Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 28 July 30 July >

Purge server cache

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

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

PAIW[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Maxamundo[edit]

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

Non-notable website. No reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems delete. Not notable, promotional, no sources cited. I'm thinking this was a personal creation made by the article's author, and his claim to hold the copyright to the images supports that. Also, the site doesn't appear to do anything. It's just a map from OpenStreetMap. Myeh, our's is not to and all that. Greg Tyler (t • c) 16:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 19:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking notability. I cannot see how this conforms with WP:WEB. Crafty (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was redirect to Roblox. Spartaz Humbug! 10:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Baszucki[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

MySims Underwater Fantasy[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

V Drive[edit]

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

A version of this article was speedy-deleted as being advertising and two PROD tags were removed without apparent improvement. There are no references or sources to demonstrate that any of the claims in the article have any substance; a Google search reveals only references to a kind of boat motor that appears unconnected; no verifiability; this may fall under WP:FRINGE Accounting4Taste:talk 22:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SNOW keep . Furthermore, a brief perusal of Google News shows multiple recent mentions, calling into question the accuracy of statements regarding searches for sourcing. As the book is a recent release, the assertions of lack of coverage are uncompelling and ignore the fact that there will be more mentions by the time the AfD was scheduled to close. Yes, the article was a POV mess when nominated, but that is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catastrophe (book)[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability, references are self-refs and book website listings. Fails every criteria of WP:BK. Article was initially prodded, but this was declined with the reason "contest prod - book debuted at number 1 on NY Times bestseller list and is currently #9 an Amazon". However, online ranks and # sold are specifically not critera of WP:BK. Tarc (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as nominator. Tarc (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as made clear in my deprod this book is a best seller and clearly notable. Hitting at #1 on the New York Times list (#1 hardcover, #3 overall) is about as strong as an indicator of notability as you can get for a book. If that wasn't enough a couple GNews searches: [3][4] reveals many usable sources (and some false positives). What the nominator is really saying is the article as written doesn't have good sources, but needing improvement is not a reason for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly implore you not to put words in my mouth, i.e. "What the nominator is really saying...". I am quite aware of what I have said, what I will say, and what I intend to express to others. Now, did you even read the part where I noted that amazon and NYT bestseller lists are not a criteria of establishing the notability of a book? I have already linked to the notability guideline several times now, and this very issue is also the subject of a discussion on its talk page, where opinion is, again, against such a criteria. Tarc (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well "Article does not assert notability, references are self-refs and book website listings" sounds like a description of the current article and not the subject to me.
    Regardless, being a #1 best seller isn't an official inclusion guideline (although it probably should be), but it is inconceivable that any #1 best seller would ever fail the "multiple reviews" test. All specific inclusion guidelines are designed to be an indication that the GNG can be met. They are a "shortcut" to make life easier. However, any subject can be notable through the GNG even if they don't meet any specific notability guideline (although this book would clearly meet WP:BK #1) and thus being a best seller is a valid indicator of notability, even if not an official one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes the General notability guideline. Dick Morris being ungrateful slime doesn't mean his worthless book should be deleted. Abductive (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep entry but desperately needs an immediate NPOV rewrite. Hairhorn (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per the new admin. Joe Chill (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let it snow. Thaddeus, congrats. If you can't find my yes-vote, then I must have had one of my socks voting for you. Oh, of course a nr. 1 on the bestseller list is pretty much a guarantee for notability. I made some edits to the article for POV reasons, and I wonder how Morris is going to stop Obama. Does he know the president was democratically elected? Sorry, I'll get off MY soapbox now. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehe, thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of what he is or is not is seems to satisfy the notability criteria. Biofase flame| stalk  01:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with alacrity. I have just added some sourcing to the article and a touch of expansion. It now asserts its notability and is properly sourced. Happy thing is, that there is lots more. perhaps these sources were not available when the nominator did his WP:BEFORE. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Rather mystified that people can so clearly weigh in against established guidelines, just because they "think" something should be a part of said guidelines does not make it so. Let's look at the 6 references now in the article.
1, Interview with the author, likely discounted per "..or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book" of WP:BK
2, google books. Are these user-submitted reviews? No critical analysis or review, just a straight re-telling of the book contents.
3, Newsmax, discounted per WP:RS
4, same
5, a blog noting placement on a best seller list. As noted previously, # of copies sold is not an indicator of notability.
6, same
The additions to the article by MichaelQSchmidt are not the magic bullet he seems to think they are, as they run counter to established notability guidelines. This novel simply does not reach the criteria set, namely "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." #1, the interview published by USNews is perhaps on the fence, but even if accepted, that is far, far below the threshold of "significant coverage". Tarc (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood... but then my additions were only the work of a few minutes of WP:AFTER online while keeping WP:NB in mind. As the book has only of late headed best-seller lists, and has only been available for less than a month, I belive that additional sources toward notability will be brought forward if the stub is allowed to grow. Were the article to have been written 6 motbhs after publication rather than only a few hours after such, crtitical commentary from nationally known critics would have filled the article's sources. Considering the nature of the book and the political views of the author, the landslide of commentary is only just beginning... and guideline allows other considerations of notability beyond immediate coverage. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though it looks like a chance of snow I ask that any early closure be put off for the moment, as I have asked for some input over at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Tarc (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I seconded the prod, as the only significant coverage I could find was by Hannity on Fox News. I disregarded the fawning coverage by Newsmax as that's about as unreliable as it gets. Aside from the USNews piece, all the rest of the coverage is in passing. Although it obviously excites some of the extreme right, I just don't consider that this book meets the notability threshold. Fences&Windows 18:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In considering WP:BK's inclusion criteria #5, the author's own notability, and the nature of the book's subject matter, I believe per WP:POTENTIAL we are safe in allowing the stub to stay and grow through normal editing processes... specially since Wikipedia has no mandate that articles immediately spring into existance in a perfect state, and in fact encourages that articles that can grow to improve the project be allowed to do so. It does not have to be perfect now. Considering the controversial nature of the book and the background of the author, a keep and tag for further improvement is a guideline supported conclusion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Larry Drown[edit]

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

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

  • Delete Although I don't think it makes a difference, Drown was a major party nominee for Vermont's lone seat in the House of Representatives in 2004. However, I'm not in favor of inherent notability for persons who have lost a legislative election. Inherent notability is granted for anyone who has served in any nation's legislature, whether its the U.S. House or Senate, or "Supreme People's Assembly" that rubber-stamps the wishes of Kim Jong-Il. I don't see how we can confer the same status on persons who didn't win the right to serve, since it would involve a judgment call about whether the loser of an American election is more entitled than the loser of, say, an election in Costa Rica. Mandsford (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak) Delete - This chap doesn't appear to pass WP:POLITICIAN although a bordeline case might be made for him under section 2. Crafty (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Political gadfly. Definitely nn.Student7 (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Tekserve[edit]

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

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

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. BusterD (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, I'll confess a conflict of interest with this page and this process; I previously disclosed my professional association during admin coaching early in my wiki career. My edits on this page since that time have been limited to reversions of clear breaches of WP:COS here and WP:COI here. For this reason I'll not participate in this process other than to assert notability, and offer to demonstrate this through page cleanup and addition of sufficient and significant sourcing intended to demonstrate the assertion. I urge all involved with this process to look over my shoulder as I attempt rescue to minimize any inherent biases I may have on this subject. I'll use Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies guidelines. BusterD (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment By the ten new sources added, I believe we've far surpassed the bar for "in depth coverage by multiple independent sources." I suppose one could assert the NYT or NY magazine as "local", but the 1992 article in Home Office Computing is a pretty good source which meets all the criteria. I tried to limit my sources to those who seemed the most independent and reliable. I've got fifty others not quite as good. Should I add more? I'm going to begin the text cleanup and try to stick to the sources already listed. BusterD (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. BusterD (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Patrick Colleary[edit]

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

Delete, both as creator of article and for, in retrospect, non-notability. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

E3 (text editor)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This list was originally split off into its own article back in August 2006 when the list of endorsements was apparently unmanageably large in the main article, and editors could not agree on how to deal with the problem. Three years later, it seems pretty clear that this article ought to be deleted, as it violates WP:LC. Specifically: "The list was created just for the sake of having such a list," "the list is of interest to a very limited number of people," "the list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," and "the list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia." Since the main article no longer has the problems it had in 2006 and this article violates WP:LC, the deletion of this list article seems appropriate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per nom, adding the point that the article on the Senate race has a similar list. If there is some information we need to transfer from here to there I'd be okay with a merge, but I'm not sure that's necessary. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete (merge if required) per above; redundant list and article. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This sort of list as a stand alone is not a good idea. DGG (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, assuming everything of any relevance has been merged (or is already included) at United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2006. Have we checked to make sure this is the case? — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Before I nominated this article for deletion, I merged an article about the Democratic primary in this Senate race into the main article, so yes, I can say with confidence that there is already an appropriately sized list of key endorsements in the main article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above discussion. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suffrage Hike[edit]

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

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

  • Keep. There's a New York Times source in there from 1913...and google shows the existence of a non-trivial Chicago Tribune article from 1913. Considering it's 2009...and I found those on the internet...chances are there are more than that. But the fact of the matter is that the article was created mere hours ago, is in stub form, is already sourced...and sources do exist to show this meets WP:V and WP:N. --Smashvilletalk 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment. is it legitmate to take ONE old archived newspaper article and then write a wikipedia article around it? If so, I am wrong eh? Torkmann (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the event and the article. -- Banjeboi 02:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK, I'm an old editor who hasn't done this in a long time, but as I recall, the procedure was to call for "speedy keep" in cases where the wording of the deletion request was such that it made an impassive discussion difficult. Given the characterization of "myriad women's rights caterwauling" I'm going to have to simply vote for keep on this basis. -Miskaton (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources exist and likely more can be found if the Times covered it. A notable enough event with sources. -- Banjeboi 02:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - A quick search of Google News turned up eight New York Times articles, three Chicago Tribune articles, two Los Angeles Times articles, and one each from the Hartford Courant, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and the Syracuse, New York Herald, all dating from 1912-1924. A quick Google Books search showed me thirteen books that mention the topic. That's an amazing amount of information online about a subject that took place almost a century ago. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You listed this article for deletion 78 minutes after it was created. It is still under construction. Since you listed it two additional sources were added and an additional photograph. There is no reason to believe that this wouldn't have happened if you hadn't listed it, and there's no reason to believe that the article won't continue to be improved. (Even when you listed it, 78 minutes after construction, it was sourced.) APL (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above, numerous sources are out there. It seems easily notable enough. Think we can WP:SNOW this? Dismas|(talk) 08:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've noticed...there's no actual deletion rationale to this AfD other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Smashvilletalk 13:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article needs help, but it is certainly a notable topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks like a notable series of events that happened between 1913 and 1915. Coverage in the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, and a handful of other newspapers. Easily meets WP:GNG. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like part of a pointy series of nominations. Satisfies WP:N. Edison (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. -shirulashem(talk) 20:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Misogynistic pointy nomination. Torkmann deserves a block for this kind of behaviour. Fences&Windows 22:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Consensus needs to be based on policy not headcount. Policy is quite clear that notability is based on specifi references discussing the subject in non-trivail terms. In this case there is no reliable sourcing provided and notability has been asserted rather then demonstrated. I therefore see the policy based consensus here to be delete. (including atrout to Torkmann for dissing the Beatles) Spartaz Humbug! 10:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Rutles fictional albums[edit]

