "Krugman's Law"s, not just this one. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge to article Paul Krugman. Make a new section "Krugman's Laws", and put this one there. The nominator's own arguments point to this path. I do note there may be a problem with "Krugman's Law" versus "Krugman's Laws", but this is for the sources to sort out what the names of the various laws are, and therefor what the name of the section should be. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, what will Paul Krugman say tomorrow? Mandsford (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paul_Krugman#Krugman.27s_Law. I've added the content from this article to his biography in the relevant section. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is clearly non-notable. Only blogs as sources. The redirect should be put on hold until the discussion on its inclusion into the Paul Krugman article is settled. CronopioFlotante (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Concur with "redirect should be put on hold" —Aladdin Sane (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism. Everything in Krugman's blog posting suggests he introduced this jocularly for the nonce. --Lambiam 01:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie credit

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

Neologism. No external sources given except one WSJ article that I cannot find. No claim made for notability. LK (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still a long way from an encyclopedia topic. Borock (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable neologism. Not even in urban dictionary! -- Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case bidding

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

Article fails Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary and Wikipedia:Coatrack. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than adding links to bidsfromlawyers.com, and seems to be created only for the purpose of adding said link(which have been removed). Also created Case bidding services, another un-encyclopedic article. Has a few remaining links but they seem to vague, incidental and generaly unrelated to establishing notability. Hu12 (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Case bidding is one way to find a lawyer, described by the American Bar Association in one brief paragraph here. There appears to be nothing significant to say about the subject, but the article (essentially a dictionary definition) would serve only as a coatrack to attract the promoters of such websites who will insert references to inconsequential information that link to a commercial service. Topic has no encyclopedic value. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, there is no substantive coverage on this subject and is a coatrack for spam. Triplestop x3 02:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article without references to any commercial services - this attorney/client connection service is recognized by the ABA and the Law Journal of the Univ. of Texas. A $2.8 billion industry is not insignificant. This is a relatively new concept, so additional details will be forthcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YesIamalawyer (talk • contribs) 08:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC) — YesIamalawyer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Article does not fail Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary test because a process is described along with ethical considerations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldcap44 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC) — Goldcap44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close To You (JLS song)

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

fails notability, can be recreated after song is released and possibly becomes notable Alan - talk 17:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Breaks WP:Crystal guideline. Grim²³ ★ 19:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If song satisfies WP:NSONGS at some point, the article can certainly be recreated. Gongshow ^Talk 04:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL etc. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bravedog (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion. Non-notable 78.148.3.175 (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Catheline

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

Article fails to meet notability guidelines and contains no references. Article also appears to be a self-promotion of a regional wrestler. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I managed to find one news item [18], I really don't think there's enough coverage to meet notability standards. Someone else's opinion might differ but that's mine. Pigman☿/talk 18:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I'll change this vote if someone can source some of the statements made, such as the stunt work in movies, and PWI 500 claim. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 03:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feald

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

Contested prod. Non-notable search engine, can not find coverage of any significance. Article by SPA. Haakon (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no discussion in reliable sources found. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fastream IQ Proxy Server

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

Contested prod. Non-notable software product, article by WP:SPA. Could not find significant coverage. Haakon (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unambiguous advertising: Used by thousands of clients worldwide, features Upload/download bandwidth limits on both content/reverse proxies; port-wide and per-connection limiting and IP/domain/country-based firewall as a tighter security measure as well as connections-per-client-IP limiting on both content/reverse proxies. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BURDEN. No references, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White to Play

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

I'd like to refer to the deletion debate on "Scary Monsters and Super Creeps (FlashForward)". The issue here is not really notability; if enough information on production, reception etc. is added, I'd be fine with separate episode articles (see "No More Good Days" for an example.) The problem is that Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids plot-only description of fictional works. Not only this, but overly detailed plot summaries, such as these, may actually be in violation of U.S. copyright law (see this summary of the Twin Peaks Productions vs. Publications International case.) There is really nothing else of any value in any of these articles; whatever information has been added is poorly sourced and could easily be given on the series main page or the episode list. Lampman (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete: I agree, these plot summaries are much too long and could be a problem. Cutting them down would leave nothing of value. There are already sufficient (brief) plot summaries on the List of FlashForward episodes page. Richard75 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good precedent for future episode articles. Shii (tock) 19:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too much plot detail, potentially a copyright violation; and the only source in the entire article is an IMDB cast listing. Reach Out to the Truth 00:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Brandon (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File Access Manager

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:BEFORE, WP:N. A simple Google search reveals one third of a million (not a typo) Ghits: [19], and dozens on Google scholar: [20] as well as Google Books: [21]. Alternately, merge into File locking or Microsoft software. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't point me to WP:BEFORE when I searched for sources before the nomination. Google hits do not show notability. I would never have expected to see a !vote from an admin based on Google hits. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:Before is a much abused slight. Don't devalue it for when it's actually needed. I have no doubt that Joe did due diligence before nominating. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google search: Download sites. Google News and Google Books: Doesn't even mention this software. So why do you want this kept? Joe Chill (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, no slight or offense intended. Normally, I don't use the Google test by itself, but in all that smoke, there must be some fire. If not kept, as I stated before, please merge the content into the other software articles, as the information itself is useful. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable as a proper noun. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage there is nothing useful here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was redirect. Redirected by nominator- Non-admin closure by Sodam Yat

Doctor who (series 5)

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

Content of Article simply copied from List of Doctor Who serials RWJP (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who serials. Plausibility of such a redirect can be discussed at RfD if necessary. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Sounds like a better option than deleting it, i'll go ahead and do this. RWJP (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has redirected article. Would appreciate an uninvolved admin or editor comfortable with NAC to close this discussion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nom. Sorry, did sloppy research. - Altenmann >t 18:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

María del Carmen Martínez-Bordiú y Franco

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

A thoroughly nonnotable person, whose sole achievement is that she is "a Spanish aristocrat and social figure.". Wikipedia is no a Who is Who. A person must have some achievements to deserve an encyclopedic entry. - Altenmann >t 16:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has been the subject of significant media coverage. See also the references in the French article at fr:Carmen Martínez-Bordiú y Franco. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some people are notable simply by virtue of who they are, and this seems to me to be one of them. HeartofaDog (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, there are at least two books primarily about her, one of which refers to her by a previous name, Carmen Rossi, and several others that discuss her in detail in the context of her family. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crash of the Titans 3

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

Looks like speculation according to Google. So, deletion per WP:CBALL Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 16:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely peering into the crystal ball here. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Crystal. Seems like heavy speculation at this time. ConCompS (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER --Teancum (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources have been provided and no sources can be found. Speculation only. Reach Out to the Truth 23:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwiki. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interactions concerning social groups of people in Canada and the US

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

Article seems to be a good example of WP:SYNTH - compilation of published materials that implies a collective conclusion, thus violating WP:NOR. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 16:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to another wiki. Article seems to be a combination of synthesis and a how to guide on proper etiquette. Not really appropriate for an encyclopedia but might be better elsewhere, like Wikibooks. Loves Macs (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks per WP:NOR. May be more suitable for Wikibooks instead. ConCompS (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe my own article should be kept, but with more improvement and linking to related articles in an effort to relate what the article is discussing what appears to be an important social trend of interactions as a form of serious social and legal etiquette in the USA and Canada. I apologize if I defended myself and the article in this way, but the topic has importance in the sociological study of a diverse, multicultural society. Thank you for reading and expression of your concerns, and inform me of the outcome of the AfD decision. + Mike D 26 (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not an expert in the subject, my read of the article is that it's a good study of the material. Unfortunately, I think it does constitute original research, which is not what encylopedia articles are intended to be. You should look for an appropriate forum to publish your research, such as Wikibooks. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 13:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks. Per WP:NOR, this is not appropriate for Wikipedia; however, it might be acceptable over there. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, as per above arguments. Definitely not WP-suitable. --Skud (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Looks like original research 86.98.152.246 (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing personal, but I think it should be deleted. The article was originally created by cutting and pasting from some old "Etiquette in Canada and the US" text which had been deleted because it is not what etiquette is, and is just not encyclopedic. There are still carried over bits of things in it that have nothing to do with social groups, and all large social groups are not discussed. Additionally, there are scant references other than some random citations about what latinos/hispanics like to be called. Sorry, but this just isn't an encyclopedic article and considering how much would need to change to make it one, adequate efforts towards doing so have not taken place. Njsustain (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rahim Abdul bin Kajaran

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

These two articles seem to be a rather alarming hoax by Best1290 (talk · contribs), which has been here since February. The first one, as left by its author on 14 Feb 09, said that the subject "Abolished The Monarchy of Brunei. He was sworn into office on February,12,2009, together with Ahmad Wadil as Vice president." The words "Abolished the monarchy of Brunei" have been removed by another editor, but the infobox still shows him as "President of Brunei."

The CIA World Factbook knows nothing of this; the Sultan is still head of state and government. Nor does it know of the supposed political party. I can find no reference to it which is not a Wikipedia mirror:

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

Nor do I find any trace outside WP and mirrors of the other two founders of the party, Adam Wahit and Mark Hardirin. References to the party in Politics of Brunei were inserted in February by Best1290; at the same time he altered the article Brunei to show bin Kajaran as president, but that at least was promptly reverted.

It is worrying that this easily checkable hoax has survived, with the main article tagged "BLPunsourced", for nine months, and spread across the Internet via WP mirrors. Credit to IP user 92.28.35.28 (talk · contribs) for tagging the bin Kajaran article. All the checkable facts here are wrong. Delete both. JohnCD (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, I can find no evidence of his or the party's existance. Great catch, good legwork and it looks like congratulations will soon be in order ;) J04n(talk page) 17:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Incredibly stupid hoax. How this slipped past the radar, I don't know, and maybe nobody was actually misled by the article, but things like this are a reminder that an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is going to have some nonsense in it. Every other article connected with Best1290 is now suspect. Mandsford (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G3 as hoax, and take action against creator/primary editor, as this does not appear to be this user's only hoax article. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fashionpop

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

A term which never caught on. No attribution to a reliable source. Zero (relevant) web search hits. Marasmusine (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NEO. Warrah (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments that the level of coverage is not significant enough to show notability have not been effectively refuted. Kevin (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Guiliana

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is identical and an unnecesary disambig:

Non-Notable. Article only mentions one race in a low category of motorsport, Formula BMW, and several other "also rans" in karting. Highly POV article. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 10:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person was mentioned in Motorsport, they've also been mentioned in the Daily Telegraph (Australia), Northern Territory News (Australia), Africa News and The Herald (Harare), seems notable. The article does need a lot of clean-up though. (I will post the full articles from the newspapers on request). Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you could cite this coverage, it will certainly help. -- Whpq (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are race result reports where he is mentioned such as this one. But the coverage is not significant. Nor is it numerous. I am not familiar with Formula BMW racing but according to our own article on it, it is an entry level series with a restriction to lower classes FIA racing licenses. If the series is a fully professional one, one could argue that he meets WP:ATHLETE, but the low level of the series and the lack of coverage doesn't establish notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, no evidence of satisying wp:athlete. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Panyd. Cybervoron (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lagarith

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

I can't find significant coverage for this codec. Joe Chill (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There mostly isn't any, not just for Lagarith though, but for lossless video codecs in general. I've tried myself to find good sources, but have only found 1 to 3 that meet wikipedia's source requirements. I've gone ahead and added the 2 related ones to the article, but it seems a bit off to have the same source on every other article related to lossless video. -- Brandished (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that the topic is marked for deletion, but I did not see any reason given for deleting it. Imagine my position on this. I just came from a very satisfying session of creating lossless video from a major 3D application, and, given the style of my rendering, this codec compresses it better than most of the alternatives. Given its quality, reliability, compression efficiency, and the relative lack of alternatives, this topic is an important one. Please expand the coverage--don't destroy it! Chairease (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason? I linked to WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any sources on the software. I work with lossless video and audio, so the software may come in handy however. But delete the article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this is a encoding scheme is noteworthy as it's been consistently shown to outperform most (if not all) other lossless codecs at the editing stage. I don't think there's enough sourced content here to justify this being an independent article though. I think a better idea would be consolidating this into a "lossless video" article with most of the other lossless video codecs (Huffyuv, MSU, FFV1, SheerVideo). Most of them are in the same shape as far as content and have a fair amount of overlapping material. This would also prevent these articles from being re-added later. Brandished (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gatineau Park Protection Committee

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

This organization does not meet WP:ORG notability requirements. The organization has been mentioned in media articles, but only as "incidental coverage" in articles on other subjects. Furthermore the article was created by and predominantly written by a self-described member of the organization which is the subject of the article. As can best be discerned, the organization is informal in nature, is not registered or incorporated, has no headquarters, publications or website and has only two members. The article has been identified has having serious WP:NPOV and WP:COI issues and has been used predominately as a vehicle to attack the political opponents of the subject of the article, in lieu of the organization itself having a website. Removing all the POV content would result in a very short stub. An in depth review of the article's notability by an admin resulted in a recommendation to delete as non-notable. Talk:New Woodlands Preservation League contains a complete discussion of these issues. Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What about the article Politics of Gatineau Park, which seems to involve the same editor and seems to share COI and POV problems? Racepacket (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to question: as mentioned at Talk:New Woodlands Preservation League, I have asked the same admin to review that article as well and make recommendations. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above: not notable per WP:ORG, as well as WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:SOAP issues. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, I guess you interpret notability very subjectively. The two organizations have: 1) completely changed the official historical interpretation of Gatineau Park; 2) convinced parliamentarians to table 7 bills in both houses of parliament to protect Gatineau Park--and authored the first draft of those bills; 3) disclosed profound managerial problems at the NCC; 4)secured rightful federal ownership of 61.5 sq. km of land in Gatineau Park--thereby completely debunking the myth of "Gatineau Park is not a national park because Quebec refuses to transfer the lands"...; 5) managed to get the NCC to produce the first-ever published technical description of Gatineau Park's boundaries; 6)pressured the government into adopting 2 orders in council to deal with private property in Gatineau Park (thereby stopping a major residential development); 7)placed Gatineau Park protection on the government's legislative agenda;8)wrote a legislative review on Bill C-37 which has been used extensively by the Bloc Québécois in the Commons, and by the Conservatives in the Senate; 9) informed public opinion by writing in the press; 10)informed public opinion by helping set the media agenda on the issue and by being quoted extensively.

They are not only incidental media references. The groups were usually behind breaking the news--such as disclosing a planned residential development inside Gatineau Park; such as revealing the NCC has mislead the public over the history of Gatineau Park, etc.

And what have you done for your country lately? Not notable? By whose definition?

by Wikipedia's definition, specifically this part. PK T(alk) 00:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The groups are clearly notable. The article should stay.--Stoneacres (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide reliable, third-party, published sources that chronicle these achievements? -M.Nelson (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, it was I that reviewed the article and the related New Woodlands Preservation League and recommended deletion. I have no dispute that the organisation exists and has an admirable purpose but I failed to find any significant secondary coverage of either organisation. Although campaigns by the two individuals identified with the group have been referenced (although mainly COI self references) these are already mentioned in the Politics of Gatineau Park. It is not the only organisation campaigning about the park but COI editing means none of the Gatineau Park articles have a balanced point of view from all involved. This is an article about the New Woodlands Preservation League/Gatineau Park Protection Committee and such fails to provide any significant coverage of the notability of that organisation. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a sample of the press covering their efforts, as well as excerpts from a speech by NCC chair Marcel Beaudry.

And there are others, relating the story of the League, Percy Sparks. You might look at the study “The Creation and Early Development of Gatineau Park,” by Filion and Gagnon. Commissioned as a result of the League's first presentation to the Board, the study mentions Murray and the League on pages 5, 6, 25 and 26.--Stoneacres (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and for the other reasons given. The article Politics of Gatineau Park should go the same way unless it can be brought within the scope of wikipedia which looks unlikely. --KenWalker | Talk 02:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment: as mentioned above, I have asked the same admin to review Politics of Gatineau Park as well and make recommendations. In the meantime edits to that article or comments on its talk page are welcome. - Ahunt (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at Politics of Gatineau Park and my recommendation is that should be nominated for deletion as well, it has multiple copyright and conflict of interest problems. MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if there are secondary sources that are french language publications and the park is located in Quebec, would this article find a happier home on French Wikipedia? Is there such an article already, but we don't link to it? I found the French article on Gatineau Park, but it does not appear to link to a French verison of the Gatineau Park Protection Committee, Politics of Gatineau Park or New Woodlands Preservation League. I wonder if the creation of an English language folk is insulating the three articles from the scrutiny of French-speaking editors that may have more expertise on the subject than we do. (In theory, if I wanted to write a POV fork on the New York Yankees, I would have more luck posting the POV content fork on a French or Dutch wikipedia than on the English wikipedia.)

I don't understand how User:Stoneacres can list all of these references above, but not work them into the article in a meaningful way. Nor have I been able to determine whether these are independent, third party reliable sources. Do these news stories cover the NWPL or GPPC or merely provide an incidental reference? Racepacket (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have found many of those refs listed above and the ones I have found contain only a mention of the organization name while discussing other topics, such as development in the park, highway construction, etc. As User:Stoneacres mentions at Talk:New_Woodlands_Preservation_League#Ways_to_move_forward, some of the articles don't even mention the GPPC or NWPL, but quote the two individuals who are members of the organizations. He says: "All articles quoting Messrs. Murray and McDermott on Gatineau Park are to be taken as articles on NWPL/GPPC, since they were acting in their capacity as members of those organizations." - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt is being dishonest. The great majority of those articles cover issues that were brought to the media's attention by the League/GPPC and wouldn't exist without those groups. We have shone the ligth on the darkness of the NCC's management of Gatineau Park. They clearly chronicle the League/GPPC's activities, and testify beyond the shadow of a doubt to their notability precisely in accordance with Wikipedia's rules.