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

Unnotable list of fictional albums for a fictional band. Fails WP:N andWP:LIST. Only "sources" are a blog and a fansite. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I am proud to be the first voter for deleting this god awful article. What a waste of time and energy on this list of false albums by a false band that nobody has cared about since 1995, which was based on a real band nobody has cared about since 1972. Torkmann (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how the article fails WP:N or WP:LIST. While the band is fictional, the parody act was not and its activity is notable. I am not a particular fan of the Rutles, but many readers are. I agree it needs more sources, but that's a separate complaint. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Hard Day's Delete This seems to fall under the adage that "Wikipedia is not a joke book". Aren't all of these simply parodies of the titles of The Beatles non-fictional albums? Apparently, there were real Rutles albums, and someone felt that it took away from The Rutles if there was a mention of any of the humor that made them famous in the first place. No, if The Beatles can take a joke, so can The Rutles. Mandsford (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John Cardinal and in complete bafflement re: Mandsford's meaning, above (no offense, I might even agree, but I can't make it out). Torkmann, on the other hand, seems to have dubbed the Beatles non-notable circa 1972, so I'm pretty sure he has some reading to do. -Miskaton (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Together: I would argue for Wikipedia:Consensus on this. The Rutles were a real "fictional band" and put out actual comedy black vinyl. The article, however, appears to me be hopelessly "in-world". The content may be potentially encyclopedic, but at present it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Hope the WP:Admin who closes this AfD isn't swayed by any WP:Here comes the Fun. Or something like that.
    --Shirt58 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a moment to distance myself from the humor (much to be had, and well done too), I want to be clear that articles about fictional persons or events are perfectly legitimate. It's, perhaps, not typical for the WP:MUSIC crowd, but such is the nature of genre-busting. This article is no more or less reasonable than Magical objects in Harry Potter. -Miskaton (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't quite see how the band is terribly funny but ... whatever, to each their own. The fictional band is notable and this is an appropriate child article to the main. It certainly could be improved but no reason to delete even though it's not my thing. -- Banjeboi 16:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Rutles. I'm not convinced this list is notable in its own right; it seems to lack references to reliable sources. The band is notable, yes, but that doesn't mean a 'list of album names mentioned in their films' is. In addition, it's frankly a bit confusing - when I first saw this article, I thought it was a list of real albums released by the fictional band (i.e. like Spinal Tap discography). That potential for confusion is probably reason alone for it to be deleted, merged or rewritten. Robofish (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep...but within reason. It does serve a purpose , in-as-much as any listing on a faux band can serve. "Spinal Tap" is a fine example. My only complaint is there is too much fan speculation. Keep it to the facts. No guessing. If it's going to be about the work created by Eric Idle and Neil Innes , lets keep it in their words. In short: if there isn't a book , article , or liner note written by them...leave it out!( Save the "speculations" ,"guesswork" ,etc. for the discussion page. ) Harvey J Satan (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing wrong with fictional bands (heck, Spinal Tap has succeeded). But a list of never produced albums that link to actual songs by someone else? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If something is misleading or poorly linked that is a clean-up issue. -- Banjeboi 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Joanna Pickering[edit]

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

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

  • Delete - reads like a CV mixed with an agent's cheat-sheet, but ultimately fails to demonstrate notability. It sounds like she's got a career ahead of her, so perhaps one day she'll be back. -Miskaton (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe one day, but she isn't notable yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not quite there yet but someday she may have a FA after she becomes famous. User F203 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all that is noted above Vartanza (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Traffic count[edit]

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

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

  • Keep. The reasons given in the nomination sound more like reasons to expand and improve the article, rather than delete it. Traffic count is an important concept in urban planning and traffic management - there's no reason not to have an encyclopedia article about it. A Google scholar search shows that it is an area of academic study. Gnome de plume (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Gnome de plume. The topic is notable and should be tags for expansion and sources. A suitable merge target can be discussed on the talk page, if that is necessary. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep annd tag as unreferenced and a stub. It might be merged with something like traffic management, but there is no reason to delete it outright. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I'd rather not say keep, here, and am even iffy about Traffic counter which reads like many such pages, "a noun verber is any of a class of devices that verbs nouns." But there's nothing especially problematic about the topic so much as the coverage. -Miskaton (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gnome de plume and LinguistAtLarge. This is a topic that is worthy of encyclopaedic coverage, and while the article is in need of expansion and improvement the issues are WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:BEFORE - a notable concept that surely is verifiable with many good sources and studies. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Gdp. Joe Chill (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Probably the contents of the article on electronic traffic counters might be merged here to flesh this out; but if we have an article on the gadget, we surely are allowed an article on the planning the data it gathers is used in. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to insufficient amount of articles to justify a list. However, points to Torkmann for the use of "simian rampages". Smashvilletalk 21:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chimp attack[edit]

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

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

  • Comment: We do have articles on several other types of animal attacks, so a notable article is likely possible. (The current version isn't it, obviously.) Also there are a few more notable attacks that could be added to the list, but probably not enough for a legitimate list. I would suggest a combination article that talks about the concept in general and then lists specific cases in summary style, if anyone is so inclined to write it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, although it was tagged as a dab by the author, I thought it was more of a list than a dab which is why I added the intro statement saying it was a list. This was not in an attempt to avoid deletion. (Page was originally listed on WP:RfD, but I closed it on procedural grounds after the page's original creator changed it from a redirect to a list). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that this would be more appropriate as part of a list of animal attacks. The continued existence of this article doesn't bother me, but I am kind of baffled that there are at least two chimpanzees who have their own Wikipedia article (Travis (chimpanzee) and Santino (chimpanzee)). The latter one "planned hundreds of stone-throwing attacks on visitors to the zoo" -- one more thing for the Department of Homeland Security to worry about. Mandsford (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, Category:Famous chimpanzees has 22 members. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • and the notability was that it had not previous been clear that the species was capable of that degree of foresight and planning. It has been discussed in at least two scientific articles. DGG (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be so, but the article does not deal with it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is too trivial to deserve an article, even if the individual chimps deserve articles (which is debatable). There are no external citations, and no indication that this topic has received any outside coverage (again, even if individual incidents have been covered, this is not the same as coverage for the topic). JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The proposer of the original RDF discussion for this page when it was a redirect wrote "Generic term inappropriately redirects to an article about a particular chimpanzee...". Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) then proceeded to add a link to one other true example and one fictitious example so that that wording did not apply, and the RFD was then procedurally closed. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @857  ·  19:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @888  ·  20:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient number of articles to justify a list at this point. DGG (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the two articles on chimp attacks can simply link to each other, and I'm sure the article on Chimpanzees mentions them already. Oddly, the 2005 attack in California somehow doesn't have an article. Abductive (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is nothing wrong with the topic in concept, but any number of valid article titles might be consumed by deletable articles. This is just one example. -Miskaton (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has great potential for expansion. Chimp attacks seem to be inherently notable due to their graphic nature. While there are only two attacks listed so far, there possibly may be thousands of notable simian rampages that should have their own articles on Wikipedia. Torkmann (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yes, I know this has been nominated for deletion before, but it's been a few months since the last try, so let's see if consensus has changed. The fundamental problem with this article is that it is a POV fork. Yes, the assertions in this article are sourced, but that doesn't change the fact that this article is designed to lump all the negative things about O'Reilly in one place. O'Reilly is a very controversial public figure — which is why notable criticisms of him should be incorporated throughout his main article, not sequestered into a fork. Having an article that consists entirely of criticism seems inconsistent with the spirit of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. We don't (and shouldn't) have a Praise of Bill O'Reilly article, and I don't see a "criticism" article as any better. Yes, I know that "criticism" can technically refer to either positive or negative reception, but that's not how the term is used here, it's not what the article contains, and it's not the case for any other Wikipedia article that begins with "Criticism of...". In my opinion they should all be redirected or deleted. *** Crotalus *** 19:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As much as I would like to see this trimmed and added to the main article, the current volume of information would make the main article far too large. Soxwon (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's something of a false dilemma. The choice isn't limited to a separate article or merger into the parent article. This is Articles for Deletion, after all, so deletion is an option, also. Granted, there's a conceptual difference between articles and content, but the content ordinarily goes to the grave with the article. It doesn't follow that if the fork article is deleted, the content must go back to the mothership in part or whole (cf. my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resignation of Sarah Palin (arguing that I had added material to the fork that I would delete if added to the main article because of WP:DETAIL)).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While some of the content might not deserve weight in light of his biography, much of it would. We're talking about matters that have received coverage sufficient to merit their own article, at least per WP:N. Much, if not all, of the content is both verifiable and illuminating enough that it deserves weight in the encyclopedia. When so much of the coverage in reliable sources deals with criticism and controversy, attempting to reduce that to "O'Reilly is sometimes criticized" has the effect of whitewashing the record, which is not neutral writing. Croctotheface (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're alleging that this AfD is censorship I think you're overstating the importance of the events listed on this page. Some have made it through a news cycle in the mainstream press, but that's notability by technicality, not significance. Considering that the subject's reason for existence is to give voice to unpleasant but popularly held opinions, detailing every time someone has been offended seems more like appropriate summarizing rather than "hiding the WP:TRUTH." It may be helpful to cover this information in a section on the content of the program, since saying what many see as offensive is a reasonable part of that content. These just happen to be a sampling of those events. SDY (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say "censorship"? Where do you get that from; is it just easier to argue against me if you try to paint me as crying censorship? My argument is that getting rid of the content would not be neutral writing because so much of O'Reilly's significance comes, as you acknowledge, from dealing in controversy. And we could fill an entire encyclopedia, not just one article, if we detailed "every time" O'Reilly was criticized, so that straw man is not convincing in the least. The article details the highlights, and they're very illuminating about O'Reilly's character, the way he's perceived, and so forth. They belong in WP one way or another. Croctotheface (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down. I tend to associate "whitewashing" with hiding pertinent facts, which is censorship. I wholly disagree that these are important topics for wikipedia to cover, but then again I feel that way about most pop culture articles. SDY (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any lack of calmness there, but if there is, it's because I don't take kindly to having my words and views misrepresented, which you did twice. As far as "censorship," I'd never use that term for what another editor does. I suppose it would be possible for an admin to engage in "censorship" by abusing the tools, but without some kind of official power, there really can be no censorship here. There can certainly be whitewashing, which is what would happen if we ignored or minimized the degree of negative reception that O'Reilly has received. Setting aside the issue of pop culture on WP, if O'Reilly the pop culture figure is notable enough to receive an article, then notable events surrounding him, including controversy and criticism, should go into that article. Croctotheface (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to be so defensive. It's just wikipedia. I simply use a broader definition of censorship. I wholeheartedly agree that some sort of coverage of the criticism he has received is appropriate, but like all criticism it should be covered in the context of the main article, not in a fork. SDY (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. It is a POV fork, like most other "criticism of.." articles, which as the nominator says, are designed to lump all the negative things in one place. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't looked at it closely but it's not necessarily a POV fork. From WP:SPLIT: If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split is carried out. The main article is 26KB long. This article is 32KB long. — Rankiri (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's unfortunate that the previous AFDs seem to have been battlegrounds with almost no engagement on the merits of the nomination, because there's a case to be made that this article should be deleted either because it inherently a POV fork or because in practice it will almost inescapably function as one. I'm not ready to vote either way yet, but to my mind this does look like a POV fork. Although NPOV problems aren't by themselves a reason for deletion, the question I think we should ask in such situations is this: if the salvageable material from the fork were in the main article, would I be inclined to remove it for violating one policy or another (paradigmatically NPOV and/or WP:UNDUE? If the answer's yes, a fork basically consisting of such material with perhaps some air blown in for appearances should be deleted. I haven't yet decided what my answer to that question is, but if you have, that should decide your position.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • From WP:POVFORK: There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but it is a common fault of many articles. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if [it] must be used, make sure that [...] is not entirely negative.
Perhaps it can be renamed into something like Perception of Bill O'Reilly (although we do have a big number of "Criticism of" articles on WP), but the article looks well-sourced and Google Books definitely shows notability of the subject: [12],[13],[14],[15], etc. — Rankiri (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't simply renaming it in such a way instantly create problem under WP:UNDUE? All the content in a page putatively about the perception of O'Reilly would be critical of him! ;) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it gets renamed (Public image of Bill O'Reilly?), we have {{NPOV}}, discussion pages and various editing methods to deal with more minor issues of possible partiality. Personally, I disagree that all criticisms are necessarily subjective or biased. As long as they are justified, balanced and fully documented by reliable sources, I have nothing against keeping the article or leaving its name unchanged. — Rankiri (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying that a page about the public's perception of O'Reilly would skew negative, doesn't that suggest that there isn't a neutrality issue with having negative information? If the reality is that much of his perception is negative, there should be no issue with accurately representing that reality. Croctotheface (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And there should be no issue with representing it while writing about the subject matter -- Bill O'Reilly. Separate entries forking content are not the solution to POV wars on main entries.PelleSmith (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has been nominated numerous times and produced very strong "keep" results each time. (I know consensus can change, but if Soxwon is voting keep, I don't think that's happened here.) There is not a better way to present this content. Most of the time O'Reilly receives mainstream coverage, it's in the context of some controversy or criticism. Whitewashing his biography such that we pretend otherwise would be completely unacceptable. The only other alternative would be to drop all this content in his main bio, and that would totally overwhelm what's there. The current form is the way to go; I'd be fine with retiling the article if that's what people object to. Croctotheface (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily, I think that a previous AFD resulting in a keep provides a very strong presumption against deletion (see, e.g., my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allie DiMeco (2nd nomination)). But in this instance, the previous AFDs for this article have focused exclusively on the motives of the nominator rather than the merits of the nomination. That robs the earlier AFDs of any kind of precedential force on the merits of deleting the article. As to the theory that we have to merge some of this content back into the article if we delete it: not so. See my reply to Soxwon above.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any relevant material to the main entry - "Criticism of ..." entries are a problem in general and this is no exception. If "criticism of" something is notable enough it should go into the main entry in all due weight relative to the subject matter. The only way to balance criticism properly is to do it in relation to the the subject matter itself which cannot be done adequately when a separate entry is created. POV forks like this unbalance the encyclopedia's entire coverage of a given topic. They are also lazy solutions usually created because critical POV pushers want to add more negative material while POV pushing fans want to keep the negative material away from the entry itself. In response to Croctotheface, I agree that his biography should not be "whitewashed". Quite the opposite.PelleSmith (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seeing as there's not a "criticism of" page for any other political pundit, I just see it as a POV fork. If there was one for Olbermann that was just as long, I might not protest this...PokeHomsar (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "If there was one for Olbermann ..." would not be a good reason to keep. Also a political tit for tat with no relation to actual notability of said criticism is likewise undesirable given several policies here.PelleSmith (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not policy, and shouldn't be. They represent (at least in my own view) one of the most harmful quasi-norms on Wikipedia, the discouragement of analogical reasoning and the similar treatment of similar articles, with no countervailing benefit that I can see. Similar articles should be treated alike, and according to neutral principles, otherwise we get a kind of meta-POV problem. Accordingly, an argument that "article X exists, so why doesn't article Y" should be evaluated on its own merits, not met with a blithe citation of WAX as a sort of wikipedian thought-terminating cliché. That isn't to say that such arguments are always persuasive. I see users offering bad analogical reasoning all the time here, and I suspect that's where the concept got a bad name on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, although a given (and often unadorned) "if x, why not y" argument may not be persuasive, I object to WAX's abstraction from "that's an argument that's often ill-taken" to "that's an argument that's never valid." In this instance, User:PokeHomsar makes a perfectly good analogy: Olberman seems to be comparable, and is just as much of a creepy asshole vel non as O'Reilly (I think more so, but I'm a conservative; you may well think less so, but pause to think about how you voted in 2008), and evokes similar partisan reaction. So why isn't it a good argument to say that no comparable page exists for Olberman? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from using "a**hole" to describe living persons, even in delete discussions. The problem with PokeHomsar's comment is not simply related to an out of context evaluation of the usefulness of "analogical reasoning". For "if X, why not Y" to be helpful here we have to assume that X is valid in the first place. X and Y may instead be equally invalid. Beyond this other problems exist. The criteria by which X and Y are lumped together may be anywhere from dubious to completely meaningless. Likewise, even if the criteria is meaningful, X may be notable but Y may not be. This is what I was getting into in the second sentence. PokeHomsar's comment insinuates the usefulness of a political tit for tat regardless of notability. That would violate a number of policies as you well know. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any criticisms of O'Reilly should be addressed in his article. Obviously as a "shock jock" he has said all sorts of controversial things, but that could be abridged. We should not have articles like this. Put back legitimate criticism into the article and take out the rest. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about your presumption here that some criticism mentioned in the article is not legitimate. I suspect that much (and perhaps all) of the criticism there has received enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the notability guideline. I'm not saying that each item should get its own article, but the fact that there is so much criticism that merits coverage is precisely the reason that putting it all back into the main bio would be unwise. Croctotheface (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that putting the material back into the main bio would be unwise, at least as anything more than a paragraph or two. But that is not an argument against deleting this article. See my reply to Soxwon above (noting that we aren't obliged to find a home for content from a deleted article).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume good faith and not read this as an attempted "gotcha." Your argument is, it appears, that we should not have the content. My argument is that we should have the content (especially considering that all or at least much of it is not only verifiable, but has notability per WP:N) but that it is better presented in its current form than within the biography article. Unless you're going to begin with my premise that we should keep the content, the fact that the biography is a less desirable location than a separate article does not support your position. The fact remains that much of the time O'Reilly is covered by reliable sources, it's because of some sort of criticism or controversy or feud. Ignoring that would, as I said elsewhere in this discussion, have the effect of whitewashing his biography. It's not really the case that this guy is notable as a TV personality and has occasionally been involved in controversies; much of his notability comes from being involved with (and courting) controversy. Reducing the overwhelming thrust of his coverage to "nothing more than a paragraph or two" would not be neutral writing. Croctotheface (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My position is not that the content should be dumped, but that we should not take it as a given that it must be retained. It does not follow that if this article is deleted the content - in part or whole - must be merged back into the main article. I disagree that criticisms of O'Reilly can't be covered in a paragraph or two - as I and other editors have point out, it can be covered in a sentence or two, so a fortiori a paragraph or two. The movie Titanic expends more than two hours telling this story: "the ship hits an iceberg and sinks, causing the deaths of most passengers." We should aim for a happy midpoint between those extremes. Detailed exposition is not necessary beyond the point where adding words stops adding illumination, and in the case of this article, that point can be reached very, very quickly. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into Bill O'Reilly and prune to fit. It is, was and will always be a well protected POV fork in the current form. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's tricky, but I don't think this is a POV fork, mostly on the grounds that the subject matter can (admittedly with difficulty) be covered in a NPOV way the same way it can be in an article. In fact, I think a good portion of the article already covers the criticisms decently: saying exactly what each side stated while generally avoiding most words to avoid and withholding synthesized judgment. You could go through any of the material within this article and see that it would also fit in the main Bill O'Reilly article, so it's really more of a plain-old split than a POV fork. POV forks are only articles composed of material that is so inherently POV'd that it couldn't withstand to be within the main article. Perhaps you are worried that readers will get the idea that Bill O'Reilly is highly controversial and heavily criticized, but that is verifiably and undeniably true. I am ambivalent about the name-change idea to "Controversy of", but it doesn't sound like a bad idea. – DroEsperanto(t / c) 04:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that O'Reilly is "highly controversial and heavily criticized." Therefore, notable controversy and criticism should be incorporated throughout his main article, not sequestered into another article that treats these criticisms in isolation. If this means that it takes up a substantial portion of the main article, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as it reflects the way that O'Reilly has been discussed in reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 12:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly.PelleSmith (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treated in isolation from what, exactly? From context? On the contrary, I think that the article in many places does a decent job of providing sufficient context, and if it doesn't presently, it can in the future. As for merging it, having the large amount of content in this article simply appended to "Bill O'Reilly" would make that article way too large and unwieldy, and all the content in this article is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, so deleting some of it to make it smaller to merge in with "Bill O'Reilly" would be a bad idea. – DroEsperanto(t / c) 22:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content, which meets all inclusion criteria
Assuming it's a valid split, why not? And one could argue that it isn't a valid split, also. Pedantically, there's no way it could be a "perfectly valid" split, because it didn't conform to WP:SPLIT#Procedure, which mandates that "the new page should be created with an edit summary noting "split content from article name". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.)" (Emphasis in original.) That wasn't done: [16][17]. But I'll set that aside. The more important point is that the criterion for a valid split is the size of the parent article: too large and a split is justified. Presumably, then, your argument that this was a valid split must rest on adding the byte count from the two articles and consulting the "article size" table. That is only a valid methodology on the assumption that the fork must be merged back into the parent article in toto. That assumption doesn't hold here, however. Even assuming that plain old deletion isn't an option (which it is), as User:The Four Deuces and User:Kyaa the Catlord have pointed out above, there is ample room for a substantial pruning and compressing. Thus, we have no way of knowing ex ante whether this is a valid split, because the criterion for a valid split is article length, and we can't know whether the O'Reilly would be too long without attempting to merge the content from the fork into the parent article.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you misunderstood me. I'm not opposing merging or renaming. I'm concerned that a lot of seemingly valid information is not replicated by the main page and that it wouldn't be sensible to just discard it all in one single move. As for WP:SPLIT#Procedure, we really don't want to be that bureaucratic. — Rankiri (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to merger, I'm not against deleting the whole thing, but we should realize that if we decide to merge, the article could be reduced to a single sentence, "O'Reilly has received significant criticism for yadda yadda yadda," followed by a string of forty footnotes. Something less extreme may also be possible. The point is that no matter what the outcome here, we don't have to find a home for all this content in the main article: we can delete, prune, or more-or-less radically truncate both the sourcing and the article text.
As to WP:BURO, see WP:PIMP. WP:SPLIT contains mandatory language; if what it purports to mandate is in fact merely advisory, it should be re-written to reflect that. Otherwise we create a zone of administrative discretion to punish users who ignore the requirement when the administrator doesn't like the edit, relying on SPLIT, or not, when they when they like the edit, relying on BURO. Users must be able to rely on policy being enforced evenhandedly, and while I have no beef with policy being enforced as a construct of both its letter and animating purpose -- I agree with much of The Legal Process and that much of it has applicability to Wikipedia -- nothing in the underlying purpose of SPLIT undermines the text of its requirement. The procedural requirement serves the purpose, acting as a clear statement rule: a split is good, but a fork is often bad and a POV fork is always bad, yet all three look the same. How should we tell them apart? When a user follows the procedural rules of SPLIT, they demonstrate that they have thought through the implications and tension between SPLIT and WP:CFORK, and establishes a presumption that they have performed a valid split rather than an invalid fork. This is more than pedantry: process matters. It helps the community understand what has been done and why when the issue comes up months or years later in a setting like this one, which is a jumping-off point for these discussions.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a couple of users throwing the issue back and forth on a talk page. It's interesting, but it's not conclusive, let alone authoritative.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-article is in effect POVfork. Many of the incidents of criticism in the article though reliably sourced and significant can be mentioned briefly in the bio article without violating the undue weight provisions of NPOV or BLP. Further, although analytical articles regarding notable figures theoretically may have some encyclopedic value, practical experience has shown that wikipedia editors do not have the restraint or expertise or ability to do so and thus these kinds of articles should be avoided. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - despite the attempts at revisionist history, this article exists as a split due to size considerations -- not as a POV fork (read the definitions). O'Reilly generates lots of controversy. This article went through a massive rewrite not long ago that culled out the content that doesn't meet with our inclusion guidelines -- WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. Given that the content herein meets with those policies, there is absolutely no reason that they shouldn't be included in an article about O'Reilly. The only reason it doesn't exist in the parent article is due to size. The only reason this article should be deleted is if all the content is put into the main biography. Since that obviously violates the article size guideline, it exists here. It seems there have been a lot of knee-jerk "Criticism of == POV fork" reactions, when this just isn't the case. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here, and I think it's worth reiterating something Blaxthos says: there is a consensus that everything that's currently in the article belongs there. It's hard to argue that the content doesn't belong when it's so richly sourced that most if not all of the controversies could pass muster at WP:N. There's going to be a major size issue if the article is not kept. Croctotheface (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Just as an FYI-- but this is actually the fifth AFD nomination for this article, as there were two others prior to the name change. They can be found here and here. I am not sure how to get them added to the list at the top. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: I think it's important to distinguish here between "delete" votes that really want the article deleted, page history removed and all, and those who are saying "delete" but instead are advocating a merge. Considering that there seems to be a consensus, all else aside, that whatever happens we should keep much of the content, it would be unwise to get rid of the page history. Croctotheface (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite the multiple accusations in POV forking, no one actually presented any evidence that the article's content is biased or factually incorrect. There were some concerns about the name, but WP:POVFORK clearly states that we have no consensus on whether all "Criticism of..." articles are necessarily POV forks. It's most certainly not the only "Criticism of..." article on WP, and I really don't believe that we can just delete the entire page because of its title—particularly with much more sensible alternatives like renaming. As I said before, the article's existence is valid under WP:SPLIT, which specifically suggests that [if] a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split is carried out.
Relevant policies and guidelines: WP:SUBSTANTIATE, WP:SUMMARY, What POV forking is not: Article spinouts, WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. — Rankiri (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the relevant policies unequivocally say that this page is not a POV FORK. Of course there is no consensus on whether or not all "Criticism of" pages are POV Forks. If there was there would be no discussion here or at other related AfD discussions. But that does not invalidate the opinions of other editors who believe it is a POV Fork. Consensus or no consensus I personally believe that 99.9% of these entries are POV Forks, and no policy or guideline tells me I'm either right or wrong. WP:POVFORK is no trump card for keeping these pages. It merely says there is no consensus. Hopefully consensus changes so that we can deal with criticism adequately at main entries pretty much across the board.PelleSmith (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analogously, just because the policies don't say that it's not a POV fork, it doesn't mean that it is. From WP:CFORK: If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ. As I said earlier, I see no actual evidence that that's the case. Also, consensus can change is not the best possible reason for nominating an article that successfully survived four six previous AfD discussions. I want actual arguments, not unsupported accusations based solely on the article's title. — Rankiri (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is another non-argument. I never said that policies clearly state it is a POV Fork. We disagree about whether or not this is a POV Fork. No policy validates either your or my opinion about whether or not it is and while I do not claim your opinion is invalid you claim mine is. Regarding your quoted text I'll offer a rather different interpretation. There is a claim that this entry needs to exist because of its size -- per WP:SPLIT. Along with this claim is the assumption that nothing can be done about the size. Well as I just stated below, as an outside observer this entry looks like it is filled with excessive and trivial detail. It can easily be halved if not more, while retaining the same "amount" of notable criticism. While it is notable that O'Reilly recieves this amount of criticism, the details of every example are not notable but usually rather trivial.PelleSmith (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a valid editorial concern that should be expressed on the discussion page but not a proper argument for merging or deleting. Does the article include consensus-dodging content? Does it show any signs of persistent disruptive editing? Does the article's content unambiguously violate WP:NPOV? Is it in any way inconsistent with Wikipedia's core policies? If the answer to these questions is no, we have no right to either merge or delete the article in question. Additionally, it turns out that the page was in fact created as a valid split from the main article. See [18], [19] — Rankiri (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide substantiation for your claim that we have "no right" to merge an article unless it violates policy. We merge articles all the time because of editorial judgment that they would be better off if they were incorporated into another article. *** Crotalus *** 16:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or low-level merge the nomination is spot-on. This is just an anti O'Reilly POV fork however you spin it. Little, if no, effort has been put into making it neutral and it never will. If this focused on critical and academic reception of his radio show, maybe. But this is a collection of indiscriminate grievances about the man which is not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline Sceptre (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I gotta call bullshit here: "Little, if no, effort has been put into making it neutral" -- either Sceptre is intentionally misrepresenting the facts, or he never bothered looking, but in either case he's just plain wrong. Please consider the difference seen here. The article, in the last few months, has been massively rewritten and many, many editors participated in the rewrite to keep this article both properly sourced and neutrally presented. I really can't comprehend how such a statement can be made, especially given that it was trimmed to half its previous size. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To those familiar with the entry it may look trim in comparison to older versions, but to a newcomer it looks like it is filled with excessive and trivial detail. I say this as someone who thinks O'Reilly is a right wing demagogue deserving of the enormous amount of criticism leveled at him. Accurately reflecting the "amount" of criticism he notably gets, however, does not necessitate the amount of detail in this entry. Sheer text size could be cut in half or more rather easily while retaining the basic nature of each instance of criticism reported within. The shorter version should be merged into the main entry.PelleSmith (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is specific content you think is inappropriate, I encourage you to take issue with it on the talk page. Having participated in the discussions regarding this article for many years, and having worked with several editors with whom I may not always agree to help trim this article of insignificant or improperly sourced criticism, I have to ask you (PelleSmith): what policies you believe warrants deleting this article entirely? In your rationale for "merge and delete" above, you say that "content should be merged into the main article". I don't see any content that fails our content inclusion policies (OR, NPOV, RS), and as others have also noted, most of these incidents have enough sourcing to pass WP:N for their own articles. If we merge all this into the main article, we violate WP:SIZE. Again: not every "Criticism of..." article is a POV fork; there can be legitimate sub-articles based on WP:POVFORK and WP:SIZE -- can you agree to that statement? If so, and you can't give policy examples of why enough content from this article should be excluded to fit into the main article per WP:SIZE, then what's the rationale for deletion? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, O'Reilly pulls in a consistent three million viewers, making it the most-watched news programme on cable. So where's the praise for him? Rule of thumb, really: if content would be inadmissable in or at the article "X", it's most likely it's inadmissable at "Y of X". The more encyclopedic route would be to merge the article back into the relevant articles and describing his controversies there. So basically: the first section goes into the commentator article, the second section just goes (as there is no effort of presenting the other side), and of the third section, move the subsections to their show/event articles (although I remain unsure where the Red Cross section can go). Sceptre (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take wikipedia policies over your "rule of thumb", not to mention that there is no question that all of the content in this article can go in the main article -- it's only here because of WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT (and even WP:POVFORK). Try reading the policies in question instead of rattling off an irrelevant axiom of your own accord. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Said "rule of thumb" is actually in POVFORK, and said axioms are supported by policy. And there is no SIZE issue. It counts the size of prose, not wikitext. And neither article, at their sizes, requires a split: the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) article is 9KB of prose, Political views of Bill O'Reilly is 37KB of prose, The O'Reilly Factor is 6KB of prose, and The Radio Factor is 2KB of prose. And really, adherence to policy and just policy is harmful to Wikipedia. Interpretation and application thereof is needed for Wikipedia policy not to stagnate. Sceptre (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Three points: 1. There has been extensive work done on the article. Both to make it more encyclopedic and to prevent the rash of contentious editors who seem to flock to the page on a periodic basis. 2. Whether the article is a POVFORK is a matter of opinion, reasonable people can disagree. Although begun as a valid split, there is some gray area either way about its current condition. 3. It is not impossible to merge this article into the main bio. It can technically be done in three to four sentences (e.g. O'reilly has been criticized for using propaganda tactics, such as spin and misinformation on his radio and TV programs, even though he claims to have a no-spin zone. Further, he has been invovled in several controversies for comments which have been deemed insensitive to minority groups, and victims of crimes). I am sure most of you would disagree with the approach in number three, but it is a possibility. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the third approach is that it literally suggests to truncate the result of five years' editing work into one abstract paragraph without following any of the procedures outlined by Help:Merging. — Rankiri (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. #3 wasn't a proposal per se, more like a brainstorming idea. Basically I was pointing out that technically the entire article can be summarized to a few sentences--I didn't mean to imply that it should. I am well aware that on these articles once the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, it's tough to put it back in. Outside of the procedures listed in merge, there are other problems to this kind of minimalist approach. Namely, editors repeatedly asking how come "incident X" isn't in said biography, followed by the usual conspiracy accusations. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're going to have trouble attempting to merge the content back into the article. Although you've made a point of saying that you're not advancing the kind of truncated approach you introduced here, others have advocated doing precisely that. Adopting such an approach would whitewash the record, as the truth is that positive information does not overwhelm negative information about O'Reilly in the sources; if anything, the opposite is true. There seems to be an element that believes that positive information should, by definition, be the focus of his biography. Obviously, this is not neutral writing.