Funny how Ahunt dismisses those articles without having read every one of them. Go ahead and be dishonest, and lead your little wiki lynchmob. Go ahead and destroy knowledge.--Stoneacres (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stoneacres: Rather than slinging insults around, please read WP:CIVIL. - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WP:AFD nomination Politics of Gatineau Park - Several contributors to this debate have asked about this article. Following the recommendations of User:MilborneOne it has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are invited to participate in the AFD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park. - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt's manic-depressive, martial law behaviour is what's insulting. Perhaps he should read Wikipedia's rules on trying to "out" somebody. It's clear Ahunt created both the GPPC/NWPL sites to out its members. Reading the Gatineau Park/Politics of Gatineau Park articles confirms he baited a member of that organization--ordering him, among other things, to produce the name of a GPPC member quoted in the press, although that name was widely available.

And now that he thinks he's outed them, he speciously contends that they are not notable, because they are an informal organization. In total disregard for the overwhelming evidence that they have pretty much set the agenda on the park file over the last 6 years, he suggests the sites be deleted.

You're not in the army anymore private. Time you started acting like a civilian. Talking to a shrink might help you with your obsessive need to give orders and be in control.--Stoneacres (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stoneacres: please read WP:CIVIL, which says: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few, minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." You are required to be civil hereand your insults and personal attacks are not acceptable. - Ahunt (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Stoneacres, thank you for giving me credit for starting this article and Gatineau Park Protection Committee, but if you check the records here and here, you will see that actually you started both those articles. - Ahunt (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Organization fails WP's notability guidelines. Article's purpose is a soapbox, and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. PK T(alk) 02:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur that this article is being used as a soapbox -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sap

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

Non-notable per WP:ENT, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from reliable sourced per WP:RS. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2009 (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}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No example of WP:N from any WP:RS. Everything about him or his label are from myspace/Twitter and the like. No secondary sources mention him. Angryapathy (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP i mean come on. this person went all out to make this article on this guy and it look pretty solid. they also give enough sites to prove this person is real and when i went to the links i kind of enjoyed his music.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoneFourtt (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC) — ZoneFourtt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Oh give me a break. If I were to spend hours and hours making an article about my non existent dog would you say keep that article too? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It's good enough with just enough information. At least this page as links that actually go to places that envelope him "steve sap". I say, Just Let It Be! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marine1109 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC) — Marine1109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP I agree with both of you guys. But Marine you need to type better.lol. sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InerCity (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC) — InerCity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Twitter as a source? You have to be kidding. Also closing admin take into account the spamming by SPA's such as the above. DarkAudit (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP So your telling me every other wikipedia account can use a twitter link but this person can't? hmmmmm. just let the page live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeraldMunts (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC) — GeraldMunts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please have a read of WP:OTHERSTUFF. MuffledThud (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that an AFD discussion is not a vote, and piling lots of "Keep" votes here won't ensure that a page stays up. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSIC plain and simple. No decent sources to support retention. one brave monkey 16:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article demonstrates the musician has YouTube, Twitter, and MySpace accounts, but I can find no RS sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC. Gongshow ^Talk 18:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No verifiable third-party sources. No establishment of notability. If he gets to keep the entry then I think everyone here deserves their own wikipedia page. ;) Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Added not a vote template. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing any reliable sources that show he comes anywhere close to passing WP:MUSIC. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also the page is either an autobiography, the photo doesn't belong to the uploader (who put it in the public domain), or copyright for the photo has been transferred (which I highly doubt it is). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)urc[reply]
Delete per above. SPA, and probably an autobiography. No sources. Racepacket (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have filed a sockpuppet report on the four users who voted keep above. Racepacket (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello Everyone. I was the one that created this account. I'm just a fan of underground music and I know him personally. I wanted to make a Wikipedia account on Steve so everyone can get some information on him. I'm sorry if it doesn't meet the standards of the everyday wikipedia reader. as for my account being "sockpuppet" i still don't really understand that. But I respect everyones opinion, I hold nothing back from no one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggcee89 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"everyone can get some information on him"- I suggest making him a website instead of a wikipedia article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Steve Sap and many of the voters here have been permanently blocked as sockpuppets. Racepacket (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Woodlands Preservation League

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

This organization does not meet WP:ORG notability requirements. The organization has been mentioned in media articles, but only as "incidental coverage" in articles on other subjects. Furthermore the article was created by and predominantly written by a self-described member of the organization which is the subject of the article. As can best be discerned, the organization is informal in nature, is not registered or incorporated, has no headquarters, publications or website and has only two members. The article has been identified has having serious WP:NPOV and WP:COI issues and has been used predominately as a vehicle to attack the political opponents of the subject of the article, in lieu of the organization itself having a website. Removing all the POV content would result in a very short stub. An in depth review of the article's notability by an admin resulted in a recommendation to delete as non-notable. Talk:New Woodlands Preservation League contains a complete discussion of these issues. Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What about the article Politics of Gatineau Park which appears to involve the same editors and has the same COI and POV problems? Racepacket (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to question: as mentioned at Talk:New Woodlands Preservation League, I have asked the same admin to review that article as well and make recommendations. - Ahunt (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now looked at Politics of Gatineau Park and my recommendation is that should be nominated for deletion as well, it has multiple copyright and conflict of interest problems. MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Offends WP:SOAP. All references seem to be primary sources so it fails the requirement from WP:ORG that it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. --KenWalker | Talk 16:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above: not notable per WP:ORG, as well as WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:SOAP issues. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, I guess you interpret notability very subjectively. The two organizations have: 1) completely changed the official historical interpretation of Gatineau Park; 2) convinced parliamentarians to table 7 bills in both houses of parliament to protect Gatineau Park--and authored the first draft of those bills; 3) disclosed profound managerial problems at the NCC; 4)secured rightful federal ownership of 61.5 sq. km of land in Gatineau Park--thereby completely debunking the myth of "Gatineau Park is not a national park because Quebec refuses to transfer the lands"...; 5) managed to get the NCC to produce the first-ever published technical description of Gatineau Park's boundaries; 6)pressured the government into adopting 2 orders in council to deal with private property in Gatineau Park (thereby stopping a major residential development); 7)placed Gatineau Park protection on the government's legislative agenda;8)wrote a legislative review on Bill C-37 which has been used extensively by the Bloc Québécois in the Commons, and by the Conservatives in the Senate; 9) informed public opinion by writing in the press; 10)informed public opinion by helping set the media agenda on the issue and by being quoted extensively.

And what have you done for your country lately? Not notable? By whose definition?

The groups are clearly notable. The article should stay.--Stoneacres (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Can you provide reliable, third-party, published sources that chronicle these achievements? -M.Nelson (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appears that the article Politics of Gatineau Park has gone through more collaboration and vetting that the other two. However, both New Woodlands Preservation League and Gatineau Park Protection Committee are not properly sourced to independent third party books or news reports. Further, there is a big difference in having bills introduced and killed in committee year after year and having legislation adopted. These organizations may be very meritorious and may perform valuable behind-the-scenes work, but Wikipedia requires reliable, secondary sources. Racepacket (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a sample of the press covering their efforts, as well as excerpts from a speech by NCC chair Marcel Beaudry.

And there are others, relating the story of the League, Percy Sparks. You might look at the study “The Creation and Early Development of Gatineau Park,” by Filion and Gagnon. Commissioned as a result of the League's first presentation to the Board, the study mentions Murray and the League on pages 5, 6, 25 and 26.--Stoneacres (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, it was I that reviewed the article and the related Gatineau Park Protection Committee and recommended deletion. I have no dispute that the organisation exists and has an admirable purpose but I failed to find any significant secondary coverage of either organisation. Although campaigns by the two individuals identified with the group have been referenced (although mainly COI self references) these are already mentioned in the Politics of Gatineau Park. It is not the only organisation campaigning about the park but COI editing means none of the Gatineau Park articles have a balanced point of view from all involved. This is an article about the New Woodlands Preservation League/Gatineau Park Protection Committee and such fails to provide any significant coverage of the notability of that organisation. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 2,000 word response by the article's creator and the confirms my feeling that this is and the GPPC article are WP:SOAPBOX. "And what have you done for your country lately?" kind of sums it up. Wikipedia doesn't exist for the purpose of doing something for your country. Mandsford (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WP:AFD nomination Politics of Gatineau Park - Several contributors to this debate have asked about this article. Following the recommndations of User:MilborneOne it has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are invited to participate in the AFD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park. - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt, the manic, and his little lynch mob ride again.--Stoneacres (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stoneacres: please read WP:CIVIL, which says: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few, minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." You are required to be civil hereand your insults and personal attacks are not acceptable. - Ahunt (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By creating, I meant creating a link to be filled in. And I didn't do that. And if you didn't then I withdraw the claim.

However, bottom line, Ahunt has been on a rampage to out members of the GPPC/NWPL. And I still believe he has been canvassing to have the articles deleted--even if the evidence clearly contradicts his main argument: that they are not notable.

I have provided ample notability evidence; yet Ahunt keeps saying they are "superficial."

Wow... --Stoneacres (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:RS and WP:N. If there is substantial coverage by a non-local news organization, list it and I will consider changing my vote. Racepacket (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. CBC, CTV, the Ottawa Citizen, The Ottawa Sun, Radio Canada, etc. Which part of these national organizations which have covered the NWPL/GPPC is not notable. Have you read the list I provided? Or have you just jumped onto the deletion bandwagon?

According to the Wikipedia references above, that list more than confirms the notability of the organizations. The GPPC/NWPL are not notable in terms of how many members they have; they are notable in terms of what they have achieved, both in terms of effective change to a sorry situation, and in terms of providing the public an accurate picture of what is going on.

Have they served the public interest? Yes. Have they broadened knowledge of an issue? Indubitably. Would it serve knowledge to expunge them from Wikipedia? You decide.

And let the darkness fall all round...--Stoneacres (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sourcing does not show notability for this group -- Whpq (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete" (I've removed my previous comment, as no one else has commented on it yet). While the Senate committee records are somewhat persuasive, they alone are not enough to establish notability. And the NCC honours and Citizen cite for Sparks in no way establish notability for this organization. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was about to comment that though the Citizen article does credit Murray with a role in recognising Percy Sparks, but it does not appear to mention the NWPL in any way. Note that I can't find the entire article, but this quote shows that, as far as the Citizen is concerned, the NWPL was not involved. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes at this point there seems to be more of a case for an article about Murray as a notable activist and historian. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mnelson: If you read the sources I provided, you would have seen that NCC Chairman Beaudry mentioned the NWPL in his speech dedicating the Sparks Hall. The whole reason the NCC dedicated the Sparks Hall was as a result of the presentation the NWPL made to the board in 2003. Ergo: the Citizen article is about the achievement of the NWPL. Although it mentions Murray, it is mentioning his activities as NWPL member.

Radically changing the official history of Gatineau Park, not notable? 50 news articles, not notable?

Below is the full article on the Sparks Hall dedication. Recognizing Murray's contribution as NWPL member--though not mentioning it by name. And Murray's guest column which the Citizen article references below was signed "Jean-Paul Murray is vice-president of the NWPL."

Not notable? You should do proper research before making unfounded statements advancing your ... point of view--Stoneacres (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting the entire content of that article.

I stand by the Citizen not identifying the NWPL as the source of the NCC's action. Even though at one location it says that Murray caused the change, and at another says that Murray is the vice-president of the NWPL, it is synthesis to connect the two (from WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"). It is not explicitly stated by any single source that the NWPL caused the NCC to recognise Sparks. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MNelson: You are way off. How can you say it is synthesis, when I provided you with evidence that the Sparks Hall was dedicated as a result of NWPL efforts?

Here it is again:Notes pour une allocution de Marcel Beaudry, président de la Commission de la capitale nationale, à l’occasion de l’inauguration de la Salle Roderick Percy Sparks, Le vendredi 8 juillet 2005, Centre des visiteurs du parc de la Gatineau, 10 h 30

Note: the professors did not conclude that Sparks had a dominant role in creating the park, since their study was terribly flawed. Mr. Beaudry saw the evidence the NWPL presented and contradicted the study to acknowledge the NWPL was right. You might read the study yourself to see I'm right, or continue making unfounded claims.

Below is Murray's critique of the professors study. His research was presented to the NCC as NWPL research. --Stoneacres (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentionned before, the Citizen still does not identify the NWPL as the source of the NCC's action.

The NCC's chairman Beaudry does credit the NWPL as "highlighting the role of Mr. Sparks". However, the Beaudry is clear that "as a result of [the NWPL's] comments, [the study was commissioned]", and that the NCC is recognizing Sparks "as a result of the study". Though Beaudry says that "A resulted in B" and "B resulted in C", he does not say that "A resulted in C"; as such, a proper summary would be that "due to NWPL efforts, the NCC commissionned a study (later criticised by Murray) that resulted in the recognition of Sparks."

I don't think that this determines notability; the recognition of Sparks seems to be a relatively minor event (no major news coverage; Google News archive searches [22][23][24] show no items relating to this Percy Sparks, let alone his recognition), and as I explained earlier, the NWPL was not directly responsible for his recognition (the study was). -M.Nelson (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay MNelson: prepare to apologize for uttering a falsehood. You should research before talking. Read the study: and then I dare you to say that the study was responsible for the recognition of Percy Sparks.http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/data/2/rec_docs/1663_gatineau_study_e.pdf. Do you ever read stuff before jumping to illogical, unfounded conclusions?

You did not explain that the NWPL was not directly responsible. You claimed it without any evidence or logic. The study was commissioned as a result of NWPL research and presentation to the board. The NWPL handed all its voluminous research to the NCC following its May 2003 presentation to the board. The professors took all that research, adding almost nothing that the NWPL hadn't given them, and changed the conclusion that Sparks was a significant player--being paid $23,000 for using our research. Had you read the material I sent you, instead of pushing your deletion agenda, you would have realized this.

Even the Citizen, in an editorial, recognized the NWPL work. That you can't find a good deal of news coverage on this only testifies to your limited research skills.

Your latest contribution lacks logic and credibility.

Whim and prejudice are no substitute for facts and truth... --Stoneacres (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I find it laughable that you consider my latest contribution to lack logic and credibility; since you have not done anything to disprove my points, I'll simply reword them in hopes that you'll understand what I'm getting at.

I have explained that in the Citizen item, "It is not explicitly stated by any single source that the NWPL caused the NCC to recognise Sparks." Using two separate conclusions (Murray caused the NCC to change; Murray is vice-president of NWPL) to reach a third conclusion (NWPL caused the change) is synthesis. This third conclusion is "not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (from WP:SYNTHESIS, please read!).

Beaudry's speech does not say that the NWPL was directly responsible for the recognition of Sparks; if you have read the speech, I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise. As I clearly stated before, Beaudry says that the NWPL resulted in the study's commissioning, and the study resulted in the recognition of Sparks. This is what I refer to as being 'indirectly responsible'. He did not say that the NWPL resulted in the recognition of Sparks, which would make it direct.

Even if the NWPL was directly responsible for the recognition of Sparks (as I have explained above, sources say it was not), one Citizen article is not "significant coverage" per WP:NOTABLE, and an editorial carries even less weight. From WP:RELIABLE, "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact".

Though I am honoured to be treated to similar ad hominem attacks as Ahunt (whose editing I greatly respect), might I recommend that you refrain from such comments in the future (my "limited research skills"); they do nothing to advance the discussion, and some editors might consider you to be a bit uncivil. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are a lot of weak arguments expressed here boiling down to I like them or I don't like them. The debate has also brought a lot of comments from new users, users who have not edited for a long time, and one sockpuppet. Even doing some heavy discounting however there is a real disagreement here between two reasonable views. Either there is no (or insufficient) notability outside of the X Factor, or alternatively that the coverage is strong enough to merit a separate article. Neither argument has gained a strong consensus here. Given this, no consensus (with perhaps a very slight lean towards keeping), is the only outcome here. This should not prejudice taking another look some months down the line when another, hopefully more dispassionate, decision can be reached. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jedward

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

Procedural nomination. This article has been repeatedly switched to and from a redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6). That target contains bios of all the X Factor finalists and opinion is divided as to whether an independent article over and above that is justified for this act. Discussion was started at Talk:List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6)#John and Edward - independent notability? but despite this, and despite the fact AfD is not the best venue for discussion redirect vs keep, warring continued with calls for the matter to be settled at AfD. Raising accordingly. I42 (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2009 (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}}.

Delete and redirect. It is the show, the show creator's ability to keep it in the press, and the public unexpectedly voting for the act, which is notable - not the act itself (which is generally regarded as somewhat unremarkable). The act itself is almost a bystander in the whole event - and is certainly no more remarkable than any other of the acts. In addition, no matter how much coverage the performances by this act gain, there is still no independent notability - it is all related to the X Factor. Of course, this act may well go on to attain indpendent notability but it has not done so yet and we cannot assume it will. The inclusion of a bio with all the other act bios is right and appropriate, and a redirect to that page useful for navigation and search. I42 (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contestants on a reality show who are largely featured in the press. News about them comes everyday, whether it's controversy or not. They do have a singing disability, but have proved popular within audiences, and appear to be the most popular contestants. (Hassaan19 (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.17.10 (talk) [reply]

Do you have any Wikipedia policies which are part of "they are popular with audiences"? Darrenhusted (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent notability. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They have recieved more media attention than any of the other 2009 contestants, whether you love them or hate them everyone is talking about them, they are in the news everyday. Putting their information on the X Factor page would have that page all cluttered up as their is too much info on them. Reli source —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. This is a very relevant article and these two are very popular and a Jedward article is very much in line with everything Wikipedia stands for. --Netwhizkid (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They're crap, but they're famous now and have received lots of coverage, so unfortunately they're notable. I think they're still officially called John & Edward though, so the article should probably be moved.--Michig (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Grimes twins have undoubtedly been one of the most publicised contestants of the X factor not just this year but i previous years. After the show has finished they are very likely to be succesful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinking-pink (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jedward is fast becoming an autnomous cultural phenomenon outside of the show which spawned it, despite the show still airing. Much as Susan Boyle with Britain's Got Talent. The distinctive style, embracing by public figures of the Jedward myth from New Labour, the constant debate, controversy and even the making of Jedward dolls, the rush to copy the Jeward style of hair which itself has been christened the Jedward, the unending interest from all aspects of the public and media both positive and negative, sets the twins as vastly apart from the X Factor and indeed the other contestants.

The relentless media attention to Jedward not only from the tabloids but broadsheets, the bidding wars and offers to sign the twins - from the BBC, Nickleodeon, Disney to name but a few means that Jedward is a cultural movement that is deserving of an independent entry of its own. Even if it does end and the twins don't go on to achieve fame outside of the X Factor or don't fulfil the potential spoken about them for careers in the media the phenomenon that is Jedward deserves to be chronicled for what it was when it happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimmois (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC) — Kimmois (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unending interest? Every time X Factor or Britain's Got Talent come round there is a flurry of media attention, and it quickly fades. Some of the acts go on to become notable, most do not. We cannot currently predict which way things will go for this two. Wikipedia is not a news site or a fan site. I42 (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question - Isn't it possible to redirect the page to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6), then lock the page to prevent people from moving it back? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is possible. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Notability what so ever. Yes there on currently on The X Factor but i think a redirect is in need. --NowIKnow24 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - should be John and Edward. EddieBernard (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability, media coverage from across the board of a talent show does not constitute wiki notability. For me, the article meets notabilty if they have a moderately succesful music career and/or discography, these guys do not. They are only know for their shocking performances they put on every Saturday night, such as the spinechilling Oops!... I Did It Again.PhilOak (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like it or not, they HAVE enterered the public consciousness - witness the "Jedward 4 Life" and "Jedward 3:16" banners at the recent WWE Raw and Smackdown shows recorded in the UK. TommyDGNR8 (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)— TommyDNGR8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Swift Delete Paper thin "popularity" and presuming and off-the-cuff/tabloid sources. Robbie Williams and David Beckham taking their hairstyles? That might be the worst thing I have seen make it onto Wikipedia. --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually, they do deserve a wiki page, as they are fast becoming celebrities. Hardly a day goes by without seeing them in the paper. They will NOT win the X Factor this year, but they are the main highlight of the series. By the way Anomeproject, thank you so much for deleting my original article, and allowing another person to keep theirs. Jemmabond (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They have received a huge amount of press coverage. Definitely notable (and talentless). Reminds me of the old Kit Kat ad, "You can't sing, you can't play, you look awful ... You'll go a long way!" Snappy (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wish that they just died, but they're now in the public eye. Much smaller bands have wikipedia articles, and are way less popular than these two. I do feel that it needs to be re-directed and re-written. --milesaaway (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller bands have released albums or met the guidelines for WP:MUSICIAN. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ditto the above, but they are notable, therefore no problem keeping this article. Seth Whales (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller bands have released albums or met the guidelines for WP:MUSICIAN. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for the time being: they have achieved a degree of notability beyond that of ordinary talent show contestants, akin to that of the Cheeky Girls. Robofish (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Redirect: Don't deserve an article, as they haven't yet been notable for ANYTHING except appearing in a talent show. If they bring out an album, then yes, they can have an article. But for now, that's my opinion. Pic Editor960 (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They just got voted out..so there's no need for this article! 86.169.175.255 (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they're surely one of the biggest UK entertainment industry stories this year. — Pretzels^Hii! 00:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Keep, Keep They established notoreity for sure. But of course it should be renamed John & Edward. Jedward is not acceptable. werldwayd (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE Jedward are only known for appearing on a talent show. Nothing more then that. Unlike someone as Olly Murs who has also appeared on Deal or No Deal in the UK. Why should Jedward be recognised any more then Olly, Danyl, Jamie, Stacey, Lucie, Miss Frank or any other X Factor finalists. Unless they win the competition (gulp) or come runner-up/third place or even get a record contract (sending the company bust) these talentless freak's should not have an article. Take a look at Susan Boyle for instance, she got an article because she was overnight instantly famous worldwide, mainly in the UK AND USA. However, Jedward are really only known in the UK as talentless little creatures who cannot sing. Conay (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now, if they have lasting popularity give them an article I think that at the moment as they are still one amongst other finalists they should just be on the X factor finalist page. If, however, they go on to win or have long-lasting popularity then they deserve an article in their own right. I think trying to prejudge whether or not reality TV contestants will go on to have long-lasting cultural places is an impossible task. Hesperus (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - they've passed the degree of notability far beyond most other contestants. Dale 19:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete, delete! They are only used to sell tabloids, very unencyclopaedic subject. In a few months they will be forgotten. Not every hype deserves a Wikipedia entry! The same things happen to them as they did to Susan Boyle (her notability was also questioned when she auditioned for another talent show). The only difference is that she is actually talented and got to do a record and was known all across the world - Jedward are limited to the UK (as all the contestants are). If they, by some miracle, win the X Factor or still receive media coverege after the show is over, maybe they could have an article. Until then, it's pretty much pointless. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep - If talent was the issue, then Florence Foster Jenkins would be deleted. I am undecided on the 'independent existence' question, as is posterity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gondooley (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stone Keep - There has been significant coverage of these 2 over the past couple of weeks, even being apart of a no. 1 single, I would think this constitutes them having their own article. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 20:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't watch X-Factor but have read several news articles about Jedward who seem to have greater notability than the show. There are hundreds of independent, reliable sources which cover them at length and so they easily pass our notability guideline. This article - The Jedward industry from the respected Independent gives a good summary of the matter and well demonstrates why this article should not be deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' They've been performing in front of 13 million people per week. Everyone knows who they are, unlike the majority of Youtube celebrities who get their own articles, you fucking morons.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.75.100 (talk • contribs) — 90.203.75.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Merge to article on X factor UK G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 22:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" keep" they are awesome and i and all whom i know sincerely enjoy their performences.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.41.30 (talk • contribs) — 90.219.41.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep- clearly, as they are highly amusing if rubbish- but that is beside the point as they are a media phenomenon who have attracted a huge amount of attention. they could potentially be merged with the x factor article, but that would undoubtedly dilute the detail in the jedward article. frankly i hate the deletionist policy of wikipedia. i'm not aware of how having more lightweight articles on wikipedia takes away from the gravitas of the more serious articles- which would be the only legitimate reason for a deletionist policy- am i wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.7.96 (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC) — 86.128.7.96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep - like it or not, they're really notable now. Deleting this would just be really petty anti-pop culture bias. Coolug (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - Notable NOW but in a couple of months time they'll soon fade away from the public attention. Especially as how they're out... Zsaberslash (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our readership wants to read this article NOW because, as you say, they are notable NOW. The situation in a few months time can be reviewed at that time. But note that notability does not expire because none of the numerous reliable and independent sources will go away - they can only increase in number. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a news site. I42 (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of things on wikipedia that on one cares about any more. Doesn't mean there's no value in the article continuing to exist - if something was a really big deal for a long enough period of time then I think it has a place on wikipedia. After all, there's no limit on the number of article that can live here. Coolug (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:News articles - especially the opening sentence: "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact" - and Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information #4. I42 (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is a nonsense because it is not logically possible to verify lasting importance for something which has just happened. The way we do things in practise is better assessed from the main page where we have a section called In the news. There are currently 5 items there and it is very debatable whether any of them, such as At least 104 people are killed in a mine explosion in Heilongjiang, People's Republic of China, are of lasting importance. It is impossible to predict what which of these items will be of interest to readers of future centuries and so we should focus upon the readers of today whose needs and interests are verifiable. See Ozymandias and All flesh is grass. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we do not include material "NOW because [it is] notable NOW" (which is your argument against the 'delete' rationale). Per those links (one an essay, one policy), we only include material when it is demonstrated to be of lasting notability. Therefore the argument has no founding in policy. I42 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are here because you were edit-warring to keep this material in List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6). That article's topic is more emphemeral because it is limited to just a single season of a particular TV show which seems unlikely to have much lasting interest after this year. But, because you have accepted that the material is acceptable for that article, your argument that it is inappropriate to have a lifetime article on this famous act, doesn't make logical sense because this article will have more longevity than that article. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are here because the bio at List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6) existed already and many people were involved in ping-ponging the separate article back and forth as a redirect. What should have happened is that spinning off of a separate article was propsosed on the original article talk page, but the discussion I started was largely ignored and people called for an AfD in their edits. So, depspite AfD not being for proposing redirects, I raised it. Anyway, I disagree with your above analysis: you are implying that because Jedward are "confined" to a page on X Factor series 6 they will outgrow or outlive it. But we don't know that yet. My view is that when/if they do establish themselves then a separate page would be appropriate, but that hasn't happened yet. Until it does, a redirect is appropriate, and anyone searching for Jedward will be taken to the existing bio. I42 (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of reliable sources suggest their fame will not be ephemeral, this should take precedent over personal opinions as to whether they will or wont. Only today they have been linked in one publication with an appearance on I'm a Celeb and in another it is suggested they will go on to earn £2,000,000. Petepetepetepete (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect — must we have an article for every contestant who appears on what, when it boils down to it, is nothing more than a game show? -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 09:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, not neccessarily, only those notable enough. Petepetepetepete (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the X Factor finalists do not deserve their own entry until they've released something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perthshire2009 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, until they do something of note which is not being on the X factor. The grass around feels mighty plasticky, maybe it's all the astroturf. The closing admin needs to look at the amount of SPAs here and discount them. Lock the redirect afterwards to prevent reverting. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Highly notable duo. Two of the most talked about celebrities in the UK and Ireland in the whole of 2009. Petepetepetepete (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect - Right now, there is no way of knowing whether Jedward will sustain their fame after the X Factor so leave it as a redirect for the time being. 666ph666 (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:CRYSTAL to suggest that they wont and to give that as a reason for the article to be deleted. They currently have a high level of fame. Petepetepetepete (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has got to be my favourite misinterpretation of policy in a long time. Thanks for that! I'm off to write an article about me now, because it would be speculation to say I won't be famous either. I42 (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but you're not famous now buddy, John and Edward Grimes are... Petepetepetepete (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion is that they are not independently notable - that makes a difference. No-one is doubting they are in the press a lot at the moment but right now they are merely a part of a notable show. They may become notable, but it would be speculation at the moment to say they will. I42 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- the event is notable, not the artists. Consider creation of an article once they've achieved some notable press beyond this event. Hazir (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is my opinion that this page should be kept. Even though the X Factor Series 6 page contains bios of the aforementioned individuals, John and Edward (JEdward) are fast becoming a phenomenon outside of the show and are going to be well known in their own right. Whilst some people may disagree, I feel it appropriate that this page be saved from deletion Dean Sharpe (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would keep for now, until their long-term notablility is known. I came here to find out what all the fuss was about, so others will too. EAi (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per heavy coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough coverage to warrant their own article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, accelerating Google News hits, accelerating page views with 5300 page views of the article on Nov 23, the most recent data point available. Abductive (reasoning) 07:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Love them or hate them, they are one of the most discussed topics at the moment. Maybe in the future they'll vanish without a trace, but for now they are certainly notable. Plus, so many other talent show contestants have pages with less media attention/notability. American Idol finalists get pages made for them as soon as they make the final rounds, but these guys have probably recieved more press attention than any 6th place American Idol contestant has. (Kyleofark (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Definately one of the biggest media stories of the year. John and Edward are become very famous, very fast. Other contestants have not been as popular, nor do we know as much about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.195.108 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G6 by Secret. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Winter (disambiguation)

Delete. Appears there is a clear primary, by page views actor has 11564 to illustrator's 34. Illustrator's article also has an orphan tag. Per MOS:DAB, The recommended practice in these situations is to place a hatnote on the primary topic article to link directly to the secondary topic Boleyn3 (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was nominated via {db-disambig} and prod; removed, reason given Page views are not necessarily a reliable measure of primary topic.

Oppose deletion. Dab page does no harm, and serves the useful maintenance purpose of generating an entry in Category:Human name disambiguation pages. Dab pages may also need to be expanded in the future, and no useful purpose is served by deleting them.
This editor (Boleyn (talk · contribs), aka Boleyn2 (talk · contribs) aka Boleyn3 (talk · contribs)) appears to be on a mission to delete dab pages, but is not doing sufficient checks (see User_talk:Boleyn#Speedy_deletion_of_dab_pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel that's a bit unnecessary. I've clearly looked into this and have given my reasons in my nomination. I am not on a mission to delete dabs - I've created hundreds of dabs and give a lot of my time to that. What I am doing with this, is nominating a useless page for deletion, which does nothing but clutter. Boleyn3 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:DAB, since Eric Winter appears to constitute a primary topic from both pageview and Ghit arguments. I don't see why generating an entry in Category:Human name disambiguation pages is useful if there wouldn't otherwise be any such DAB page. WP:DAB doesn't explain why that would be desirable either. BrownHairedGirl, would you like to elaborate? As for 'Dab pages may also need to be expanded in the future', it's a fairly trivial matter to recreate one. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to neutral per Bfigura below.

Keep nominator is actually incorrect: it isn't policy to necessarily delete such a DAB. Please see WP:2DAB, which basically says you can keep the DAB (in this exact sort of case). The fact that there's a primary topic would be grounds for removing the DAB if it was at Eric Winter, but it isn't. Not that I think this is completely clear-cut, but here we gain nothing by deletion, and gain a bit of ease of adding new Eric Winter articles (should we need to). --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Bfigura. I'm no longer really convinced either way... Olaf Davis (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 While the discussion seems to have been a bit derailed by missing templates, discussion definitely ran long enough, and there's definitely no consensus to delete it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish football league system