O'Reilly is, I submit, far more notable for the various controversies surrounding him than anything else. If he were less controversial, he would not be so widely known and he would perhaps not even be on the air any longer. Put another way, there is a need to balance criticism of, say, George W. Bush or Bill Clinton against the rest of their presidential biographies. Without controversy, there would be very little of an O'Reilly biography at all. Most of the time he's in the mainstream press, it's because of an episode that might end up on a "criticisms" type page. Croctotheface (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At risk of indelicacy, sometimes people labor for five years and produce nothing of value. Value is not a function of the time invested in the product. If several editors have labored for several years on an article covering their non-notable club at the University of Whoseverherdovit, do you have any qualms about deleting it?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • False analogy. The article's topic is quite notable and the stated rationale for deletion is not only questionable but is also completely detached from the article's content. — Rankiri (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a meaningful distinction for our purposes here. It doesn't address the point, which is that your appeal to the amount of time invested in the article as a basis for keeping it rests on shaky ground. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're grasping at straws. I might have mentioned it but I never gave the issue of age much weight. None of my arguments rely on it. — Rankiri (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I assume good faith, I must conclude that you're being obtuse. In light of your keep vote, we must conclude that your argument that "[t]here has been extensive work done on the article" is an appeal to the amount of time invested in the article as a basis for keeping it. Which is what I said. If this metaargument must continue, it should get productive fast, or take it to individual talk. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk about being obtuse. I wasn't the one who made that statement and the person who made it clearly said that he was just brainstorming. — Rankiri (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the mistaken identity; mutatis mutandis, my comments stand as to user:Ramsquire's argument.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you're still wrong since I support deletion. The sentence was simply a response and acknowledgment of the work of many editors at fixing the problems. It was not an argument for either keeping or deleting the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're disputing my point (viz. that the amount of work sunk into an article is not an argument for its retention), which doesn't seem to be the case, it's off-base to call the point wrong. It isn't. It may be mistaken to the extent it responded to an argument that you apparently weren't advancing, but that argument might appeal to others, and it is duly preempted. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sort of sad to endorse deleting this given that work has gone into making it better, but I'd really rather see it go than stay. My main objection to this, and all criticism pages, is that they are at best collections of troll-magnet random facts and can be far, far worse. I've said my piece on the article's talk page, and some of those concerns have been addressed, but I still think the concept for this article is, by nature, inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I do believe that this is something that will have to be addressed with a formal version of WP:CRIT rather than on a case by case level, and my primary objection is that it is a criticism article, not to any of the specific current content. SDY (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think users that vote delete should also make it clear how much of the information should be saved if it is deleted. Soxwon (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from what I can recall before the this Fork was created there was a lot of edit warring on the main page. The Fork was meant to address some of the edit warring by moving the controversial stuff to another article, and keeping the biographical stuff on Bill-O's main page. This should be considered if a merge is to take place. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This argument has often been rejected in the past; see WP:BHTT. The answer to problematic content is not to separate it out into its own page, but to use the normal editorial processes to get rid of it. We already know how to deal with edit wars, and it isn't by creating POV-forks. O'Reilly is a controversial figure so his article will contain a great deal of controversy and criticism and it will probably attract edit warring. Creating a fork and putting all the criticism there is the easy way out, and the wrong choice IMO. *** Crotalus *** 14:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. "Criticism of" articles are never appropriate. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this appears a pure POV fork, as the nominator said. If someone wants to save the information and put it in the Bill O'Reilly article, that'd be more appropriate. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should be deleted as a POV fork... but its contents are appropriate enough to be moved back into the main article? This nomination is a magnet for rash judgements and self-contradictory opinions. — Rankiri (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've asked this question repeatedly throughout this AfD, so I figured I could give you the best answer I have. The reason I believe this article is, in effect, a POV fork is that info that is added there is overwhelmingly if not always negative. It is to the point that even the United Way/Red Cross controversy, where BOR received positive coverage, is now read as either a negative story or editors will say it does not belong in the article. The reason the info can be saved is that due to the work of the editors, we have done the best job we can in presenting negative information in compliance with BLP and NPOV. However, that doesn't remove the fact that article in its current use exists to highlight negative viewpoints of Bill O'Reilly, which as I see it brings it under WP:POVFORK. I do think it was originally developed as a valid spin-off but its current use is different from its intended purpose. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's how I see this issue. Should the article just be deleted as an unambiguous POV fork? No, because it was created as a valid split and most of its content is properly sourced, factually correct and (mostly) neutrally worded. Should the article be renamed into something more neutral? Most likely. I'm not a fan of "Critisism of X" articles myself and most name-related objections on this page, including some of your own, are quite reasonable. Simon Dodd's earlier comment that "simply renaming it in such a way instantly create problem under WP:UNDUE" should certainly be taken into consideration, but I still believe that we have a number of regular editing methods to deal with that problem. Now, should some of the content be merged back into the main article? I actually have no problem with this, as long as both articles will be tagged with appropriate notice templates and the consequent discussion will take its proper course on the article's discussion page. My quarrel with the merging proposals in this discussion is that most of them are obsessed with the article's title and very few of them address the issue of its content or the available alternative of renaming. Taking into consideration the unanimous outcomes of the previous AfDs, I find such "hit-and-run" types of proposals inappropriate and evasive and think it will be better to refer this matter to WP:PM and the article's discussion page. It's not something we must decide here and now. — Rankiri (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be correct that "its current use" suggests we are highlighting the negative, but the answer to that is not to delete the article but to change the current use to something that does not suggest we should highlight the negative. We can move and rename the article right now; I think "public image of" as proposed below is a good formulation. Croctotheface (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if we merged this with some details of awards and other notability, such as the best-selling books, it would make a good "perception of" article. A simple rename would not be appropriate. The overall message is that O'Reilly is extremely popular but controversial, this page makes him sound like a fringe wacko hate group advocate who the reader could not possibly like, where in reality there are a fair number of people who do like him (same goes for portrayals of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a lot of Western Media, for that matter). The "love/hate" should be obvious, this page currently reads as hate only. SDY (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think awards and praise would certainly belong in a "perception of" article. You'd have no objection for me on those grounds. Croctotheface (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly supports this as well. My major objection was that if O'reilly were to win his Peabody tomorrow no one would think of putting that into this article. However, if the article can be changed so that it incorporates all criticism of him, whether positive or negative, then I would support keeping it. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can bet your tail that, if O'Reilly were to a Pulitzer/Peabody/etc, it would be added to his main bio post haste. :) That being said, I would also support a Critical reaction to Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) or something similar, in which both positive and negative reactions to O'Reilly were presented (assuming, of course, all of the information is summarized (not duplicated) in the main article). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV fork. All good intentions aside, "Criticism of" articles have particular problems in this area -- while in a perfect world I can see ways to make them work, it's more important that the community not have double standards for politically controversial articles (I refer to the speedy deletion as an attack page of Criticism of Barack Obama some few months past). RayTalk 18:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps rename to "Public Image of Bill O'Reilly" or some such per Ray above. Certainly there is too much here to delete, and criticism of O'Reilly is a notable topic on its own. And given the way the material is actually covered on this page, it isn't anything close to an attack page. csloat (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why the material couldn't be incorporated into the main biography. It wouldn't constitute undue weight because O'Reilly's entire public persona is based on stirring up controversy, and he has attracted substantial notable criticism. *** Crotalus *** 16:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-written, well-sourced, and of significant size and scope. I don't particularly care whether it needs to be moved to a different title. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 22:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The writing has gotten a lot better, but the article is not well-sourced. Some of the citations are primary sources and can only be used to confirm that the criticism occurred. "Well sourced" would imply that the sources are reliable secondary sources that provide interpretation as well as "raw data." For example, the "FAIR's Peter Hart" section cites FAIR, an organization with political views contrary to O'Reilly's (and therefore of dubious reliability since they have an incentive to not be fair or accurate). The second cite is to an equally colorful and possibly tendentious source. Many of the sources used in the article are similar: they are pieces by organizations whose raison d'etre is "correcting" the conservative media. Marvin Kitman's book, for example, would be a reasonable source to use (it's generally regarded as accurate if sometimes unflattering), because it provides the criticism and a reasonable interpretation of that criticism. SDY (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's false logic to immediately assume that an organization is unreliable simply because they're critical of the right wing -- it could very easily be argued that said criticism is due to increased inaccurate reporting by organizations that tend to pander to that point of view. In the end, neither Wikipedia nor its editors should make those judgments -- we should only neutrally reference all viewpoints. In no case should a source be excluded on the basis of its viewpoints, but rather we should seek to discern if said source is indeed reliable. Policy states: How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. I'd posit that FAIR has a solid reputation for accuracy, and I've seen them critical of all political parties. Policy additionally states: The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. I'm pretty sure I can find a good number of FAIR references in mainstream media... Other than a retracted statement 15 years ago, do you have any basis to sustain the assertion that they're inaccurate, or is this based strictly on ideologies? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will concede that their ideologies are the primary reason I find them dubious. Whether they are considered as "reliable" is really mostly a consensus decision, and I don't think I'd be alone in considering these groups as something less than "accepted high quality reliable" sources. They're not the Iraqi Information Minister, but as the sole supporters of accusations of wrongdoing against a living person, I'd rather go by "When in doubt, leave it out." You will of course totally disagree, but you have made it clear from our previous discussions that you have great faith in these organizations. SDY (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue of whether a source is reliable or not depends on whether it uses the facts appropriately. I would say the great majority of primary sources are opinionated, but the better ones, the ones we should accept, base their conclusions on fact, instead of vague generalizations or flawed logic alone. Also, using a primary source with an outspoken opinion does not constitute approving of that opinion. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 09:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that you'll find quite a difference of opinion among editors as to whether the organizations in question "use facts appropriately." Using a source with an outspoken opinion without balancing it with other viewpoints according to their weight is problematic. My expectation regarding primary sources (in this case the criticism itself) is that they are interpreted by a reliable secondary source. This would be far easier in the main article anyway since there the criticism itself is a secondary source and it simply becomes a question of reliability. Outspoken partisan groups there are fine so long as they are used to represent substantial opinions in proportion to their weight. SDY (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if I can swallow all that... :) For one, the semantic argument that the source acceptability changes depending on whether it's cited in Bill O'Reilly or Criticism of Bill O'Reilly doesn't hold water -- this article is a split from that main article, and the subject here (Bill O.) is the same subject as there (Bill O.). Also, the relevant policy statements don't deal with how they "use facts", but rather (repeat): How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. See my comments a few paragraphs up. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although this nomination is screeching toward a no consensus close, that is a better result than a keep decision on the merits (which the previous nominations have not produced), so I add my vote to those supporting Crotalus' well-taken nomination. Additional comments above by user:PokeHomsar, user:The_Four_Deuces, user:Ramsquire, and user:RayAYang are also persuasive, but another point, not raised above, informs my conclusion. As I have made clear in comments above, I don't believe that deleting the article requires us to reincorporate all or even any of the content in this article back into the main O'Reilly article. Much of it, in my view, is nothing but fat, ready to be trimmed. Other editors disagree, however, so if this article is deleted, much of its material will presumably find its way back into the main article. Nevertheless, that result may have some utility. As user:Rankiri and user:Croctotheface have alluded to, the parent article faces size constraints. Deleting this article would force those who want to keep this material to treat the subject within those size limits, encouraging a leaner approach to the subject on its reincorporation into the main article. That is certainly possible (as, for instance, user:PelleSmith and myself have pointed out), and is desirable.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. O'Reilly's public persona is largely defined by controversies, so completely deleting this content would present a false image of that persona. As far as merging it into the main article, it would explode the size of that article. Though I'm open to changing my mind if someone can come up w/ a concrete merger proposal that preserves most of this content and avoids the size issue. Idag (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're giving a guy a whole whack of undue weight. Criticisms can stay in original article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think SDY and Simon Dodd said it best. Articles entirely devoted to criticism of such a controversial figure are inviting POV attacks. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but Rename and Be Responsible - I don't really edit nowadays much. In the past I know that everything Simon Dodd said was true...this article was a lightning rod for every crazy loon to launch POV attacks on O'Reilly because they disagree with his ideology. This article needs constant vigilance in making sure it keeps to NPOV and does not degenerate into a Media Matters propaganda site. If people want to read "gotchya" statements by Media Matters that have been edited to portray O'Reilly in the worst possible light, they are free to go to Media Matters to satisfy their wants.