The stuff mentioned in the article has been put into other articles at length and there is no need for a separate article on something that has already been included on Wikipedia.--ShedEnd1984 (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is in line with the others for (all?) other European league systems http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Category:Football_league_systems . The article I believe is necessary to highlight the links and differences between the League of Ireland and the A championship. It makes the whole system easier to understand. I will concede however that the title is a poor one. I would hope to move it to 'Republic of Ireland football league system' in line with 'Northern Ireland football league system'. KEEP! Fionnsci (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides the title being poorly named, the article itself is completely unnecessary. It doesn't matter if it's "in line with the others for (all?) other European league systems", that's not a valid reason for creating an article. As your first link shows, the League of Ireland is our league system and its article already contains almost all of the information that's in your article. This makes your article redundant. The only information it doesn't contain is your piece on junior leagues, and rightly so (They are dealt with in Association football in the Republic of Ireland), and your "Current system" table which can be incorporated in to the Promotion and Relegation section of the League of Ireland article, provided it's made clear that the A'Championship is technically outside the system. DELETE! Onetonycousins (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "the League of Ireland is our league system" Not true as I see it, the League of Ireland makes up the top two leagues of our league system. The term "league system" includes non league (i.e. A Championship) otherwise it would just be "league".... I created the article with the intention that it is completely seperate from the League of Ireland and that it should not be confused at all with it. It is not about the LOI, it's about the LOI + A Championship + Regional Leagues (to a lesser extent) making up a system. This list includes the all other systems on wikipedia. It incorrectly includes the League of Ireland. If there is a league below the LOI for which relegation/promotion occurs then there should be a page dedicated to it as well as the LOI. Fionnsci (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're making it up as you go along. NEWSFLASH - There is no league system in Ireland which includes a pyramid or connection between the League of Ireland and regional/junior leagues. That is a sad fact and wikipedia is about facts. There already is "a page dedicated to a league below the LOI for which relegation/promotion occurs", it's called the Newstalk A Championship, and the connection between it and the League of Ireland is explained in it. Maybe next season the FAI will officially include the A'Championship in the League of Ireland, making it a 3-tiered system but that's conjecture. This is about fact and the fact is, your article is unnecessary and misleading. Onetonycousins (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, forget the Regional/Junior bit, true that's misleading as no link does exist (not that the article ever claimed it did). But the article exists to serve the exact same purpose as the examples to which I have already drawn your attention. It's not that big a deal and there's no reason why we can't strike a compromise. You yourself have refered to the three tiered system and I think that we should have a single article explaining the links etc. between the tiers. Not much more I can say.....how about you completely rewrite the article (I know how much you like doing that ;) ). Fionnsci (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is obviously just going to be a long discussion where the score stays at 1-1. I'm here with my Pepsi, armchair and sitting back and watching the action :)--ShedEnd1984 (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think there's a need for a separate article, simple as that. All that's needed is a clear explanation in the League of Ireland article and in the Newstalk A Championship article. As ShedEnd1984 and myself have said, everything in your article is covered elsewhere, bar your Current system table, which can be cut & pasted in to the LOI article with a little asterisk linked to an explanation. Common sense. Onetonycousins (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no reason why the article can't be expanded to be similar to English football league system. The article needs improving, not deleting! Giant Snowman 18:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what scope does it have, beyond what already exists in or could be included in League of Ireland and A Championship? As far as I can tell there is no formal structure at all below the A Championship. WFCforLife (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are plenty of reasons, all of which have been mentioned. You probably should have read them before making an ignorant comment. The article can't be similar to the English football league system, because we don't have a system like that in Ireland. Fionnsci can dream up and type all the nonsense he wants and he can add as many random bullsh*t citations as he wants, but I'll revert every piece of it. The League of Ireland is Ireland's league system and it's here to stay. Onetonycousins (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the needless outburst above, Onetonycousins is right. This contains little or nothing not covered by League of Ireland, and the system consists solely of the League of Ireland and the A Championship. Saying that the article can be improved is one thing, but I don't see how it could be improved to say anything beyond the scope of those two articles. WFCforLife (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Onetonycousins, despite conducting yourself in a massively disrespectful manner you seem to have missed my point that the 'League of Ireland' is not and can not be Ireland's league system as it does not extend itself to the lowest division from which a club can climb to the top. If the A Championship was part of the League of Ireland then there would be no arguement and no need for this article.....but it's not. Similarily, The Football League is not considered England's football league system as there are leagues below it connected to it by promotion/relegation. Granted, the Republic of Ireland football league system is on a smaller scale and yes, WCFforlife, most of the information is available elswhere but the same can be said for the articles here [25]. Why only a problem with this one? Only in Ireland, eh? Fionnsci (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't enter AfD discussions unless they are listed at WP:FOOTY. If most of those are nominated and posted at WP:FOOTY's notification page, I would most likely argue for the deletion of those as well. However covertly it's done, I'm not going to stand for being accused of anti-Irish bias. I'm strongly for equal coverage on wikipedia. But equal coverage does NOT automatically mean we should keep redundant articles. It is perfectly reasonable for the already existant League of Ireland article to discuss relegation to the A Championship which is the lowest level of the pyramid. The same can't be said for discussing everything from the Premier League to the Bristol Downs League (and the 20 levels in between) in The Football League's articles. And shed end, AfDs are decided on the strength of arguments, not a vote. WFCforLife (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment aH 2-2 I see. Looks like there'll be no action taken either way. And I haven't voted yet ;--ShedEnd1984 (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a useful article providing an overview of the whole of the ROI football system, although yes it could do with expansion. Eldumpo (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful to keep and someone should expand it because it covers an important part of the League of Ireland.--SligoRovers (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is it trying to cover an important part of the League of Ireland, when the League of Ireland is already covered? Use your head, this article is clearly redundant. How can both of you suggest that it should be expanded when there's nothing to expand? We have the League of Ireland and the A Championship. Two thirds of the A Championship is made up of second-string LOI sides. There's already a mention of it in the Format section of the LOI article and as I said before, Fionnsci can expand it and add his "Current System" box if he wants. The rest of this article is just a copy of the LOI article with an irrelevant note on junior leagues (no connection) at the end. It serves to confuse, rather than inform. Onetonycousins (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A valid article which I believe should be expanded to include the Leinster, Munster and Ulster Senior Leagues at the very least. While promotion isn't automatic, these clubs can still apply to join the A Championship, in the same way that the state leagues are used in the Brazilian football league system. It would also be a good idea to show the relationship between the Junior and Intermediate leagues. Bettia (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable and useful article. No reason not to have an overview of the Republic of Ireland football league system. --Carioca (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content, then delete What is the primary focus of the nominated article? If it is to give an overview over the country-wide entity known as League of Ireland, a merger between the latter and the nominee would be the best solution. If it is to provide a complete overview over all of the soccer leagues within the Republic of Ireland and the connections between the leagues, then merging with Republic of Ireland football league system is the way to go.

As Onetonycousins stated above, the LoI is not connected to the rest of the RoI leagues in any way as there is no team exchange between the A Championship (I take the division as part of the LoI due to the possibility of promotion to the First Division) and the provincial leagues. Consequentially, a comparison between the current modus operandi and football league systems like in England, Germany, Italy, France or Spain, where it is theoretically possible to ascend from local leagues to the top level and descend in the opposite direction, cannot be made. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Soccer-holic, Onetonycousins himself will tell you that the A Championship is not part of the League of Ireland. This makes it a three tiered system as explained in the article. Also, the A Championship is the bottom of the system and the article does not try to state otherwise. Fionnsci (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wow! Once again, we have a few comments that completely miss the point. This is basic stuff. This article is redundant because its material has been covered in, at least, 5 other articles. See above for common sense solution. Onetonycousins (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The people stating that "you can just explain it in the LOI article" or some other article are correct. However, that can be said for every article on Wikipedia, like nesting eggs. If we're merging all somewhat similar articles, let's make one huge "Association Football" article and merge every football related topic into it. Sarcasm aside, there IS confusion among those that follow ROI football and this article, while not in the current state, could go a long way to explaining it. I'm a fan of a team in Ireland and I'm still unsure of the whole system. Just because the article isn't up to snuff shouldn't mean it's deleted. All you people moaning about it should rather be trying to improve it. GauchoDude (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Forgot to add, the United States/Canada has a similarly closed "Pyramid" entailing Major League Soccer, United Soccer Leagues, National Premier Soccer League, USASA, etc. There is no promotion between any of these, yet you can find the article here.

Keep - I don't see the issue. The topic is covered in other articles as it relates to those topics. This - a parent article - allows the information about all those parts to be coherently and analytically located together. matt91486 (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not seeing a strong case for removal. Nfitz (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article was changed mid AfD to expand to include all episodes. I'll delete the redirect, as it's implausible. Fences&Windows 23:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Revamped Shak Episodes

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

Attempted to merge the contents of this article into The Shak and subsequently delete this page, but my edits were reverted by the creator of the article. Pretty obviously not notable enough for its own article. Recommend delete or merge into The Shak. Primary contributor does not have a stellar record. SnottyWong talk 14:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This would it quite nicely with the main article. Not notable enough for its own article. Don't think the nom here should be criticizing the editor's record though. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The creator of this article moved the article from List Of Revamped Shak Episodes to List Of The Shak Episodes and added almost all episodes of the show. So, this article may have become a valid list article during the course of its AfD. I'd suggest deleting the redirect page on List Of Revamped Shak Episodes, fixing the capitalization of List Of The Shak Episodes to conform with the MOS, and closing the AfD. Thanks. SnottyWong talk 12:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Said

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

Non notable local politician, does not meet the criteria at WP:Notability (people)#Politicians as highest position achieved is as a councillor in a small Maltese town. Much of the article is about the alleged notability of relatives and thus irrelevant. Speedy declined. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:Notability (people)#Politicians.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. The vast majority of this article is claiming notability by association. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. DarkAudit (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to notability seem in large part to be claims about family notability. This perhaps says something about Maltese politics, but at the risk of falling foul of WP:BIAS I'm going to go with delete on this one. --Paularblaster (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
save The article is based on a politician, even if she is noble by blood, it is important to display as well. talk 1709, 18th November 2009, (ETC) —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
~~Strong~~ Speedy Delete: Quite aside from not meeting the standards of WP:N, as a local town councillor, there is significant potential WP:COI issues with the family of Said-Vassallo, of which the author may be a member, as well as this article being linked to the website of a indef blocked editor and recently cited by a newly blocked editor who likewise is very concerned with Maltese nobility, whose first Wikipedia edits were three days after the author of this article. Please see User_talk:LessHeard_vanU#Mobile_historian for some discussion on the subject. RGTraynor 15:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Changing my vote to Speedy Delete per G5; the creator of the article, User:Vassallo5448, has just been indef blocked for being a sockpuppet of a blocked account. RGTraynor 17:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from the fact that nothing in this article actually establishes notability even if true (with some generosity it's a borderline case), we have a suspicion of fraud due to an obvious conflict of interest: The source for this person's claimed nobility is the website maltagenealogy.com, one of two enterprises belonging to her nephew Charles Said-Vassallo. (See here for the interesting complete list of both.) Hans Adler 15:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, no assertion of notability, clear fail of BIO.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Yeager (disambiguation)

Delete. Baseball player does seem to clearly be the primary topic 1587 page views to 126 for filmmaker. MOS:DAB guidelines in this case are to disambiguate using a hatnote rather than a disambiguation page. Was nominated via {db-disambig} and prod, removed by editor, reason given:Page views are not necessarily a reliable measure of primary topic. Boleyn3 (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Dab page does no harm, and serves the useful maintenance purpose of generating an entry in Category:Human name disambiguation pages. Dab pages may also need to be expanded in the future, and no useful purpose is served by deleting them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The baseball player is clearly the primary topic, and the filmmaker's article is adequately served with a hatnote on the baseball player's article. Dab page title is not a plausible search term. I might have leaned toward keeping if there were articles on different individuals named Steven Yeager or Stephen Yeager, but none exist. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, {{db-disambig}}. "disambiguates two or fewer Wikipedia topics and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)"". hatnotes do all that is needed. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment'. Per WP:2DAB, "the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless". So why delete something harmless? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest surviving members of the House of Representatives

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

WP:GNG, fails Significant Coverage test (sources address the subject directly in detail). KarlFrei (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the article is kept, it should be moved to List of oldest surviving members of the United States House of Representatives -- Eastmain (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bust change it to currently serving terms only. US reps are inherently notable while in office, but not after they leave. Googlemeister (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really agree that there should be a list, but that's not how "inherently notable" works. Once notable, always notable. Mandsford (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like a random intersection of information. Why would anyone want to know who is the oldest living former congressperson? Better for it to have its own site. WP should be for information of lasting importance. Borock (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per KarlFrei, we need sources which address this topic specifically to confer notability; Representatives may be 'inherently notable' but their ages are not. I can't find any such sources with a brief search. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Comment Please speak solely for yourself. Star Garnet (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

It seems that the only statement of Olaf that you could object to would be "their ages are not". If they are, please give us the sources which address this topic directly in detail.KarlFrei (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course when I say "their ages are not" I mean "I think their ages are not"; I'm not claiming to speak for anyone else. If you disagree I'm happy to discuss it, Star Garnet. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My extreme apologies. I had intended to post the comment on the post above. Star Garnet (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology Star Garnet (though I was more bemused than anything else). Olaf Davis (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Fits WP:SALAT, WP:CARES does not apply. Info does come solely from the Congressional Directory. Star Garnet (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding SALAT, I would argue that this topic is indeed not related to human knowledge. The Congressional Directory does not specifically discuss oldest living members, I presume; it's just something you can derive from it (original research?). KarlFrei (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if kept, it should be renamed, since there are many houses of representatives in the US. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Trivial intersection. Yes, this is a list rather than a category, but the same reasoning applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There are a lot of pages like this in this subject (President, Senate, Governors) I personally don't see why any of them are more worth keeping than this one. Get rid of all of them or none of them, in my opinion Nevermore | Talk 08:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm surprised there's even a discussion about this. We have lists of living supercentenarians, but none of them are inherently notable for any accomplishment in their lives. We have lists of surviving veterans of wars, but it's not like any of them are notable for anything they did on the battlefield. What you have to understand is, this page, like many other pages, is the only place someone might find this information. And just because you think that the information might not be "notable" doesn't mean that someone else doesn't find it interesting or worthy of researching, and who are we to deny that to the world? In the interest of scholarship and the pure search for information, I urge you all to reconsider. Valadius (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It is the very intersection of information that makes an online encyclopedia so much more useful than a printed one. Otherwise, why would we even have wikilinks? We have articles regarding human longevity because it's notable, and of course each individual is inherently notable. If there is a paucity of sources, we should address that issue by fixing the article, not deleting it. I would also bring to people's attention the similarly nominated List of oldest Baseball Hall of Fame members. I have no objection to an appropriate rename of both lists. Frank | talk 12:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to those of you arguing for (strong) keep, I would appreciate if you would at least address my primary objection, namely, that Wikipedia policy requires sources which address this subject directly in detail. (Additionally, people who care about this subject matter a lot may create their own website.) KarlFrei (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy requires that level of coverage? Please don't answer WP:N; it merely states that as a way to presume notability - it's certainly not the only way to establish it. There are plenty of adjuncts to WP:N for subjects which aren't ever going to be covered in detail. Sometimes we have to infer just a little; it was clearly notable when Strom Thurmond turned 100 years old, for example. We don't have an article specifically about that, but if we had this article at that time, surely his turning 100 would have been usable to support the existence of such an article. And for many years he was the oldest member of the Senate, which was also reported. Robert Byrd is certainly mentioned as the oldest (and longest-serving) member of the Senate. Frank Lautenberg is also noted for his age. If these people remain notable when they are no longer serving in Congress, they remain notable for their age; that even becomes more notable the longer they live. Frank | talk 13:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, I was referring to WP:GNG. Reading the section WP:FAILN, it appears to me that such sources are really a requirement; if they are not mentioned yet in an article, it is no reason to delete it immediately, but they do have to exist...KarlFrei (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course sources are a requirement; that's a given. However, I still disagree with the interpretation of WP:GNG, which lists an easy situation in which a subject is more or less automatically considered notable. That doesn't mean that if that situation doesn't exist that the subject is automatically not notable. See, for example, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:MUSIC, WP:PORNSTAR, WP:ATHLETE, and similar extended guidelines. There are countless articles about people of marginal (and, indeed, practically non-existent) notability who nevertheless have articles in the project; think of baseball players who played only a few games, for example. They don't meet WP:GNG, but they are notable by meeting other criteria. I suspect a case can (or will) be made that this list is WP:OR, but DOBs are sourced in the individual articles, so I don't see how that would apply. Frank | talk 15:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:ACADEMIC et al. list ways to meet notability outside the GNG. But a subject which doesn't meet the GNG and doesn't fall under any of those special cases is non-notable by default. Can anyone think of a 'smaller' notability guideline which would cover this topic? If not then the existence of such guidelines is irrelevant. As for citing DOBs - I'm confident that will be easy to do if the article is determined notable, but that must be a first step. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It might be helpful for researchers looking for specific information, but I think this article is marginally useful at best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What I find most frustrating about this is that if every list (which IMHO make up a majority of useful material on Wikipedia), we wouldn't be left with much. There are many lists, such as lists of countries, which require the creator of the list to visit many subsites to gather all necessary information. The same goes for this article. Star Garnet (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having to visit many sources to get the information is fine, as long as the topic itself has been proven notable. It doesn't matter if the laws in List of alcohol laws of the United States by state are taken from 50 separate sources which each mention only one state, because everyone agrees that the subject 'how alcohol laws vary across US states' is notable. What's disputed for this article is whether the subject 'ages of HoR members' is notable at all; once we establish that it is, the actual entries of the list can be made up from synthesising as many sources as necessary. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the Lists of people by age category contains 66 pages, most of which fall into the same category as this one. I recognize this looks like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but...I am confident that knowing there is a category listing quite a number of useful, sourced lists will serve to indicate the general community feeling about them rather than a "that-list-exists-so-this-one-should-remain" argument. Frank | talk 15:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good point Frank. This actually feels like the kind of thing which might come up at AfD perennially - does anyone recall similar discussions we could have a look at to get an idea of broader consensus? Certainly we should be consistent and deleting a single element of the category without addressing its similarities to the others would be silly. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I linked to List of oldest Baseball Hall of Fame members in my first comment above. That discussion has since been closed (no consensus), although it might have been a little premature given that there was some real discussion. Nevertheless, the question of notability came up for that article; I provided quite a number of specific links. Whether anyone considers them useful here is questionable, but anyone is free to take a look. Frank | talk 13:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you did; sorry. A shame it was no consensus. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been defending Lists of people by age since i started contributing on wikipedia (i.g. orginal lists of nobel winners by age I did several years ago). How are they no more relevant then the articles I see on silly Video games . I think my article does serve a purpose, peoples curiosity in facts whether its a vital or just Trivial is why i believe this article should be kept. --Tommieboi (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A similar list exists at Longest living United States Senator, and Wikipedia has many more age lists like this that contain useful trivia about people ranked by age (See: Category:Lists of people by age). Bcperson89 (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a list of living people who have served in the US House. If the list were just that, listed alphabetically, included date of birth, and was a sortable table, then would there be a problem? Concentrating on the age factor is missing the forest for the trees. A list of former representatives is, I think, unquestionably notable; the arrangement is immaterial. It seems a significant proportion of the people discussing this list find the particular arrangement interesting, so there is good reason to think it should exist. If, in the end, the complaint is that this list should be at "List of living former members of the United States House of Representatives", and include a column for date of birth, then there should be a move discussion, not a delete discussion. -Rrius (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but this list differs from your proposed rename not only in organisation but in content: this is just the hundred oldest members. I'm not sure how many living (ex-) members there are in total, but given that this list contains 100 over 85 it seems likely to be a lot - perhaps too many for a list to be wieldy. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly useful - Vartanza (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found this list, and other lists like it, to be useful in various research capacities, and I find it very helpful to have it listed here as such - Esprix (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for those wishing sources that show notability of being the oldest member of the House, please see this, this, and this. The last contains an article from 1957; the quote is: "OLDEST MAN IN US SENATE. Sen. Theodore Francis Green at the age of 89 years, 7 months and 26 days, sets a new record as the oldest man to serve in Congress." (Green served another 4 years and lived to age 98.) Not only is the topic notable, but it's been notable for decades. It's covered in reliable sources all the time. Frank | talk 16:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources give pretty minor coverage though, along the lines of "Smith, who was the oldest Representative, died this week..." The one you cite, here, is a 45-word article in total (as well as being about the Senate as you say) so I'm not sure how 'significant' that coverage is. There's also this, again about the Senate, but it's not clear from the abstract whether it covers it in depth at all. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When something is noted - even in a 45-word article - numerous times over a period of decades, that is significant in itself. Let's avoid the notion that "significant coverage" is a requirement. WP:N states that such provides the presumption of notability. That's not the same as saying it's the only way to achieve it. Frank | talk 17:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing for a criterion of notability distinct from 'significant coverage' is perfectly reasonable, as long as that criterion is supported by policy/guidelines. I don't believe that "noted numerous times over a period of decades" is supported as a criterion; it's not mentioned in the notability guidelines, unless I'm mistaken.