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

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

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

The result was speedy delete. clearly promotional in tone and unsalvagable as it is. no objection to a neutral article being written by an uninvolved editor if the sources are there Spartaz Humbug! 19:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zenfolio[edit]

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

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

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

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

The result was merge to Pretty Little Liars. ~ mazca talk 21:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killer (novel)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Wicked (Sara Shepard novel)[edit]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Lord[edit]

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

Looks like a non-notable literary pseudonym. Tagged with {{notability}} and {{refimprove}} since May 2008. Only 2 sources, a personal webpage and a message board. Blargh29 (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The arguments here generally circle around a subjective interpretation of whether this is maintainable, and whether this is superior to a category. In both cases arguments are split pretty evenly each way - no overall consensus to do anything in particular can be pulled from this discussion. ~ mazca talk 21:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games in development[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS. Unmaintainable, Category:Upcoming video games exists. Would not be against splitting off the 2010 information to 2010 in video gaming. Otterathome (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jonathan Hall (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The page seems quite maintainable to me. Crystal doesn't apply, as we have citations for each. Directory similarly I would say doesn't apply, based on the fact that these are not minor games (if you must, they're notable, which should deflect Directory as a reason for deletion). NOTNEWS is for events already happened; there are many established cases where already known events that will happen have articles. As for the category reason given, WP:CLN. --Izno (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't explained how anyone can possibly maintain a list of all games the in the world in development, and removing them once they are released. It would be the same as having a List of upcoming films, List of upcoming singles or List of living people.--Otterathome (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Our job isn't to document every single one, only the notable ones (lucky us!). Besides, there is no necessity to document every single one, and in fact, I suspect the ones which have a date of release are the only ones on that page. Removal is simple in that once it's out... it's out. So we remove it.
    A list of upcoming films ye say? I see several! For the matter of Living persons, of course not. There's some 7 billion of us... I can guarantee you there aren't 7 billion games in development. That's simply an example of hyperbole. --Izno (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any lists of upcoming films of all time.--Otterathome (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Several of the sections on a good few of the lists in that search bring up "Lists of all time". --Izno (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
&Otterathome: For Films :- 2010s in film. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a deletion of list of games in development of all time, not list of games in development in 2010 or any other specific time/date/year. If you can't be bothered to read the entire discussion don't bother adding your useless input in future. Thanks.--Otterathome (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there is already a category for this, which is spewing the exact same information (if not more) than this list. This has nothing to do with notability. MuZemike 23:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list makes sense as a supplement to Category:Upcoming video games. The number of announced notable games in development is quite limited and the information is easily verifiable through the games' pages and major gaming sites like Gamespot. From WP:LIST: Lists and categories are synergistic — the benefits of their redundancy are covered in WP:CLN. — Rankiri (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only things different with this list and the category is that a citation and console to be released are provided. It's not providing any other function as a list. MuZemike 02:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other benefits; some people navigate via lists (usually the readers), some navigate via categories (you and I). --Izno (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AOAL presents a number of examples where lists have clear advantages over categories. The list can also be improved in a number of ways. — Rankiri (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is unmaintainable, to the extent that it's a list of notable games in development. Many games currently in development are not yet notable, simply because no one knows about them, or no one's played them yet. This is doomed to be mostly a list of sequels and movie tie-ins, or "list of games hyped before they're finished", it can never be a "list of games currently in development". The Category doesn't have the same problem, no one cares if a category is incomplete. Hairhorn (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern isn't that it's dynamic but that it will always be woefully, even laughably, incomplete. Hairhorn (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already said in the original nomination I wouldn't see anything wrong with merging the 2010 information to 2010 in video gaming. Call it merge/move if you like.--Otterathome (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notice the blue links? If the game is notable enough to have its own wikipedia article, then a list is appropriate, since it makes it easier to navigate. Some might be interested in what games are in development by major gaming studios. Dream Focus 06:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we have a 2009_in_video_gaming? Some of those are well past due to be released, so the list needs constant updating. All games listed in development, should be in this article, and not shoved elsewhere. Dream Focus 14:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because in theory, it can be finished by the end of the year. Whilst this article is an eternally changing list of ALL games in development.--Otterathome (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding new games to the list is easy. Changing the release dates on others, would be more troublesome. And since games seldom if ever finish on time, sometimes delayed for years, its best to just list them all here, under List of video games in development. Just list games that have been released there, by their release date, and those that haven't here under development. As it is now, you can't tell which games were released as scheduled or not, without having to click each link and see if someone updated it. Dream Focus 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You've just shown how unmaintainable such a task would be. The way way you describe it makes it sound very WP:NOTNEWS too. Like 'we don't know when these games are going to be released, so lets just put them here until then'.--Otterathome (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it doesn't have a perfect list, which is quite funny, and isn't the best organized, I still find it useful. Noneofyour (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Hairhorn. Crafty (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-referenced, only logical to have this to complement the xxxx in video gaming-articles. --MrStalker (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and renominate if it proves necessary The argument 'impossible to maintain' has never meant anything to me before. Probably another list such as this was proposed for deletion before, and editors have been parroting that phrase since without knowing what it really means. This is the definition of a time sink of dubious benefit. That said, maintenance, completeness, etc, are issues that are the privilege of mainspace editors and contributors to the discussion page, where AfD contributors must restrict their arguments to WP:DELETION and its attendant arguments. As long as there are editors who find this worth the time, and until maintenance can be definitely shown to be a problem, then there are no reasons to delete. Anarchangel (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too concerned with future events to be truly encyclopedic. Buy a mag on the topic if it interests you, but WP is not a game fan mag. Yworo (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable, with questionable advantages over categories. Mintrick (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the things compiled on this list mostly have their own articles already, showing that there is indeed notability here. Additionally, WP:CRYSTAL refers to speculation, and many developers do release official information about their future releases. Finally, deleting something because it cannot be maintained is a poor reason. The article should be flagged for improvement if it needs it, not deleted because it may become out of date at times. --Taelus (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page does not provide anything further than a category would. Triplestop x3 00:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it does. It has additional columns containing information for each item in the list, which a catagory would not have. --Taelus (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To answer some of the criticism above about the list and the category duplicating information, the list acts as a supplement to the category. The category acts as a way to automatically help index related articles, while the list provides a way to conveniently summarize key information about related subjects that can't be provided by categories, such as providing inline references to announced release dates and names of developers/publishers. Thus the category is useful for one type of task (eg automated searching of all the related articles) while the list is useful for another task (eg users browsing or sorting for articles on all games that are related by a given release date or publisher).
As far as being unmaintainable, that does not appear to be a problem since the number of upcoming notable games (ie games with their own Wiki articles) is smaller than, say, the number of books pending release. Also it should be kept in mind that the number of potential editors interested in editing video game topics is fairly large as video gaming is a popular topic, which likewise helps allow the article to be reasonably maintained. Thus you have a large number of potential editors to maintain a list that is, at most, a few hundred entries at any given time. (And, in fact, the number for the main article in question is far lower, since games in development for the current year are kept in a separate article.)
Finally the complaint that the article violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL is unfounded since all the information is well referenced and the article is not making specific, unverifiable predictions or analysis. 63.95.36.13 (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Richard Martin (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD with no reason given. Original reason for PROD was "Footballer who has never played in a fully-professional match". Also think that he fails WP:N, due to lack of non-trivial sources. Big Dom 17:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - fails WP:ATHLETE but passes the parent guideline of WP:N, as he has a number of reliable sources which deal directly with the player in detail. GiantSnowman 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He doesn't, which is why I've said he fails it...GiantSnowman 11:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you think he is notable for not getting signed for Everton? In a weird ironic twist - you nominated an Irish player that played in the the top divsion in Ireland, had multiple caps at under age level and actually signed for Everton for deletion! --Vintagekits (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He passes WP:N because he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It doesn't really matter what the coverage is about - the current guidelines say that as long as he has received coverage, he is notable. GiantSnowman 11:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing mentions for who he might and might not sign for in a local paper doesnt pass WP:N for me! What is he notable for?--Vintagekits (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, he is notable due to media coverage according to WP:N. GiantSnowman 11:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are conceeding that hasnt actually done anything notable. OK, now that that is out of the way lets look at the sources - they are short, weak, passing mentions and speculation. That does not consitute "significant coverage" - but of course he's English and playing in an English league and thats all the Anglocentric FOOTY Project give a fuck damn about. --Vintagekits (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But they aren't "short, weak, passing mentions" - five of the sources deal with Martin directly and in detail, and he is named in the title in two of them! You have to stop thinking WP:FOOTY is pro-English, anti-Irish - it's not! And as for me "conceeding that hasnt actually done anything notable" - I haven't done that at all. As I've said, he is notable due to media coverage, as WP:N dictates. GiantSnowman 12:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, playing in the 3rd or 4th tier of football in England isnt notable as far as I am corncerned - let alone the 5th tier. Linked with transfers to other clubs in just "shop gossip" and does not convey any notability.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having another look at WP:N, although he appears to meet WP:GNG, WP:NTEMP states that "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article" (my emphasis). Therefore it could be argued that he is not actually notable. GiantSnowman 12:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His time at league level has been limited to reserve football. No prejudice to recreation if he plays professional football at senior level in future. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. Recreate if he plays in a professional match. BigDom 17:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DemandStudios.com[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to DemandStudios.com. Has some links "attempting to be references" but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Riddled with press releases and SEO "self-links to their sites, Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete clearly written solely for the purposes of self-promotion and takes a lot of information directly from their primary-source websites, a lot of which don't even support the claims they are cited for. References are all press releases/other promotional material, unreliable sources or don't mention the subject. Related article Demand Media was started by DM2009 (talk · contribs) so there is definitely something going on. Hut 8.5 19:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Article has been moved to Demand Studios, because I enjoy moving things during deletion discussions. Greg Tyler (t • c) 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, blatant advertising typically written in vague and glittering generalities: an online content creation studio that provides writers, filmmakers, copy editors, transcribers and proofreaders with freelance work.... a new media company specializing in distributed social media and content on the Internet. Demand Studios is a content creation platform that has provided hundreds of thousands of editorially-reviewed articles and videos to Web sites in Demand Media’s network and to other content partners. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 1. Re: Hut 8. - The sources outside of Demand Studios aren’t “press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions”. Upon closer investigation, they are feature articles from some of the most notable press outlets in the US, such as LA Times, US News, Business Week and the Wall Street Journal. In fact, only two of the nine citations lead to Demand Studios.com, certainly not “a lot of information directly from their primary-source websites”. What’s more important is that these two sections of information are Terms of Use and statement of earnings. Those two pieces of information are only reliable directly from the source. Secondly, links were said to not “even support the claims they are cited for. References are all press releases/other promotional material, unreliable sources or don't mention the subject…” If each and every link is investigated it is found that none of the articles were press releases, generated from Demand Studios (with the exception of the two cases I mentioned above) or biased toward the company. All articles simply stated what makes Demand Media unique, including facts that were cited in the article.