I also don't believe it should be a criterion. I'm sure we could find plenty of articles saying "Senator Smith, a keen golfer..." but that doesn't (or shouldn't) make the topic of Senators' favourite sports notable either. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'll defer to the Keep arguments already well articulated. Pvmoutside (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burnnie

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

Non-notable television program. No significant coverage to be found. Claims of awards cannot be verified. Per this note on Talk:Burnnie, the author's express intent is that the show is "worth promoting" (WP:SPAM) so that the show's owners can "boast that it is on wikipedia (sic)." WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sadly, evidence of WP:N is just not forthcoming. Eddie.willers (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, no reliable sources, no evidence of notability, and blatant spam per creator's own assertion. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CINDY Award verification has been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riddles1226 (talk • contribs)

Comment Award has been verified. However, this appears to be a fairly minor award, with no notability of its own, so the verification of this award does little to bolster the notability of the subject. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dove Award is a major award and has been noted. The low budget nature of the program using local businesses as talent and locations, verses paid actors, is an interesting production feature. Additional information has been added. The program is also unique in its use of illusions (magic tricks) as a visual parable as discussed on the Wikipedia "Gospel Magic" page. Please offer continued advice to improve this listing. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riddles1226 (talk • contribs)

Comment The "Dove Award" that is mentioned links to the homepage of the Dove Foundation, an organization that does not present awards but rather merely rates media for appropriateness according to its own standards. For reference, Dove's review of the episode "Burnnie - Tails from the Light Side: Don't Just Do Something, Stand There" can be found here. This is the only Burnnie episode that has been reviewed by the Dove Foundation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and consideration. We'll make a future attempt when and if the program achieves a more notable standing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riddles1226 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nom/speedy keep I'm ignoring all rules on this non-admin closure even with the one delete !vote. It is shown through the article that this company is notable and will pass AFD, so we shouldn't have to wait another 6 days to get this off AFD. The article has some problems with the way it is written, but the deletion process isn't for cleanup. If anybody wishes to extend this for the remaining days, please contact me on my talk page before reverting my edit. Thanks, TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy's

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

Nonnotable mattress store. ~~Reads like an advertisement.~~ Sources are far from main-stream press. Creator and main contributor has a serious conflict of interest. Evb-wiki (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for rather obvious WP:COI violation. The article also has the heavy hand of WP:VSCA in its writing. Eddie.willers (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has rather clear WP:COI issues, which should be addressed with the editor in question at WP:COIN. The company has been the largest mattress retailer in the United States for years and the article provides reliable and verifiable sources to establish that. The issues with the article are excellent justification for cleanup, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is clearly notable, which is the issue. BTW WP seems to have a bias against businesses. If a member of a political party, for instance, was involved in its article the reaction would not be so strong. Borock (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Sources prove this company is notable. There is even a source on there from a .gov site (and it isn't a trivial mention). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without Question, but does need some work. Will put on my cleanup list.--Milowent (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - possibly one of the two or three best known bedding stores in the United States, with hundreds of locations. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In light of the improvements, and in recognition that WP:COI is not a sufficient reason to delete, Nom withdraws the nomination. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good bold call, Evb-wiki! Let's hope the Sleepy's crew doesn't keep trying to undo the progress.--Milowent (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Disagreement over whether the coverage is sufficient to establish notability or not and a relist has failed to generate more comments to sway it one way or the other. Davewild (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pageant

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

I can't find significant coverage for this nightclub. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name "The Pageant Concert NightClub" implied that it was a night club. Which is true, it doesn't really have a night club feel to it. Howerver, considering this article for deletion would be a grave mistake! The establishment has been in place for nearly a decade and it has accrued a long list of performances by major recording artists as well as small ones during that time.--Bushido Hacks (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major music venue in major city. That there wouldn't be significant press coverage is extraordinarily unlikely, but given the short, generic name it will be hard to isolate. The opening was apparently viewed as a significant event by news media [26] [27] [28], as was its first anniversary [29]; a Google Books search indicates it's relatively prominently mentioned in notable (as series) travel guides; it's profiled in a relatively prominent online music magazine that's also used as a review source in other Wikipedia articles [30]. Last time I looked, we didn't delete articles whose subjects have so many mainstream press mentions that it's hard to sort the significant coverage out from the routine -- and that last is a pretty strong signal of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. The article is nothing more but a spam advert for a non-notable enterprise; delete per WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I've found a lot of references to acts going to the venue, which isn't enough, and I found a few travel guides referencing it (ISBN 076274409X) in more than a passing way, but nothing very strong. Going more on instinct on this. Could be persuaded either way. Shadowjams (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Not really convinced it meets WP:CORP. Even if it is kept, it will need some rewriting to address some advertising issues. Rather biased at the moment. Cocytus [»talk«] 18:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it meets the GNG, as the press coverage I point out and the book coverage Shadowjams identifies indicates, why would WP:CORP matter? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the news stories are local including the magazine. I assume that is why the user thinks that the nightclub isn't notable. Shadowjams was pretty much using WP:IAR. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really think you shouldn't speak for other users, whether you agree or disagree with them. There's certainly nothing invoking IAR in Shadowjams' comments. And your reference to "local" press has nothing to do with Wikipedia notability policy/guidelines; notability for many sub-national political officeholders is often demonstrated through local press coverage. Besides, the St Louis metro area has a population of roughly 3 million, putting it on the same scale as Albania, Kuwait, and Jamaica, and larger than Mongolia, Slovenia, and Namibia, so "local" press coverage is substantial. Finally, you're completely wrong about Consequences of Sound being local press, whether for St. Louis or anywhere else -- it describes itself as being based in New York and Chicago, and its most recent concert reviews, as I write, cover events in Chicago, Akron, St. Louis, Connecticut, New York City, and Washington DC. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Which isn't enough", "nothing very strong", and "Going more on instinct on this" sounds like IAR. It has to do with the guidelines because I've seen many users say that they think that local news doesn't show notability. I'm not in the miniority in that opinion. Usually it's inclusionists that say that local news is enough. Joe Chill (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't sound like IAR, particularly when the user is discussing coverage of the subject in reliable sources. What really sounds like IAR is your "I can't find significant coverage" comment, because your searching abilities have nothing to do with the applicable policies/guidelines [irony warning]. And if "local news" had something to do with policy or guidelines, you'd be able to source it to policy or guidelines -- and you can't, in no small part because "local press" doesn't mean anything important in measuring RS coverage -- "local" press for the LA metro area, for example, has greater reach than national press in about half the countries in Europe. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try finding a guideline that says that all villages are notable (belief of many users). My comment has to do with guidelines and policies because of the sources I found. I don't have to write a paragraph or more about the sources that I find. I follow WP:BEFORE all of the time. So no irony there and I don't see how you came to such a weird conclusion. By the way, if it's not based on any guidelines, why did I link to WP:CORP? Joe Chill (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A user talk page has been created for The Pagent submitting this page (as well as another page I created) to be considered to be part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject St. Louis. I feel like I should have done this when I created this page. Hopefully, more local representatives can provide reason to support this article. --Bushido Hacks (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I'm surprised my comment caused as much speculation as it did. I don't mind either way. It's fair to say it was IAR, although I wouldn't characterize it as that myself. My point was that for the level of looking I did I found some indication of notability but I was a little uncomfortable using only a travel guide as the only source. That plus other things I found suggest it's a fairly important venue in St. Louis, but I can't really say confidently either way. I lean towards keep because of that background, but pushed on the point I can't point to anything more definitive than what I've outlined above. Shadowjams (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD can be a surprising place. Joe Chill (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it. Shadowjams (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Local sources Related discussion taking place here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadmender (nightclub) Power.corrupts (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Album (Arcade Fire album)

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

Unreleased album - prod was removed, deletion per precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Bell. Hekerui (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Band is obviously notable, but I can find no RS to expand this unsourced article. For that reason (unless some can be found), I support a deletion rather than a merge. There is no mention of this Christmas project in the Arcade Fire article, and the 2002 unreleased album was allegedly recorded before the band's 2003 formation. Gongshow ^Talk 18:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Gongshow above. This album was apparently a vanity project for the band's friends and associates. A mention of this album could be added to the band's biography but it doesn't merit its own article. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courageous (film)

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

Fails our guidelines for notability of films at WP:NF "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" - and even those films don't necessarily meet the rest of the guideline: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "The script for Courageous is still be written", so it fails WP:NFF. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – This film is getting dozens of Google News hits every day. This is not a conventional film, and really isn't notable as a film and its principal photography. It is the centerpiece of Christian film, and had a worldwide announcement that anticipated thousands of people and brought dozens of media outlets to a church servive. (Literally, the film has 5,000 Facebook fans overnight.) The film, although yes, it is still scripting and casting, is clearly notable (per WP:GNG), and I've added yet another source. American Eagle (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: More sources added. American Eagle (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secular notability is still notability. Nice work to User:American Eagle for the additional sources which address the concerns toward future films posed by WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- Fox News is claimed as a source, but the actual source is a local website in Georgia which the author of the piece reference works, is this being claimed as evidence of notability? Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've edited that out. If you look on the WFXL article, its logo says, "Fox 31 News", which is why I put it as that. "WFXL" is probably more accurate though, so I've changed it. (The older version wasn't really incorrect, as it is a Fox News affiliate.) WFXL is a reliable source, as are WALB and KWTX-TV (these, I assume, were some of the media representatives at the announcement). American Eagle (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Thanks - I'd say it's still pretty trivial however. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Plenty of reliable sources cited. As American Eagle has stated above, after the announcement, this film has rapidly become well-known, especially in the Christian film audience. Filmcom (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - For several reasons. #1 - Dozens of reliable sources about the film with more being added every day. #2 - This entry will just become a point of contention for those who want it deleted vs. those who want it kept and, as it will need an entry later on anyway, it doesn't make a lot of sense to delete it now. #3 - The WP:IGNORE policy. This entry improves Wikipedia, so it's quite alright to ignore WP:NF, which is just a guideline. Seregain (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I heard about this film today, and soon checked to see if there was a Wikipedia entry. If there was, I assumed that it should be deleted as not be notable yet. However, the film has received a reasonable amount of media coverage, more than I was aware of. Even if the plot and such are still in production, and thus usually considered too future and unconfirmed for an article, the RS coverage sways me to support keeping the article. JamieS93 00:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitrix intranet Portal

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

Non-notable software product, article by SPA. References are not significant and I was unable to find such coverage. Haakon (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising couched in patent nonsense: a business-driven intranet solution designed for Enterprise 2.0 collaboration that includes the latest integrated communication, collaboration, social networking, document sharing, project and business process management, extranet support and task management tools. I hope you don't eat with the same hands that type that stuff. Also web content with no minimal showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Burlander

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

Non notable - article has been created by the same author 3 times now. Appears to be an autobiography. noq (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly non-notable, certainly autobiographical, more of a CV than an article. Maybe he hopes to leverage a Wikipedia article into a better job than his current assignment, "weekend overnights and swing shifts" on a local station, which appears to be the peak so far of his young career. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete - Google finds Youtube, Myspace, Twitter etc, but I don't see the independent coverage necessary to show notability, certainly not to the standard of WP:ENTERTAINER. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. JohnCD (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Burlander is definitley notable as a person who strives to provide quality entertainment to Tampa Bay. He's starting out in his career and deserves recognition for his track record and being the pioneer of new stations - most notable Christina Aguilera Radio. --ChuckySchnitt (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Needs secondary sources. Racepacket (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added secondary sources which shows Burlander's help with launch of Christina channel, see reference of John Hogan.. --ChuckySchnitt (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No need to vote twice - The source you added is from Burlanders own web site. Looking at your edit history, I would also ask you to read WP:SOCKPUPPET to ensure it does not apply. noq (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and please fix your signature - it currently does not link to your account at User:Chuckyschnitt - the "s" is lower case. noq (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Fageria

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

Speedy deletion nomination declined. However, I can't find any reliable sources proving notability of this person. Vejvančický (talk) 07:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A plain google search returns just 10 hits[31], none of which qualifying under WP:V. No evidence of passing WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be provided. Virtually a speedy candidate (WP:A7), but I suppose there is technically a claim of importance here ('famous')... Robofish (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources indicating notability can be found. Edward321 (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Albedo Anthropomorphics. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erma Felna: EDF

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

Article gives no indication why the comic is notable. Sources are nonexistant, and the article seems like it might fail the WP:GNG. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. As the Erma Felna stories are generally the centrepiece of Albedo Anthropomorphics, a merge might be appropriate here; I don't think these stories necessarily need to stand on their own outside of the comic in which they're published. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 17:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Albedo Anthropomorphics. Edward321 (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Albedo Anthropomorphics following Tony Fox. (Emperor (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) @Kate (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Roma

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

Nova-Roma is a non-notable online club and micronation that purports to be an effort to reconstruct the Roman Republic, but has made no progress whatsoever toward that goal. In eleven years, their only accomplishments are a web site, an on-again/off-again newsletter, a few meetings of a handful of members, and a controversial donation of a few thousand dollars to an archaological project. ~~Requesting deletion as non-notable.~~ (full disclosure: I, AFD nominator, am a former officer and member of this group.) . MattHucke ^(t) 19:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Qworty (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least replace with the dab page. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether the article meets the notability guidelines should be a separate issue from an evaluation of the merit of the organization. Nova Roma is cited in published works as part of the modern revival of pagan religions (see the citations on page). The debate should be on whether the citations satisfy the "significant coverage" guidelines. [Edit: Notability was resolved in favor of keeping in March 2009, (see the Talk page).] Whogue (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I stand by my previous statements on the talk page: I think this organization is notable, but the sources provided aren't adequate to support this. Given that the sourcing has improved minimally, if at all, over time, I'm becoming more and more skeptical as to whether the necessary sources exist. ~~A year ago I might have argued to keep the article, but today, I'm neutral.~~ cmadler (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC) See my support for deletion below. cmadler (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a lot of citations on the talk page, but I have not checked to see if they are incorporated into the article. I would also support removing unsourced material, as I mentioned on the talk page. My feeling is that the article has made progress, but slowly, over time, but has also accreted a lot of original research. Getting rid of the unsourced stuff, and making sure that the sources cited on Talk are properly used would to my mind take care of much of the notability and POV concerns. Whogue (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not based on the success of an organisation in fullfilling its goals. From (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made my own connection to Nova Roma clear in the initial AfD request: I'm an ex-member, unhappy at the group's decline. Those of you who are still involved, please have the courtesy to do the same. User:Whogue is a current director of the group, and User:From is its web host; both are advocating to "Keep". MattHucke ^(t) 15:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The more I've thought about this, the less sympathetic I've become toward keeping this article. The core notability question can be simple. Has Nova Roma received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Based on the references currently provided in the article, I'd argue that the coverage is largely either trivial or is not independent, and the article should be deleted. Given the (claimed) scope of the organization's operations, I'd expect that more significant coverage exists, which hasn't been added to this article; however, this subject's notability has been repeatedly questioned over the last 3 1/2 years, and the sources have only improved marginally, if at all. Perhaps someone will find some better article, in which case I'd welcome an article on Nova Roma, but based on what we have now, and what we've had for 3 1/2 years, I don't think it's sufficient. (Since it seems necessary in this discussion, I'll add here that I have no current or past connections to this organization.) cmadler (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources in the article at this time. If more sources can be found then keep it. An organization can be dying or dead and still be notable. Racepacket (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to be mentioned in a couple of books and news stories. The article is way too promotional, and long, but no reason to delete. Borock (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nova Roma is certainly a notable group with members from all over the world (if not for other reasons just for it has one of the biggest and most popular Roman themed website). The article itself is poorly written, but it is way much more referenced than last year. Progress has been made, it's true that more is needed, but there is no reason for deletion. (Member of NR.) --Gonda Attila (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of Nova Roma's members actively engage in offline Nova Roma and Roman activities. The article should be updated and reworded - brought current but not deleted.--JRAquila (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Several of the above "keep" !votes do not address the key issue of whether there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." cmadler (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep here is a notable outside source mentioning Vox Romana podcast, a project run by NR citizens.

[32]User:Shinsen2009 —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It appears that they will list any "Podcasts of readings of Latin and (ancient) Greek texts", as they invite people to submit their own, saying, "If you would like to have your Classics Podcast listed here, please email bmulliga[at]haverford[dot]edu." Also, this "reference" is the height of triviality: a podcast produced by some members of the group listed, with only a brief description (not even a full sentence!), in a directory of similar podcasts. No mention of Nova Roma. No mention of why this particular podcast might be important (if it is) relative to others. Etc. Even IF this podcast were somehow significant, there is no source given for the claim that Nova Roma is responsible for it; the website for the podcast makes no mention of this organization. cmadler (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the original nominator, I feel that the Nova Roma members have been sufficiently alerted to problems in their organizational structure and their real-world accomplishments, and therefore seek to withdraw this AfD. MattHucke ^(t) 16:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added approximately 15 new references to the article and to me it seems now much more reliable. When this debate started, the article had 13 references, now it has 30. (In the beginning of 2009 it had only 5 references, so it is an improvement!) As the original nominator suggested, I suggest removing the deletion tag from the article. Keep the article. --Gonda Attila (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sourcing showing notability located or mentioned in the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Suzukawa

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

Unreferenced BLP for a webcomic author whose creations are all redlinks. No indication that he meets WP:BIO. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator's reasoning. --Pstanton (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 17:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of being sufficiently notable.--Staberinde (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy D. Mercer

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

Fails notability. Minor comedian, disk jockey. Only documented in local publications, myspace etc. Pstanton (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Roy D. Mercer is a character, not a person. Consider Roy D. Mercer (or the person who portrays him) as a recording artist, and evaluate 16 albums on two notable labels, several of which have charted. These statistics are rather better than many other recording artists with Wikipedia. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eastmain is correct, here is a list of his albums that made it onto a Billboard chart, including 4 on the Billboard 200. Will incorporate into article. J04n(talk page) 10:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain and JO4n. I am not sure why the article was nominated given that the chart performance of his albums was already noted in the article. Incidentally, this AfD has also inspired the creation of Category:Prank calling. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trout nominator. There's a ref from Allmusic which is certainly non-trivial, not to mention the large number of charting, major-label albums. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. P. Morgan (cartoonist)

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

Completely unreferenced BLP. Google doesn't turn very much about the author, except that he exists and is a cartoonist. No indication of notability, awards, etc. I don't see how this meets WP:BIO The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed per the nominator's reasoning. --Pstanton (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FYI: previous PROD removed by anon IP without comment. No sources to indicate this person meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 17:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sy (DJ)

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

Non-notable DJ. No references are provided for the article, and I have not been able to find anything, neither under his real or his assumed name. The most relevant hit I found was on Allmusic, here, but that does not suggest a lot in the way of notability. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I completely disagree DJ Sy is a very well known DJ in the Happy Hardcore scene. simply look at any flyer for any large rave in the uk hardcore scene and Sy is on it He is a well known producer and he owns a sucessfull and very well known record lable called Quosh records. This DJ is of huge note and importance!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by R4pture (talk • contribs) 01:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC) — R4pture (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Agreed for all the above reasons. --Pstanton (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I can find no RS to expand this unsourced article. DJ does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Gongshow ^Talk 18:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article was deleted by SchuminWeb under CSD G3 partway through the debate. NAC for cleanup reasons by—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Dick Blue

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

I can find no evidence this person actually exists. I get a handful of hits for Dick Blue Radio Network, but they seem unrelated to this supposed person. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, hoax. Just try searching for his supposed real name "Richard Xavier Blue" or the Dick Blue Radio Network. Also suggest blocking the sock who removed the prod and commented on the talk page. Hairhorn (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gnuff

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I can't find any sources that establish notability of this comic book series. The character Gnuff might have some degree of notability, since it appears in multiple works, but I can't find anything resembling multiple independent reliable sources to verify anything. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an internationally published comic by a famous Danish comic artist. See previous AfD, I think there are good comments there. (And since when did dragons have fur?) JIP | Talk 07:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per above. Given that, it could certainly do with more sources, and the lack of expansion since last AfD is disappointing. I"ve added the rescue tag accordingly. Artw (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searched in Danish proprietary media database and found four exlusive reviews in major Danish newspapers and tabloids, the first in 1986. Will add them to article. The artist is a clear, clear pass for notabilty, major birthday events covered in many media. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article meets WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, is sourced and verifiable. Hiding T 15:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, those are irrelevant. The reason for my nomination is that I believe it fails WP:N. You have not addressed this reason nor refusted it in any way. The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the policies are incredibly relevant, and I'm not sure I understand how anyone would assert otherwise. Given that I stated the article is sourced, I think that quite clearly refutes the idea that this article "fails" WP:N, although I think you'd have to show how WP:N operates as something which has to be "passed or failed", rather than as a guideline which "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Hiding T 15:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Many WP:N nominations are based on negative evidence, and sometimes on quite sloppy searches. Lack of Google footprint should be interpreted cautiously. In Denmark, due to commercial reasons, news archives are not fully searchable, only content which has appeared in Web-versions of newspapers is searchable. But printed media, as a general rules, are not. It's accessible on Infomedia, subscription required. I recently learned that the same situation exists in Mexico, I simply had no Google hits in Mexican media for a person I would expect to be prima-facie notable there. Another editor informed me, that Mexican media no-index their sites to keep Google out - it's a pecuniary issue, not one of coverage. New York Times is fully searchable back to the 1860s, for free, subscription requiered to actually read articles. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. This example demonstrates that throwing out non-English content which passess WP:V based on WP:N concerns, should be done carefully. I'm also of the opinion that it would also have been prudent to consider a merge to the comic artist, consistent with WP:PRESERVE, which is policy, if WP:N was the concern, instead of deletion. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 17:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination does not appear to meet our deletion policy. I can't find anything resembling discussion of the points raised upon the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Surfer (Artist)

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

Not notable. The new disc is his first, and there's no label involved. No sources. Searching for his company "Flamingo Park Music Group" only turns up Myspace, Facebook, and the like. Hairhorn (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO, as well as WP:V... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published sources, non-notable topic. Angryapathy (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, possible vanity article. Rehevkor ✉ 20:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly non-notable, large conflict of interest on the creator's side. — ξ ^xplicit 05:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO, and there's a clear conflict of interest here. User:Silverbeats appears to be using Wikipedia to create articles about obscure rappers, perhaps for promotional purposes. Three of his articles have been speedily deleted – one per CSD A7, another per CSD G11 and G12, and a third per CSD A1 (might have been a rapper, but frankly, I couldn't tell what this last one was supposed to be about). This article, the fourth, is not speedy-able, but still merits deletion for the aforementioned reasons. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Acosta

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

This has been created twice and it would be good to debate it properly, since there is a small category of possible similar articles. Acosta was successful on the TV show Talentadong Pinoy. However, he does not appear to meet the notability criteria for entertainers. Chick Bowen 05:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree for the above reasons. --Pstanton (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 01:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States towns with the same name as subnational regions

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

This is a non-notable article due to the entirely trivial content of the article. The vast majority of the names of the "sub-national regions" share names due to coincidental reasons. For example, Florida, Missouri, a village of 9 people, has nothing to do with Florida. Other entities share the same name due to being named after the same thing such as the Washington cities and Washington all being named after George Washington. Also, it is impossible to be complete due do what could be considered in the list. Should Ohio Key be added, for example? All in all, these just boil down to being a trivial intersection point, and while it may be interesting, falls short of the notability line. Tavix | Talk 04:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Places are named after other places, especially in colonies and former colonies. I also don't think that Lakes, Alaska, Unity, Maine, Unity, New Hampshire, Unity, Oregon, and Unity, Wisconsin are named after a place in Sudan. In fact, I don't think they are named after any other places. This list is indiscriminate. Abductive (reasoning) 05:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, this article is nothing more then trivia. The subject is not notable. --Pstanton (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this was a list of places named specifically for other places, with proof and reasons given in the articles, it could be of some interest. but this list is not that, and is the very definition of trivia.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the above reasons, plus Wp is not a home for indiscrimate lists. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It even has several glaring omissions. One might forgive neglecting Nebraska City, Nebraska, but When you forget New York City, NY... Googlemeister (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Delete It's kind of fun, and would make a great game on a long car trip (or it would have forty years ago), but it doesn't work as an encyclopedia article, especially as written. It would have been easy to research-- basically, you time in "Alabama," in the search box and make sure you add the comma and you get all the towns named Alabama. At least the title was correct, since it doesn't imply that any of these places were named after a state or province. Mandsford (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it, but delete. I added a lot of the places on the list, and it's an interesting list, but ultimately I have to agree that it's trivia and has gotten rather indiscriminate with the addition of all the foreign countries. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:IINFO. -- The Anome (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is really interesting to me, but it clearly violates WP:IINFO, and I would need convincing that some students would need it for research despite the guidelines. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article need not be complete to be encyclopedic. It provides the encyclopedic information that in the United States, people often named towns after the places the majority of the residents came from. There should be at least one article with such a list. People from Paducah, Kentucky moved to Texas and named the town Paducah, Texas. People from many towns in Ireland, Germany, Scotland, England, Holland, etc moved to the US and named towns after a place back home. This is not a common practice in most countries of the world. I would support aiming the article toward such a referenced origin for the place names, as Mercurywoodrose described above, and removing those which are coincidental. Edison (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wanted to make such an article, I think that there would be support for it. There was no research done to make this particular article, not even to the extent of clicking on an article to find out why a little town in New York would be called "Alabama". All that was done was someone running the search engine and saying, "Hey, there's a California, Kentucky; and a California, Pennsylvania; and a California, Ohio; etc. etc. I guess that people could differ as to whether this is an "indiscriminate list"; if it isn't, it's pretty close, with no information beyond the blue links. I have to disagree with you about the origins of these place names being from people who moved there from other lands. In most cases, someone established a post office and the postmaster had to submit a name. For obvious reasons, it's not a common practice in the "old world"; it does happen in other countries (e.g., Cordoba, Argentina; Cartagena, Colombia; Liverpool, NSW, Australia; etc.). We have far more articles about American small towns than about the small towns of the rest of the world. Anyway, if someone wants to make a start by dropping the ones with no explanation for the name -- (start with all the towns named "Washington", none of which are named for the State of Washington) -- and dropping a line for those where there's a history for the name-- I'm all in support of something that is both "fun" and "well-referenced". Mandsford (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a well-referenced page too and would be willing to work on it, but it would need a different name and a narrower scope. That would be a notable topic, but the current list tends to be indiscriminate (I noticed the Washingtons too, and most of the smaller countries have the same problem). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is how can you make an article like this well-referenced? Tavix | Talk 01:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changing my vote from above. Just as easy to start a new article on towns in the US named for another place, such as the place residents came from. In many cases, the local histories clearly state that people from X came to America and named their town after the old country, county, or city. I agree that the list seems to include some questionable and undocumented coincidental namings. As an example, here is a reference for Paducah, Texas being named after Paducah, Kentucky. There are many books referencing the origin of U.S. place names, such as [33].Birmingham, Kentucky was named for Birmingham England, per [34]. Such an article would inevitably start out incomplete, since there are many thousands of such "named after" towns, and patrolling would be necessary to keep out people's intuitive etymologies. Bagdad, Kentucky appears not to be named for the Iraq city, for instance: more likely, a man with a speech impediment sounded like "bagdad" when he said "Granddad."[35].Edison (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cute but trivial. —SlamDiego_←T 03:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cute? Really? I've never heard of an article that was "cute" before... (besides the obvious.) Tavix | Talk 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yippie (lifestyle)

ok not sure how this works but I have to say that the Yippie was a cultural movement in the 60's similar to Hippies but more towards the activist scale. Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin were both Yippies. I have half a dozen books on the subject from the 60s. The term does not mean 'yuppie hippie'. -Ash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.141.35.109 (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neologism. I was unable to find anything on Google News to suggest that any professional writer has used the term as defined here. The only thing I could find was the personal website used as the article's single "reference" and a couple of blogs.Change to dicdef. It took me a while to realize that this page wasn't our actual yippie page; as such, it just bleeds attention away from the actual, historical term. Father Goose (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 60s Yippie is culturally and historically significant. This is Wikipedia abuse in the guise of guerrilla marketing. DarkAudit (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasons, and I suspect personally neologism. --Pstanton (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete urban dictionary lists this as a variant, but that is of course not a RS. google search of pages with yippie and yuppie is overwhelmingly in support of the single, traditional meaning of the term, often "yippies became yuppies" but not the reverse, or of hippies becoming yippies. of course, this may change in future, but this word is not in common use at this time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amended nomination: I was finally able to find two professional sources where the term was used with the meaning "yuppie hippie" (or thereabouts) [36][37], though I still see little basis for more than a dicdef article here. I did add the "yuppie hippie" definition to wikt:yippie.--Father Goose (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 commentor favors deletion other than the nominator, and the song charted on a national chart. Merger may still be preferable as there doesn't seem to be much to write about, but that is a matter that does not require AfD Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halcyon (Chicane song)

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

fails notability. page has nothing but a small opening paragraph Alan - talk 04:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think reaching 28 on the British singles is plenty to indicate that it is notable. Captain panda 05:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the simple fact that the song charted and so passes WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is completely unsourced, and I'm struggling to find any RS to expand the article. Here is a reference for the song's UK chart peak.[38] Gongshow ^Talk 19:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chicane (recording artist). It's notable but take out the WP:OR and there's little left. Can be covered in the artists's article.--Michig (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a song or album charts doesn't make it notable. The article has little context to back up any possible notoriaty. Alan - talk 22:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MUSIC a redirect would be appropriate, and nothing has been mentioned that would make it preferable to delete the article before redirecting it. snigbrook (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chicane discography. Chart position is verifiable, but it's unclear whether the rest of the article is, and if that is removed then there isn't enough content (and possibly not enough coverage either) for a separate article. snigbrook (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Ordinary Morning

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

notability? little content, basically nothing but a tracklisting that could be left on the main article Alan - talk 04:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It made No28 in the United Kingdom's chart, which is enough for it to pass Wp:MUSIC. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a top 30 hit it's notable. Could perhaps be covered in a discography article but let's keep it first and worry about that later.--Michig (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a song or album charts doesn't make it notable. The article has little context to back up any possible notoriaty. Alan - talk 22:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC says "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts...are probably notable."--Epeefleche (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but how does that constitue it having it's own article? Alan - talk 02:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is the whole reason for the focus on notability ... notability means (for WP purposes) that it warrants its own article. See Wikipedia:Notability (music)--Epeefleche (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but if fails wikipedia's guidelines for articles Alan - talk 04:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could propose merging the article (maybe list it at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers) after the AFD discussion is closed. snigbrook (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Sun (Chicane album)

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

fails notability, little context, nothing but a tracklisting and tiny paragraph. Alan - talk 04:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure what version the nom read, but there's more than a paragraph there. It also passes Wp:NALBUMS, which states that "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". It's also helped by making the Albums Top 10 chart overe here, plus going gold as well. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. See also [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] for more coverage than you could shake a big stick at.--Michig (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I agree with the notability arguments above and find the PROD nomination to be curious. Look at the history of the article and it was in its current state of detail long before it was nominated for deletion. Perhaps the nom is in error - in any case this article should not suffer for it. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Easily meets WP:NALBUMS. Coverage from multiple WP:RS exists, and it's an officially released album from a notable artist. Merging into Chicane's main article or discography article is not a reasonable option, so an independent article is warranted. Gongshow ^Talk 08:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another strong keep. The only question I ask here: who on Earth decided it was right to delete an album page that easily has more information - and sources - than a stub article that isn't considered to be deletable? This article helped me identify where "Don't Give Up" came from to appear on a Bryan Adams compilation - without this article, I had no information. Alan, I think you're mistaken on this one. CycloneGU (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far from the Maddening Crowds

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

fails notability, very little content, resembles something that should be on a fansite Alan - talk 04:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviewed by Allmusic, the Montreal Mirror, and several sites devoted to That Sort of Thing, would appear to meet the music notability guideline. Suggest that some mention of the Thomas Hardy novel Far from the Madding Crowd be taken in the page; many who type this will be looking for that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is for the debut album of Chicane, a notable artist who - aside from having a #1 single in the UK in 2000 has achieved several charting singles on the UK Top 75, including two singles - "Offshore" (#14) and "Sunstroke" (#21) - from this very album. I think that sufficiently passes WP:MUSIC. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. See [47], [48]. It was a top 50 album in the UK.--Michig (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. per above (and below).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just because the artist is notable doesn't make his albums or songs as notable. Just abnout every article created for his songs and albums have little no no context in them, and the only claim of notablility is that 'they charted'. They can all be merged into one article, which may possibly make a notable article (or just merge into main article). Alan - talk 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then improve them using the sources that are available.--Michig (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP albums convention is that if the artist is notable, his albums generally are deemed notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the nominator is being too harsh with the definition of "non-notability" in proposing this artist's songs and albums for deletion. I would argue that these articles do need better sources and text. So the better option would be to add tags for Stub, Expand, Wikify, etc. Just because the articles need improvement does not automatically mean that they are non-notable. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Satisfies WP:NALBUMS as an officially released album by a notable artist, that would not be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article. Gongshow ^Talk 07:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the general approach of the WPAlbums group is to keep as separate articles album pages of notable artists.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm with you. I only bring it up at all because WP:NALBUMS states that "officially released albums may (emphasis mine) have sufficient notability to have individual articles", which appears to allow for this possibility: "album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article." I wanted to address that such a move would not be appropriate, just in case someone wanted to go there. And like you said, merging albums of notable artists is not the norm in practice anyway. Gongshow ^Talk 17:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Corner