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

The sources from LA Times, US News, Business Week and the Wall Street Journal are not press releases (though the Business Week one is actually a blog, which may not meet reliability standards). However, these articles are all entirely about Demand Media and do not even mention Demand Studios. They can be used as evidence to support the notability of Demand Media, but not Demand Studios. A substantial part of the information sourced from primary sources has been removed by myself and other editors since I wrote that comment.
WP:NOTABILITY requires that, to be included in Wikipedia, articles must have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Whether the subject is unique or not is irrelevant.
Spam on Wikipedia, as defined by WP:SPAM, is "advertisements masquerading as articles and external link spamming". This article is an example of the former. Though it does not explicitly say "come work for us" (if it did I would have deleted it on sight), the language is still more reminiscent of a sales brochure than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and does not promote any individual, company or group. Hut 8.5 10:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Independent Democratic Party of Russia[edit]

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

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

  • Keep. And what do you have as source for your claim that the party does not exist? There are plenty of sources telling about the creation of this party, although still a tiny party but clearly of interest due to its very wellknown leaders. Närking (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • here is a list of all registered parties in Russia. "wellknown leaders" really tried to create a party, but fail.--El1604 (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's still not registrered as a party but still of interest just like the National Bolshevik Party. Närking (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This party existed, and subsequently has stopped the activity (or not). And Independent Democratic Party of Russia never was. It has not been created at all. no members, no activity. nothing.--El1604 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, if this party is registered or not according to the new tough Russian laws does not mean that it doesn't have a valid place here and it's surely known in media. Närking (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's known in media only as party creation attempt. it does not exist and does not operate.--El1604 (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And? A party creation attempt that has created such a long list of articles in the media around the world surely has a valid article here. Närking (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not just a few articles during a week.Närking (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • so this article not about party, and about party creation attempt.--El1604 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article. Närking (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I've added it to the article now. Närking (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The concerns are understandable but the article's wording is consistent with WP:CRYSTAL and the extended international news coverage seems to indicate sufficient notability of the subject. More links: [24](produced by Rossiyskaya Gazeta), [25], [26](July 2009), [27]. — Rankiri (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Yes, it's not full-fledged party, but the entry makes that clear. Hairhorn (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extraordinarily obvious keep. Doesn't matter if "there is no such party." If it can be verified that such a party does not in fact exist in Russia, then the article can say "Independent Democratic Party is name of proposed part that does not exist yet in Russia." User:El1604, who has been here supposedly for one month (though obviously an alternat or sock-puppet account,) I don't blame you for disliking Gorbachev, but cut the bullshit and stop misusing Wikipedia. 76.68.62.93 (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - 10.100 google results for "Независимая демократическая партия России" site:.ru, Яндекс/Yandex Нашлось 50 тыс. страниц Alfredovic 14:28, 31 июля 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. A7, no assertion of notability, no sources Tone 20:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T-media[edit]

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

A non-notable Slovenian company. Eleassar my talk 15:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Roach[edit]

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

Non notable athlete - fails WP:ATHLETE as a professional baseball player who has never played above independent leagues. Possibly notable as an author, but also appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. Majorclanger (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BLP1E applies Spartaz Humbug! 10:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Janke[edit]

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

This is classic WP:BLP1E. The man was a non-notable town employee until it was discovered that his wife had appeared on pornographic websites and the town fired him. Although the incident received media coverage, there is no notability beyond the single event. Even local coverage quickly dropped off, indicating WP:RECENTISM is probably a factor, as well as WP:NOTNEWS. In reality, he wasn't even fired for something he did himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - What next? Youtube links to the videos, then maybe it will become a BLP2E and both will have articles? Sorry, non-notable at this point. Even if it becomes a major First Amendment court case, the man himself won't be notable because of it.  Frank  |  talk  01:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for keep related issues I can fully understand why some would want to delete and why some would cite BLP1E. I would expect many votes using this reason. I also note that even I thought at the time I edited the article that some people would not like the article and would want it deleted.
However, AFD is not a vote so I present some ideas that would support a keep.
1. Niteshift36 notes that "he wasn't even fired for something he did himself". This makes him different (notable by some, not notable enough by others).
2. Frank notes "even if it becomes a major...court case, the man himself woun't be notable because of it". Plaintiffs in major cases do have their own article.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUser_F203&diff=304322655&oldid=304236583 Shows that an editor in Finland looked up Wikipedia to see if we had information on the man. Wikipedia provides an unequalled source online for information. If we were to strictly keep only what is encyclopedic, huge sections of WP would be deleted such as video games (which is covered by fan sites anyway) and minor politicians.
In short, this article covers a person and incident which is very unusual, has (US) First Amendment and marriage law issues, and which actually gets a lot of traffic. If there is a question over keep, this could be a classic IAR (ignore all rules). For the administrator who decides, I can see if you wish to assert that strict rules be followed but these comments above are simply the comments that would be in the keep column and the other two are obviously the comments in the delete column. User F203 (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being fired for something you didn't do yourself doesn't make you more notable or different. No, plaintiff's in major cases don't always have their own articles (and this won't become a major case anyway). And it really doesn't matter how far flung the people who saw a blurb somewhere and came here looking for it are. There are many topics that pass notability that don't have their own article. Likewise, the news is littered with topics that aren't notable. We have wikinews for those things. This fits squarely in the WP:BLP1E category and there is nothing historic about a)being fired, b)having a wife who appeared on a porn website or c) having the actions of a family member affect someones employment that would be an exception to BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "If we were to strictly keep only what is encyclopedic, huge sections of WP would be deleted such as video games (which is covered by fan sites anyway) and minor politicians.": Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers; content which would be held by specialised video-game encyclopedias is appropriate. But either way 'encyclopedic' is a difficult criterion to pin down, which is why we have strict notability guidelines. None of 'unusual', 'being a plaintiff in a case having implications for legal cases' or 'getting a lot of traffic' are in those guidelines, and I don't see what makes them grounds for IAR here: if they were good reasons to keep this article then they'd be good reasons to keep other articles and we'd put them in the notability guidelines. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before you make too much out of the legal issues you think might come up (see WP:CRYSTAL, are you aware that Janke was an at will employee who served at the pleasure of the council and his contract specified that he could be fired without cause? That's going to make most kinds of civil action difficult to pursue.Further, he would have a tough time convincing a court he had standing to file a first amaendment case. His right to speech/expression/association etc were not impeded. Nor were his wifes (and he couldn't file on her behalf anyway). Do I think the guy got shafted? Yeah. But that doesn't make him notable. The fact that the local coverage, let alone national/international coverage, has dropped off, is strong evidence that this is recentism and a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

      • Actually, I didn't realize this article existed until someone tried to put this mess into the Ft. Myers Beach article and wikilinked Janke's name. Putting it into the FMB article would still run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM and would still have lingering BLP problems. As DGG said, this isn't a tabloid and this is straight tabloid fodder. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without a merge or a redirect. I agree with the nom that this is indeed an example of classic BLP1E. WP is not a tabloid. I am very reluctant to overuse BLP or expand its scope, but this is just what it was meant to exclude, and rightly so.DGG (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and very limited merge I have carefully thought about this article. After guidance from a very senior editor, I believe that there has to be weighing and balance between an encyclopedia that has articles that people are trying to look up and wacky entries. This article seems to be on the wacky side. I realize that I am not using the usual WP lingo, but the concept is there. Since redirect is a tool to assist readers and we know that readers from more than one country is looking this up, redirect is the way to go and redirect to the city. Without explanation, the reader may wonder why Janke is redirected to a city article. Therefore, a limited merge is appropriate. The merge may be as short as one sentence, certainly not the entire article. User F203 (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And even though it was removed and a discussion is under way, a discussion you were invited to participate in, I see you just force the mention back into the FMB article. You keep waxing philosophical about what WP should or shouldn't be, but you keep insisting on re-inserting something that could be an example of the BLP1E policy entry. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E refers to the existance of an article, not content of another article. However, I have asked in your talk page that you work with me to write the town article up to GA standard. If there is a lot of history of the town, then this event will not be very significant in comparison. If nothing has happened in the town, then this is more significant. User F203 (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While BLP1E may only apply to individuals in terms of notability, but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM do not apply to only biographies and I have cited both of those in both this and the article on FMB. Thus far, you haven't cited a single policy or essay that tells us why it should be included. Your reasoning, while well spoken and polite, have really amounted to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as noted above, this is a perfect case of WP:BLP1E; before this case, he would never have been considered notable, and a flurry of media coverage over a single incident doesn't overcome that. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear 1E. There is nothing to merge or redirect this to, so simple deletion. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom but create page for wife since every porno "star" under the stars seems to have one here. --Tom (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL, her "stage name" (all she does is internet videos) is already a redirect to Ft. Myers Beach, even though she fails WP:PORNBIO. Want to guess which editor authored that re-direct? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alert to the community: see redirect policy See WP:RCAT entitled "What do we use redirects for?" which lists "People known solely in the context of one event". Janke is known for two things, city manager (which is the #2 or #3 position of the city) and the porn controversy. However, many think he is known for one event, the porn controversy. Therefore, following the rules, we must redirect. If you do not agree, you should work to change to rules. I can see what others are saying and would help you change the rules, if you wish. Rules are meant to be followed most of the time, not broken. This case is not an exceptional IAR case where the rules should be broken. Looks to me more like the rules should be modified. User F203 (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Janke wouldn't be "known" as the town manager. That vast majority of people in his own couty didn't even know his name prior to this. And as a town manager for a less than 3 square mile town of 6,500, he wouldn't qualify as notable on that basis. If you google his name and remove his wifes name, porn and pornographic, his hits drop to 1,900 and of those, 11 of the first 20 dealt with the firing anyway. They guy just wasn't known before this. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. A7, spam Tone 21:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RR & CO.[edit]

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

A non-notable Slovenian company. Eleassar my talk 15:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Murder of Eve Carson[edit]

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

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

  • Keep. The subject of the article has established notability. Per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, "[an article's subject] does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources". It was broadly covered by national media and is still covered by local media. And the murder trial will begin later this year or next, and media coverage will almost certainly pick up again. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Received widespread national coverage at the time; continues to receive periodic coverage in North Carolina. As Rreagan007 says, the trials (unusually there are both federal and state) are late this year, early next and there will be plenty of coverage then. Hippo (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reliable sources show that meets our notability standards. I'm not understanding the reason for the AfD. — Ched :  ?  04:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With trials coming up and with someone from American Idol having brought it up, it retains notability. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable per the general notability guideline and WP:Notability (criminal acts) - significant, ongoing coverage about the event, which is the subject of this article indicates notability. Can I also mention that "merge and delete" is almost certainly illegal due to our licensing here. and that Bugs and I were on opposite sides of this debate last time :) Fritzpoll (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:Notability (criminal acts). A merge to the location where it once occurred absolutely does not make sense==one would more likely search for "Eve Carson" than "University of North Carolina" in researching the murder. Eauhomme (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This page covers information that is both ongoing and notable. DukeEGR93 22:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was redirect to Gauge (bore diameter); NAC. POKERdance talk/contribs 01:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10 bore[edit]

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

All other articles on Shotgun gauge/bore redirect to Gauge (bore diameter). In addition, the style of this article is horrid, really beyond repair. --DOHC Holiday (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect per nom, no other shotgun cartridge sizes have their own article and there is nothing uniquely notable about this specific one. Curtis (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gauge (bore diameter). AfD/deletion not necessary. --EEMIV (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Angry white male[edit]

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

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

  • Keep (will shortly be changed to speedy keep when I get home and add a couple of easily found sources). The current version is sub par, but "Angry White Male" is clearly a concept that has been covered in multiple reliable sources, and POV vios are reason to clean up, not delete. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The entry clearly labels this term a stereotype, so it's a bit odd to call it racist. (please note you are missing step three of the AfD, as well as some of the usual header information). Hairhorn (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. But even if it were racist the content of an article being racist is a reason to change it, but not to delete the whole thing. What's relevant is notability, which is easy to establish by glancing through the results of a quick Google Books search. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Ponsonby (disambiguation)[edit]

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

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

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

The result was procedural keep since no valid grounds for deletion were specified. No objection to early renomination if the notability is challenged. TerriersFan (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law Society (University College Dublin)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Prasanna Hennayaka[edit]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW JForget 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Graham (Northern Ireland footballer)[edit]