AfDs for this article:

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

Still "no reliable, third-party sources can be found [...] Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - wp:v -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-08t16:16z

Why not just redirect to IAMX? - BalthCat (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IAMX CTJF83 chat 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as bad-faith nomination. This article was kept at AfD one month ago after a nomination by the same editor. The editor blanked the entire page except for a single sentence and then renominated the article for deletion. As noted in the previous AfD, the article does not run afoul of WP:V, and at bare minimum, a redirect to IAMX is inappropriate since Corner was also a member of the notable Sneaker Pimps. Chubbles (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- wp:v states that "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed", and because no reliable sources were provided before, during, or after the previous AfD by any of the keep voters or the admin that decided to keep the article, I removed the unsourced material. wp:v also states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" and since there are no reliable, third-party sources, I'm nominating the article for deletion until a closing admin actually looks at the article instead of counting baseless keep votes. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-10t18:57z
  - You are challenging a large body of information that is not remotely controversial, apparently to make a WP:POINT about verifiability. Neither WP:BLP nor WP:V support the mass removal of uncontentious information (such as, for instance, the fact that Corner was a member of Sneaker Pimps). Despite an AfD which noted that the article in no way fails WP:V, you made no effort to improve the article using the available sources, deleted virtually its entirety (leaving a single, unsourced, sentence), and then nominated it again - hoping that editors would be more likely to delete an article with no content than an article which, though unsourced, plainly asserted notability. Unverified is not unverifiable and is not a valid rationale for deletion. Chubbles (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references" - wp:v. I first challenged this unsourced article on 2009-09-16, asking for sources. No inline sources were provided, so 2 weeks later I proposed deletion. Two hours later the prod was removed without an edit summary, without supplying any inline sources, and without even saying on the talk page why wp:v should be ignored in this case. On 2009-10-04 I nominated the article for deletion because "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - wp:v. The article was kept despite no inline sources being provided - the closing admin probably just counted votes instead of reading wp:v or the quote from it. On 2009-11-08 I removed the long challenged unsourced material, and again nominated it for deletion. Is 53 days (now 57) not "enough time to provide references"? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-12t12:25z
      - This here establishes that Corner was involved both with Sneaker Pimps and IAMX per WP:MUSIC, and here and here are some interviews...That ought to get you started. Enjoy editing! Chubbles (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: I'm much more in line with "View two" of WP:TIND and don't consider sourcing issues a valid reason to delete uncontroversial articles if the articles assert notability and there is indication that the information is valid. (ie: near-reliable sources, appropriate websites, etc.) That's what the cite tag is for. - BalthCat (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Okey, I'm going to restore some content AND add sources. Please don't touch anything unless it's constructive. --Beao 20:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Does his birth name and origin in the template need sources? --Beao 21:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty much any reasonable search would seem to indicate that he passes the relevant notability guideline. Deletion isn't for cleanup Bfigura ^(talk) 03:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes criterion 6 of WP:MUSICBIO "musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles"; Sneaker Pimps and IAMX. J04n(talk page) 03:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's undoubtedly notable if you follow the guidelines. --Beao 10:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's an even split in whether the content should be deleted, kept or merged, with no arguments outweighing the others. A merge to American Herbal Products Association can be discussed on the talk page. Fences&Windows 23:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yerba Mate Association of the Americas

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

Is this (defunct) organization sufficiently notable? Nothing in the text indicates so, and I doubt it myself. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only coverage of this association seems to be a copypaste article that circulated in 2006. Non-notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. (Regular participants at AfD will note that I try to improve articles at risk of being deleted.) -- Eastmain (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The YMAA is now part of American Herbal Products Association, which a big organization with a very small article right now. IMHO the proper thing to do is wait until the AHPA article grows a bit, then incorporate the YMAA material into it. Also, YMAA references are used in the Mate (beverage) article; that the YMAA is also in the encyclopedia gives some good background on it. Lou Sander (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 09:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-opened this debate as the previous close did not make any sense that I could see. I have asked the closing admin to comment on the matter in order to clarify the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my error, had two AfDs open at the same time and closed one with the rationale for the other. Black Kite 06:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-keep. I still think the best course of action is to merge it into American Herbal Products Association, and build that article up a bit. (That makes a LOT more sense than merging it into, say, The Oprah Winfrey Show.) ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: is now part of American Herbal Products Association, which a big organization. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it doesnt really say much which could be added as a couple of sentences in the American Herbal Products Association article. Doesnt mention anything that the association has done that is notable, the only achievement mentioned is it has published 25 articles on its website. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Herbal Products Association. They merged in real life, right? Abductive (reasoning) 07:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are enough for a stand alone article. The organization merged into another, but the new organization has other issues it supports which may be consistent or inconsistent with YMAA. If they were notable when they were in existence, there is sufficient notability for a stand alone article.--Pink Bull 23:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the 2 reviews in the article are insufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DiscInsert

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

Non-notable software. I'm not sure if reviews in lifehacker and inspectmygadget.com would represent significant coverage in reliable soureces, as I've never heard of them. Nothing significant on google news. Pontificalibus (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Per the two reviews. I previously thought that one was a copy of the other because Life Hacker had a link to the other one, but I was wrong. Joe Chill (talk)
Delete. A couple of reviews but no real evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys. I'm the primary author of DiscInsert, so I'm certainly as biased a source as you'll get on this, but I thought I would chime in about lifehacker. According to the wikipedia article for it, lifehacker has been given many accolades, including one of the "25 Sites We Can't Live Without" in Time magazine. I think this would be enough to prove lifehacker a notable and reliable source. Whether or not a frontpage review of DiscInsert on lifehacker (as well as the lesser-known inspectmygadget) makes DiscInsert notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, I'm not sure. Cheers! Gazugafan (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - A very borderline article, but I think the external links (some of them anyway) just manage to assert notability. Per Joe Chill, more or less. WP:COI thing had me for a bit, and I get the feeling it has a very slightly promotional tone, but nothing too serious, or enough to !vote delete. Almost, though, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 17:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis that (a) the two cited sources are insufficient to ground a claim of "significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources", and (b) nothing in the article or the sources explains why this software is other than run of the mill and deserving of encyclopaedic coverage. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ordinary consumer products get reviewed. Reviews do not establish notability. Miami33139 (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no encyclopedic content. No claim of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 07:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even if it was originally an autobiography, that doesn't necessarily make it deletion worthy. Since nomination, this article now has a neutral POV, and is within Wikipedia guidelines so consensus proves this one is a keeper. Tavix | Talk 22:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Parzen

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

Parzen wrote this article about himself, in violation of WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and WP:SPA. He then went around the project inserting links to his article in a variety of other articles [49]. When he was confronted with his behavior, he did apologize, and requested that the article be deleted [50]. Qworty (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I told Parzen I'd support retaining this article, and asked him not to delete it. He wrote the article on himself without realizing it was contrary to our guidelines. He did so in a thoroughly neutral tone. I believe the article and refs meet our criteria for notability, for his writing work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is a blogger and translator whose work fails the notability standards of WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is a respected and widely published food and wine writer who meets WP:AUTHOR. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Parzen looks like he is wiki notable to me and the page can and will be improved, Parzen has been quite open about who he is and imo has done nothing wrong, I think in a heated moment he asked how to delete the article but I have discussed with him and he is for keeping and improving the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see how it goes here. If it's clear consensus is against keeping he may change his mind, in which case we can db-author it at any time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Technically it would not qualify for {{db-author}} as he is not the sole contributor to the article.

True. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep it seems notable, i see no reason to delete it Aisha9152 (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: scrapes by per WP:BIO. – ukexpat (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with this and this, he's WP:N. J04n(talk page) 03:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject seems to meet wikipedia notability to me. Off2riorob (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, although this AfD has been relisted, you cannot vote twice. Please strike through the above vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neutrally written on notable person. -- WP:COI is not a fatal flaw for initiating an article. "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion." Abent a reason for deletion, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Cassady St. Clair

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

Fails WP:PROF notability criteria. From what I can tell, she's no more notable than an average university professor. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on WP:PROF. Qworty (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Top GS cites 61, 61, 36, 27, 23... h index = 12. Respectable indication of scholarly impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. FTA, "Hirsch suggested that, for physicists, a value for h of about 10–12 might be a useful guideline for tenure decisions..." Now, from what I can see, she's actually not yet tenured and her h-index does not (yet) indicate that she should be included. It's not even particularly high by the standards of that university. Taking an example of a professor I know there, **** ****** is tenured, has an h-index of 20, and has top citations of 143, 130, 98, 71, 46. No one would argue that he needs to be included in Wikipedia. He's not notable. There's nothing particularly meaningful about the numbers you cite. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - FWIW Bueller, Colleen is a she not a he, and is most definitely tenured. FYI: Associate Professor == tenured, Assistant Professor == not (yet) tenured. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note also looking at the Chemistry Prof that Bueller argues does not need to be included in Wikipedia, while he might not "need to be in Wikipedia" would be an obvious AfD keep as he clearly passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Change to neutral, per below. While she is published, I can find no reviews of her work indicating notability for her at this stage in her career. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created the stub as an extension of seeing her name linked in red on Ethology (which has since been removed by Bueller 007 immediately before suggesting it for deletion). It will likely remain a stub and not significantly notable for some time as wildlife behaviour is a considerably "closed" and eclectic field compared to more media or internet-exposed topics like physics, medical, pop culture and politics, and thus receives significantly less attention or consideration of importance in general communities such as wikipedia. That said, despite having fewer publications to her name than most professors with greater experience, as an individual expert in her area, she is a member of various committees for professional organizations within the field of animal behaviour and is consulted by regional and metropolitan councils and media on topics of wildlife movement and behaviour in the south-central region of Alberta, especially regarding her focus topic of human-animal conflict involving fauna in urban areas and national parks. I would like to comment that even other regionally notable researchers in the field of wildlife, however, still do not have articles and this may form, and be formed from, a potential bias in recognition or interest. It is an interesting dichotomy that even obscure cartoon characters and bands are included as content. While the possibility that such encyclopedic content is too niche to be in regular usefulness on wikipedia - and I have no problems with it being dropped - "average university professor" is a poor, subjective and over-general reason to dismiss a person as non-notable. Cite-count is also unreliable as citations are inherently biased on the time since publication and the popularity and size of a field. Exzakin (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, here is popular press coverage of one of Cassidy St. Clair's projects in Telegraph.co.uk and nytimes.com (full disclosure, I'm on the supervisory committee of the student doing this work) Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the same article by Frey reprinted, and she is not the focus of the article. That said, a Telegraph/NYT cite is a pretty significant mention. I also have a real problem with the nominator removing the link to her from the Ethology article as "non-notable" before the community has had a chance to decide. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is she known for? If the article cannot tie a topic into a wider context, what is the point? This is an encyclopedia, not a repository for articles on associate professors who have some citations. Abductive (reasoning) 03:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete on the ground of WP:PROF, because I cannot find significant contributions in her field that would meet this requirement. This is tentative as I'll easily sway towards keeping if such evidence can be shown to me. Tavix | Talk 22:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While the Google scholar results are not bad, they're not strong enough to convince me that she passes WP:PROF #1 — I agree with Exzakin's "Cite-count is also unreliable" but to me that means we shouldn't rely on it to argue for a pass in cases like this where it's not clear-cut. I don't think the Telegraph/NYT piece's coverage (of her specifically) is nontrivial enough for WP:GNG, and it's only one piece (the wording is the same despite being in two different major papers). And I don't see any other reason to keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. To insert my more general 2 cents, "not more notable than the average professor." Ray^Talk 16:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Being signed to Columbia is not enough to meet WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Stunners

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

Non-notable band lacking GHits of substance and GHits. Appears for fail WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They're on a major label, Columbia Records. Apparently WP:MUSICBIO has changed to say that the subject must have had two releases on a major label to meet notability (didn't used to be at least one release, or "on" a major label?), but I'm going with wp:common sense here. Any band on a label as big as Columbia Records is notable. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I do not believe they have released anything via Columbia. ttonyb (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Understood, but the link confirms that they're signed to Columbia. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I agree. ttonyb (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: regarding the above, WP:MUSICBIO specifically says "two or more albums". According to their article, these have released two singles and an EP, and possibly an album (but nothing confirmed), so they might not meet the requirements of that point. -- Bobyllib (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evidently they have only released one EP with two singles, neither of which charted. I'm not finding any press, there was a group 'The Stunners' on X Factor but I don't know if the same as this band. Don't see how they could pass WP:BAND. J04n(talk page) 04:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough albums. Abductive (reasoning) 07:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lady Helen Taylor, which is the target of the redirect at Lady Helen Windsor. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Taylor (art dealer)

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

There do not appear to be any significant biographical sources on the subject. Mere marriage to a notable person is not justification for a biography. The only real claim to fame is Taylor's art dealership, but there is no indication that Taylor is notable as an individual for that reason alone. Dominic·t 01:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lady Helen Windsor. Article appears to have been created purey on peerage grounds; per WP:NOTINHERITED the more appropriate solution is a discussion of Mr Taylor at his wife's page. (In any case, being "husband of the woman who might possibly become Queen of England if 26 specific people suffer unfortunate and fatal accidents within her lifetime" is really a WP:CRYSTAL issue; he'll be notable if and when those accidents occur.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dust. Sorry, commoner. Mandsford (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dust.--Staberinde (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H. Park

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

Fails wp:bio: "1. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one. 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.", most of the references either don't mention him or only in passing, and none indicate encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-09t20:19z 20:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails general WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per above

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sunship - Capitol Records - 1972

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

Procedural nomination. I previously speedied it as an A9 (an article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist) just under two years ago, but another user challenged that today. The challenging user, User:Dacoeur, provided me with a number of web links which attest to the album's existence, but still none which demonstrate actual notability — and he did so on my talk page, not in the article. The band still doesn't have an article to this day. This is technically still speediable as written, but since it was my speedy deletion that's being challenged I'm not going to pull the trigger again without a broader consensus. Abstain, but note that I am willing to withdraw this nomination if genuine notability can be demonstrated or if somebody actually writes a keepable article about the band by close. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can find hardly anything, Allmusic barely lists the band or its only album. J04n(talk page) 04:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ATBLA

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:COI. Original author has same name as article title, and has been blocked. Unable to locate third-party sources for this group. Ivanvector (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The event itself gets plenty of coverage. See this item from National Public Radio, for example or, as evidence of interest from outside the United States, this Toronto Star article. A username block is never in itself a valid reason for deletion, nor is conflict of interest. This search and this one may provide some additional references. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that conflict of interest is not a valid reason for deletion generally, however I agree with you in this case. Thanks for finding those references, my search turned up nothing, and notability was my primary cause for concern. See the discussion on the original PROD. Given that this event has received coverage in notable media, I support keeping it. The article still reads like a promo and needs a rewrite though. Ivanvector (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, one in depth article, and several mentions in reliable source news publications. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response - then where are they? All we have so far in the article is one little opinion piece on NPR which mentions this event (although not by this acronym) in passing. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete - unless somebody can find some substantial coverage and put it into the article, this one is failing verifiability tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the event/association (I believe they are the same) are mentioned in this San Francisco Chronicle article, plus the Toronto Star article mentioned above, and the searches referenced by Eastmain reveal more sources. I don't really want to pay to retrieve the Star article, but I could try to find it at one of the Toronto libraries. Like I commented before, the article needs to be rewritten, but the subject is notable. I was preferring to wait for consensus on this AfD discussion, but I could try to rewrite it beforehand instead. Also, perhaps the article should be renamed "At The Beach LA" since the subject is mentioned by that name, at least in the SF Chronicle article. Ivanvector (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy?) Keep - I once proposed the article for deletion but I was reluctant to do so; I was prompted to give the article a critical eye for COI reasons but the organization was interesting enough I had hoped to find sufficient coverage to show notability. When I couldn't find that I suggested it be deleted. Now that such coverage is found, I'm glad to say I can support its inclusion. The nominator above has withdrawn his deletion request by giving a Keep !vote, but as Orangemike has !voted to delete I don't think that qualifies for speedy keep. -- Atama頭 22:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treasury Department Federal Credit Union

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

prod contested without improvement or any certainty of notability. No claim of notability and zero references to 3rd party reliable sources. RadioFan (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. More can probably be found. – Eastmain (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The dispute with Fannie Mae, the credit union's long history and its large membership and deposits make this institution highly notable. Gobonobo ^T ^C 06:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major credit union. Sufficiently notable (one of the first FCUs to be organized). Collect (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Baptist Church (Manhattan, New York)

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

contested prod. Not clear how this church is notable, other than pastor has a famous sister, References appear to be primary sources. RadioFan (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (Changed to Keep, see below). Appears to be no more notable than thousands of other churches. --MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Keep (Note: I admit that I sincerely dislike the philosophy espoused by several of the better-known ministers of this congregation, but WP:N is still WP:N). This church received significant and independent coverage in "Frank Leslie's Sunday magazine, Volume 13" in 1883 [51]. An early pastor. A.D. Gilette, was later the chaplain of those executed for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln [52]. John D. Rockefeller attended the church and JDR Jr taught Bible class in 1914, while they and the church were under assault by anarchists [53], [54]. The "Lutheran Witness" of 1917, quotes from an interview in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, surely a reliable source and obviously independent of the Baptist denomination, heartily endorsed the criticism of then Pastor Kemp of Calvary Baptist against "social dancing," wherein a "degenerate" man puts his right arm around a woman's waist and holds her right hand with his left, while they execute the "two step," a "deadly danger" to the morality of society. Calvary was the pulpit from which a very noted fundamentalist minister, John Roach Straton preached and had national influence for many years. He fearlessly walked through the redlight district and shocked the Sunday morning flock with reports of what he had observed. See [55]"Satan in the Dance Hall: Rev. John Roach Straton, Social Dancing, and Morality in 1920s New York City (2008). Page 34 says that in 1923 Time (magazine) reported on the "notorious squabble" among the church's board of trustees as they tried to tone down Straton's fundamentalist and moralist stridency, such as railing against "social dancing." He and the church were covered in Time magazine again in 1928 [56]. The church was the base for his campaign against dancing, covered on the front page of the New York Times. After the death of William Jennings Bryan, Straton was "popularly anointed leader of the fundamentalist cause.[57]" He was called "The Fundamentalist Pontiff." The book Elmer Gantry included material gleaned by Sinclair Lewis at Calvary (per p 38 of "Satan in the dance hall.")See also [58], [59]. Lewis also based evangelist "Mike Monday" in Babbit partly on Straton per [60]. Calvary is covered throughout the "Satan in the dance hall" book. Calvary is covered by Time in 1927 [61]. The church was an early example of a downtown big city church in a highrise. It is covered in Religion and public life in the Middle Atlantic region: the fount of diversity page 13, among "important religious structures". Straton's predecessor at Calvary, Dr. Robert MacArthur, was also a highly influential minister and his pastorate there had significant coverage in 1909 as did the church history up to his time. The church's 50th anniversary in 1897 under MacArthur's pastorate had extensive coverage in the New York Times [62]. The older and newer Calvary Baptist buildings were covered as one of 83 NY City sites in "New York Then and Now" page 165-166. Calvary was "one of the earliest religious broadcasters in the New York area" per The airwaves of New York page 168, which is additional significant coverage in a reliable and independent source. Disagreements between the followers of MacArthur and Straton and Stratons efforts gained frequent NY Times coverage [63]. A successor of Straton was Stephen F. Olford, another highly influential minister, who was the mentor of Billy Graham and a pioneer religious TV broadcaster.Another nationally known minister at Calvary was William Ward Ayer, whose radio broadcast "Marching Truth" reached a half million listeners nationwide, and was known for his anti-Communist and anti-Catholic rhetoric. Ayer was, per a poll, NYC's third most influential citizen [64]. WP:N appears to be satisfied by this quick perusal of Google Books. In 1953, Time magazine said Calvary had "the oldest continuing religious broadcast on the air" with listeners in 6 states and internationally via shortwave. Google News archive shows additional significant coverage in numerous reliable and independent sources [65] such as additional Time magazine articles [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71] and New York Times articles [72], [73], [74] which appear to go beyond routine listings of activities or reprints of press releases. In the failed notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations), which represents the views of a number of Wikipedia editors, this congregation and building would , besides the general notability guideline,[75], satisfy "The congregation plays a notable or significant role within its denomination or religion," "The congregation has, or has had, notable leaders or clergy, for whom the particular church has had a formative impact," "The congregation's teachings or theology is considered unique or notably controversial," and "The congregation building has particular architectural and/or historic significance." Do you need more reliable sources with significant coverage? They are available:[76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86]. Notability is not temporary, so if a church was ever notable, it is sufficient. Edison (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, a suggestion: instead of adding all this interesting and carefully sourced information to an AfD discussion, add it to the article! That's where the significance of this church needs to be explained and documented. If all this information was in the article, it would be a far more significant and encyclopedic article - and I for one would change my vote to "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

An AFD is a good place to decide whether a subject is notable. It is far harder for me to rewrite an article than to find reliable sources with independent and significant coverage, although that is apparently a skill many AFD nominators lack. The AFD will always be linked from the discussion page, so someone who is a talented writer and who feels neutrally toward the subject can use the identified sources to expand the reference and provide inline cites. I dislike the right-wing fundamentalist heritage of this church too much to want to spend the time to do a good NPOV article. I am also not that confident in my skill in writing articles. I would be happy to add the online-available refs at the bottom of the page for someone to use in improving the article, without rewriting it and providing inline cites, and the possible need to fight edit wars against those who might think the history adds undue weight to a chapter some might wish to forget, as opposed to fluffy PR release-based articles covering bake sales, recitals, and rallies. Edison (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't feel like rewriting the article either, but I will change my vote to "keep" based on your research. However I wish some of this historical significance was reflected in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

The article should show a balance between current information (which could come from its own website, newsletters, and other non-independent sources) and some of the history, which appears to have the reliable and independent sourcing, though perhaps not all the positive spin an organization might desire. Edison (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied over the best of the references I found to the talk page of the article, and included sufficient detail for each to be used as a footnote in the article. More coverage of recent, less newsworthy activities should be included for a balanced article. Some of the refs and information should be added to the Straton article, which is a bit unbalanced in the positive direction at present. I have added some of the references to the article and included mention of its claims to notability as an early urban highrise church/hotel, an early and influential religious broadcaster, and a national center of fundamentalism and Biblical moralism and anti-modernism in the 1920's. Edison (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! I vote Keep based on newly provided evidence of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Keep Racepacket (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lacking opposition, I've gone ahead and moved the article to List of corporate scandals. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate scandal

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

Delete unreferenced, and so tagged for about a year and meaningless. Our article scandal says "[a] scandal is a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations that damages the reputation of an institution, individual or creed. A scandal may be based on true or false allegations or a mixture of both." So any false accusation that is widely publicized is a scandal according to WP - and the allegations need not be of illegal behavior, just "allegations". There is no end of what then becomes a scandal: are Wall Streeters overpaid? did banks take on too much risk? do health care companies discriminate against overweight people? do luxury hotels discriminate against poor people? is WP itself a scandal with various allegations hurled against it - even being written up in Time magazine recently? is capitalism by its very nature a scandal, as Michael Moore's latest movie seems to demonstrate? So here we have an unencyclopedic article that is little more than a selective biased list of what someone may think is scandalous. - We have categories that are more complete and less biased in the choosing, time to remove this no-value-add page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Keep Although the concept is kind of difficult to define, it is real and the article has useful information. See also: Accounting scandals and Journalism scandal. (Maybe there should be Wikipedia scandal.) Redddogg (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It is abundantly clear that it is not our policy to delete articles because they are imperfect. One simply needs to click on one of the search links above to see that there are entire books written about this topic such as A financial history of modern U.S. corporate scandals. The nomination blatantly fails our deletion policy and should be dismissed forthwith. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might be suitable as a list but not as an article. As an article, the subject is too general to be anything other than a dictionary definition. Even for a list, the subject is very broad and fairly careful inclusion criteria would be needed to make such a list viable. Perhaps this could be userfied if someone wants to work on this in their userspace. Nsk92 (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of corporate scandals, because that's what this article actually is. Unsourced, yes, but a number of those entries are sourceable.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have an objective definition of "scandal" that doesn't let the floodgates of crap in? AIG is on the list of corporate scandals. Is AIG itself a scandal? What scandal? Poor management, excessive bonuses, bailouts - if these had separate articles showing why they are scandals but not the poor management, excessive bonuses, and bailouts at 100s of other firms (current and defunct) perhaps this would be manageable. But currently - why not just add any company that has some "scandal" associated with it: everything from not paying overtime (100s of companies in the US have been socked with that), to doing business in [specify place we find scandalous: Sudan? Iran? Mexico? PRC?], to offshoring jobs and facilities to places where labor and environmental laws are weak (nearly any company), to screwing up the environment generally (again, most are guilty in one way or another)...since we cannot agree what is a "scandal" or such agreement is so flimsy that anything goes - the label loses meaning to the point of being un-encyclopedic...like "pretty people" (you can find lots of references on various people that will satisfy sourcing, but its purely subjective like "scandal" is here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hear you, but the entries can be pared down to the most egregious cases. Abductive (reasoning) 06:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So much for objectivity - if it's egregious, it's in; if not, it's out. This is yet further evidence that this is not encyclopedic but just opinion that people like to have around posing as fact. If we're an encyclopedia, this should go; if it stays, we're just a collective blog. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I notvote delete a whole lot more than keep. This article gets 4000 page views a month. I'm sure some sort of metric can be devised; criminal indictments spring to mind. That and CEOs getting fired. Abductive (reasoning) 18:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I spent a few brief moments clicking on Google news search and its listed over four thousand times! You have various things called a corporate scandal by the news media. Dream Focus 21:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of corporate scandals, which presently redirects to this article. Definitely a noteworthy topic; should be kept per WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT, both of which are part of Wikipedia policy. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless a better article already exists. Possibly rename. This seems a fine topic, if we can capture the most user searches. Abductive (reasoning) 06:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possible rename to List of corporate scandals. Reliable sourcing required. Many corporate scandals have had several books written about them which called them "corporate scandals." The references are in the articles about the scandals, and can be imported to this article so that each entry is referenced. Edison (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Suarez about the importance of keeping out minor incidents where some corporation was fined for some rule violation, or a customer wants to vent about how the airline lost his luggage. Not every lapse or crime is a "scandal." The Enron scandal should be kept, and thousands of minor infractions or consumer complaints should be kept out. That is normal editing, and nothing unique to this article. Instances where it simply states the name of a major company like AOL Time Warner must elaborate what well documented scandal in is referred to. Edison (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could not untangle a policy reason from the deletion nomination. Artw (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Newman

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

Entirely non-notble poker player. Having a single final table appearance at one WSOP event does not make one notable, nor does a single main event cash. Nothing to set him apart than the, literally, thousands of people who have made a cash in the main event and a single FT appearance. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unnotable, vanity entry. 2005 (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search did not turn up significant coverage of the poker player. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Worthless entry. --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please continue merging discussion on the associated talk pages. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought of Thomas Aquinas

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

This article has sufficiently been incorporated into the page on Thomism, and thus is now superfluous. The original author of the Thought of Thomas Aquinas article has agreed with me on this point, and now I'm just awaiting commentary. -- LightSpectra (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down a bit. I've just searched Thomism for the section headings currently in Thought of Thomas Aquinas, namely "Social justice", "Death penalty", "Heretics", "Usury", "Forced baptism" and "Existentialism". None of them is mentioned. This seems to me to undermine the claim that "This article has sufficiently been incorporated", don't you think? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought of Thought of Thomas Aquinas, thought better of it. I agree with Sam the Ghost that there needs to be some time to make sure that relevant parts of this essay are, indeed, sufficiently incorporated elsewhere. Generally, these debates go on for a week. Thus, with some time, merge to Thomism with the redirect that follows. Mandsford (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there anyone who actually objects to merging this article to Thomism? AfD doesn't have to sign off on merges, and it's not really the best place to ask for feedback on an attempted merge. Asking at Talk:Thomas Aquinas and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy would probably be more helpful. --Chris Johnson (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the content has been merged, then it should remain a redirect, not deleted. See Wikipedia:Delete and merge.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 01:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination calls for merge, and there is no serious call for deletion. As such, this AfD should be closed, and discussion continued at the talk page of the target, Talk:Thomism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kevin (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Cunning

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

I'm having difficulty judging notability, but I can't see any independent reliable sources in the first few pages of Google, and we appear to have an unreferenced autobiography. dramatic (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The following non-trivial, independent, third-party sources were found on gnews: here, here, here, and here translated. Should suffice for WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 01:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. The Google news results show others by that same name, but the ones about the music man are clearly notable coverage. Dream Focus 03:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about adding the sources to the article instead of jumping about saying they're there?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Comment: I did, right after I !voted. J04n(talk page) 04:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just unable to see any independent reliable sources in the first few pages of Google does not mean the article is not verifiable or notable. Please view other pages of Google then decide whether it is notable or not.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. J04n(talk page) 13:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNews results presented by J04n demonstrate that the subject passes the general notability guideline.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 01:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epitaphs for the Living

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

Non-notable book. The references provided cannot be verified (no links), and the links at the bottom have nothing directly to do with the subject. Frankly, the article appears to be somewhat promotional. No indication that this book has met the criteria of notability standards for books. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several references can be found using this Google News archive search, although only the Google preview shows what the articles have to say about the book. The links are to preview pages that generally do not include the text that refers to the book. The book won the Stanley Marcus Award for Best Book Design for George Lenox from the Texas Institute of Letters in 1990, according to this page. I think the reviews and other references to the book shown by the Google News archive search are enough to demonstrate notability. The references in the article seem intended to define some of the terms used, such as "medical narrative". An absence of a link does not mean that a reference cannot be verified. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Diffa granted start-up funds it's a good bet the book got plenty of coverage. For those unaware the AIDS pandemic started widespread awareness roughly 1983 and this was published several year later when the disease was still quite a mystery - as it's a syndrome of diseases largely unseen in the "first" world affecting people who generally had heathcare access, etc. I find it hard to believe that at least a handful of reviews in every major city don't exist. Also here are numerous mentions from Google books. -- Banjeboi 03:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage is significant in the books, and I agree with the reasoning that it surely got ample news coverage as well. Dream Focus 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as significant coverage has been identified by those above me. Meets WP:BK. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taras Hrubyj-Piper

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

fails WP:ACTOR and WP:BIO. no third party coverage [87]. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: IMDB lists only two shows, one four episodes and the other a single episode. Even the article's claimed notability is lacklustre. - BalthCat (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cherryl Pelayo

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

I have removed the {{db-bio}} tag from the article because notability is asserted by Pelayo's hosting of the GMA 7 Morning Show, as well as her being a runner-up in Ms. Cebu 2002 and "clinch[ing] the 1st runner up title in the famous Ms. Earth Philippines Beauty Pangeant, Regional Search".

However, I have been unable to find any sources about her. A Google News Archive search returns a passing mention. And a Google search returns only 184 results, none of which are reliable sources; most of the links are from unreliable sites such as Facebook or Yahoo Groups. Cherryl Pelayo fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 03:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of colonial governors in 1872

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

Contested prod. In the 5½ years this article has been here, there has only been the one redlinked name. Not a single listing has been either added or removed. And no article about the single entry has ever been written. DarkAudit (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The problem is bigger than this one article. As listed here, Colonial governors by year, there are lists of colonial governors for every year from 1575 to present. Many of the others, for example most of the others in the 1870s, have no more content than this one does. Somebody went to a lot of work to set up all these lists. I don't see the point of randomly deleting one here and there. --MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Keep Certainly a notable topic, neglect is not a good enough reason to delete an article. I can add the governors of the Australian colonies right now. How 'bout popping a few cleanup tags in there, or assigning the article to relevant WikiProjects? I'll do that too. There's plenty of people who can help fix up articles like this, it's just a matter of letting them know about it. I guess AfD is one way of letting people know... --Canley (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The List of state leaders by year project was one of Wikipedia's greatest successes, and has been taken back to ancient times. Although these are incomplete, I think that these can receive the same treatment that made state leaders work. Mandsford (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's 5 more listings now. Recommend early close, as nominator's concern has been addressed.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 01:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issue here is with how to organise our content, not with whether any content should be deleted. Maybe it would be better to have articles on timelines of colonial governors split by century or decade, but that is an editing decision that should be made for this series of articles as a whole rather than by picking off individual articles for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mamiboy krisheno

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

The article says a lot, but I see nothing indicating how the subject meets WP:MUSIC. No indication of a record label (the album appears to be self-published), no major tours (playing at a Rotary Club event), and ultimately a lot of claims than cannot be reliably sourced. Also appears to be a major WP:COI issue, and primary editor's only contributions appear to be related to this topic. (Indeed, this page was originally a userpage, and there's a mess of double-redirects, etc.... perhaps someone can clean up that mess?) --Kinu ^t/_c 00:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also included in nomination: Mamiboys.

Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. No evidence of third-party coverage. Tevildo (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should this article be nominated for deletion. I see references from third party sources such as online press release. Besides it says that if an artist belongs to a notable organization then he/she or organization could be listed and "Kollywood" is a notable organization in brief its the Industry for South Indian Cinema. Every names has a link within wikipedia and maybe I'm new but still I don't see a need for a nomination for deletion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.199.224.132 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 16 November 2009 — 112.199.224.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per WP:MUSIC. YouTube is not a valid source. A local Rotary club is not a significant venue by any stretch of the imagination. Being "new" to Wikipedia is no excuse for not reading and abiding by guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC, no reliable sources available. Lots of references listed but the only ones that mention this artist are primary sources (YouTube, MySpace, blogs, etc.) Other seemingly reliable sources do not mention the artist and do nothing to establish notability here.RadioFan (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:Music as previously stated above. ConCompS (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough significant coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 01:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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