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

Plays at semi-pro level for last 9 years, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Also plays in fifth tier of English football, therefore failing WP:N ----Leagueofireland (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, did D&R have any part time player at the club during that time?--Vintagekits (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, how do you know that is was a "semi pro contract"? regards--Vintagekits (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graham only signed for Grays a few days ago and hasn't played for them before this season. --Jimbo[online] 21:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In January 2009 he was playing for Kettering. Are you sure you're not confusing him with someone else.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And even if he had been working in a car dealership while playing for Grays in January (which he wasn't), that doesn't support your claim that he "Played for Dagenham & Redbridge on a semi-pro contract", which is what Vintagekits asked you to prove..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I tend to agree with you because of his under 21 cap - but can you explain why you think he passes these policies. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO due to his having played in a fully professional league with Queens Park Rangers, Barnet and Dagenham & Redbridge, and WP:N due to the subject having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", courtesy of the BBC reports. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think he actually played for QPR - regardless, thanks for the reply.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced in Hughman's Football League stats book. I also found an online report for a league game he played against Grimsby for QPR [28]. Looks like soccerbase confused him with Mark Graham [29]. --Jimbo[online] 08:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:ATHLETE as he played regularly for Barnet in League Two in 2005-06, at which point Dave Rainford was playing for Heybridge Swifts in the Isthmian League -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 08:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As well as playing for Barnet, he has also played twice for QPR in Division 1, therefore he actually passes WP:ATHLETE. With regards to the nomination, I should also note that WP:N has absolutely nothing to do with what level of football a player is playing at. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He never actually played a league game for QPR.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Springfield (IL) Cardinals[edit]

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 10:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ševčenko's law[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • Keep. The article may benefit from illustrations of usage, but stubby status is not necessarily proof of non-notability and a criterion for deletion. Of course, "law" in English may just refer to a tendency for certain things to happen (cf. Murphy's Law and see the many other instances listed at Category:Adages), so I can't see the objection there. Cavila (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right ... that objection is indeed totally spurious, and only shows that the people voicing it do not understand how the English language works. 19:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Delete - notability is not inherited and the article does not meet WP:RS and WP:BIO requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Mays III[edit]

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

Billy Mays III has received no coverage in reliable sources other than brief mentions as a relative of his late father and a possible role behind the scenes in his father's TV show, PitchMen. He fails WP:BIO. Timmeh 14:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • How will the second season of PitchMen make this person any more notable? Timmeh 15:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence has been provided he satisfies [[WP:BIO]. Notability is not inherited. He should be mentioned in the article on his father. Edison (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Billy Mays#Personal life as a plausible search term. There doesn't seem to be enough notability to justify a stand-alone article. If an when there is, the article can be recreated. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Joe Chill Curtis (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirecting is preferable to deletion since it's a plausible search term. I haven't looked into the question of a dedicated article. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability isn't inherited. Future possible roles don't cut it. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm a fan of the late Billy Mays and his TV show, but I say delete it. I don't even recommend a redirect because I don't think "Billy Mays III" is a plausible search term (I would just look up "Billy Mays" if I was trying to find him). Since this Billy is supposed to be part of the next season of Pitchmen, he might become more notable later, in which case there's justification in recreating the article. -- Atamachat 19:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Atama TrbleClef ♮ (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Billy Mays III is in PitchMen, unlike you guys! You guys never went on TV before. He's half as popular as Billy Mays, and that's a lot because the Billy Mays that's resting in peace was very popular. I hear of Billy Mays III a lot. Jeremjay24 (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not inherited, and Billy Mays III is not playing a lead role in PitchMen but is just helping develop the format for the second season. Timmeh 15:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Non-notable Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A&A Global Industries[edit]

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

No claim of significance in my opinion. I originally requested a speedy, but the author used WP:OTHERSTUFF and cited Northwestern Corporation and Oak Manufacturing. Jujutacular talkcontribs 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Void Illusion[edit]

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

Non-notable alternative rock band, though the article has not meet notability requirements. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carwinism[edit]

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

From my searches the only place I have been able to find this word in on the Carwinism websites. It does not appear to be a notable concept. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Swagman Restaurant[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fei Jing - Soaring Eagle - 飞鹰[edit]

Fei Jing - Soaring Eagle - 飞鹰 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Very little is known about (...) this style" seems about right. The article includes no sources, and a quick Google serach makes me decidedly pessimistic about this ever changing. Possible WP:NFT, even. Ashenai (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was redirect to Golden Triangle (Norwich). Spartaz Humbug! 10:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unthank road[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Brescia Furniture Fire[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Greenality[edit]

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

Page is an attempt to promote a neologism per this link. Fails the general notability guideline. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 12:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about giving the editors a chance to properly source what you allege is a neologism? This appears to have a bit of academic structure to it. CriticalChris 13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nineteen days coupled with evidence of promotion seems to provide an exception to WP:BEFORE. I made a good-faith effort to find evidence of notability myself, so if you see anything I missed please post it and I will very much consider withdrawing. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 14:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google Books/Scholar/News show no relevant results. The mentioned blog clearly identifies the word as a neologism: "You probably never heard that word before. But we want to change that." No dictionary definitions were found for "greenality"[32]. — Rankiri (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: only definitions I found define it as a neologism. Awickert (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promoting a neologism for commercial gain. Both this page and the Urban Dictionary were created by earthpm. This editor is attempting to promote a book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.I dsagree with the premise that the word greenality is in anyway promoting anything for personal gain. It is true that the coiners of this word are EarthPM. The foundation of EarthPm is that it is at the intersection of green and project management. Whether or not EarthPM is a commercial enterprise is irrelevant to the word greenality. As far as the connection to any blog, you probably know that in this case, blogs are not money making enterprises. Therefore I disagree with the assumption that the inclusion of the word greenality seeks to promote anything but a gauge in which projects, both the process and the product, can be assessed. This is a fledgling concept and is being fleshed out as we speak. As with any word, greenality will evolve over time. Right now the basic concept is what is being expressed. There is no doubt in our minds that greenality will become a candidate for Webster's or American in the future. Right now, we want it to be part of Wikipedia's leading edge of environmental definitions.--EarthPMDave 19:55 29 July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthpm (talk • contribs) 20:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our role here is not to be the "leading edge of environmental definitions", our role is to portray a balanced view of what secondary sources are talking about. Secondary sources are currently silent on this neologism. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the article was created too soon. Alexius08 (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. Pingku (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Mglovesfun (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasi Shah[edit]

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

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

  • Delete fails WP:BIO. He does turn up in Google searches. Results show that he is a minor writer of poems, but still non-notable.--  Dspradau → talk  14:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was redirect to List of Forgotten Realms characters. already merged so just converting to redirect Spartaz Humbug! 10:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fox-at-Twilight[edit]

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

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

  • I opted to merge five sentences into the List of Forgotten Realms characters article. I have no objections to delete the individual article. I appreciate your guys' work on this. Please let me know if the sources cited are not "reliable", and (if not) what you would consider "reliable." Malchor7 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It works for me. I notice you were the one who split it off in the first place, so good solution. :) BOZ (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are third-party sources (in this case, things published by companies other than TSR and Wizards of the Coast) which have a "reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" (e.g., not personal blogs or wikis). Wikipedia:Reliable sources contains details on this. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a catch-22, as all of WotC's characters and plots are covered by copyrights, so no company but WotC can publish anything about the characters without copyright violation. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding the situation.Malchor7 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, more often than not, it is a catch-22, as many others have discovered (thus the endless debates regarding notability for elements of fiction). BOZ (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a reliable source were to review the books that the character is in, with a few paragraphs about the character specifically, that would help to establish notability. Its things like reviews, studies, and journalistic articles that can be used. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: The edit history of the article must be kept for license reasons, now that some content has been merged. If consensus is to delete, I strongly suggest just redirecting the existing article and giving it full protection instead. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. Edward321 (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. After reading the article, I still have no clue what "Kiss Verification Methodology" is, so speedy delete as no context. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss Verification Methodology[edit]

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

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G3. NAC. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dandy Desmond[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, unreferenced, claims of notability appear to be a good-natured hoax. Prod contested by anonymous WP:SPA. Per Ardua (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think the whole subject needs a meta discussion at the VP or listing at CENT but AFD is a poor location to decided on utility of the outline series of articles Spartaz Humbug! 10:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of computer engineering[edit]

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

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

  • Comment I've only recently become aware of the outline project, the idea being that an outline page is supposed to be a quick page of basic facts and quick links to more things, kind of like the "micropaedia" that the Britannica has (had?) starting in the 70s. Such pages have potential to be very good navigation aids, such as Outline of Japan. I can't vote a !keep on this one, because it has no context and is more like a list of computer engineering topics. Not a !delete either, because the people on these projects are genuinely interested in making outlines worthwhile. If someone, who can explain computer engineering in terms simple enough for people like me, wants to write an outline, I'd change my mind. Mandsford (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really, all that's in this article can be handled by the main article itself and any nav templates/infoboxes therein. It's basically redundant. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is it's attempting to cover the same scope as the proper article (that is, give a comprehensive overview of a subject), but with a list of links in lieu of substantive content. You don't need a separate article for that. Hell, you could accomplsih the same thing with a nav template, and it'd take much less space. More worrisome is the lack of clarity over what is supposed to be the main article, as Outline of computer engineering and Computer engineering both link to one another with the "main article" template. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I created the page in 2007. I have no intention to work on it currently. ~MDD4696 01:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think others will, since now there's an active WikiProject. DGG (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bad page is not a delete argument, give it time to be enhanced. Agree that the difference between this and Computer engineering is not that clear today, it does not give good context and is more like a list, but that does not mean that it should be deleted. --Stefan talk 03:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unnecessary content fork. How honestly do you see this page being enhanced in the future? The best way to enhance it, if any, would be to merge it into Computer engineering and enhance that article. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree, but if that is true why did you ask for DELETION and not merge??? Next time use the {{merge}} and {{merge-to}} templates. --Stefan talk 10:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's nothing really to merge. It's a redundant and confusing content fork-slash-list directory. The computer programming isn't all that big to begin with, so there's no reason you need a separate main/daughter/unclear hierarchy article. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This edit shows how I see this page grow and why I think that it is NOT a small subject and it also (at least to me) proves how MUCH info there are in wikipedia today, which I can not find without lots of time of clicking. Good outlines makes this info easy to find. When you write an outline you need to really search wikipedia and find all these nice pages all over the place, when I started my edit I expected to add 5 - 10 links, I did add 28 wikilinks (the product specific ones might not fit but that is still 21). These additional links are not part of the Computer engineering page and most can only be added there in the see also section, by filling out the other sections in a simmilar way it becomes obvious that this is NOT a FORK but a navigational tool. Again just because both Computer engineering and Outline of computer engineering is not very good pages today and they have lots of overlap today is NOT a reason to delete. --Stefan talk 02:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me: why not just make a navigational template, which can perform the exact same function without having to be a separate page from Computer engineering? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the discussion above, this doesn't appear to have been created as part of the outline project, nor is there any sign that it would be adapted to that. The premise (a list of Wikipedia articles) doesn't make a very good subject for its own page in any event. Mandsford (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Wesley, see the Outline of Knowledge for hundreds of other similar pages. If you want to push for them all to be deleted on the grounds of redundancy and confusion, you may want to discuss it with the group working there. +sj+ 14:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who said that he wanted to push for all of them to be deleted? Simply because the words "Outline of" are included in a title does not mean that it's off limits for nomination. If the goal of the outline project is to provide and maintain useful additions to Wikipedia, then be glad that Wesley has pointed out the extent to which this one falls short. Keep nominating 'em, Mr. Dodds. Mandsford (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there are other outlines doesn't mean you need there for every subject. That's not a good rationale for determining whether or not an article needs to exist. This subject doesn't require a separate outline, and thus the page has no reason to exist. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep something in an outline. I just discovered the outlines and wish there were other outlines. Please also leave a summary or list of complaints on the talk page. I know this and Computer engineering both look painfully sparse right now, as there is not enough to explain the need to deviate from a typical x86 design. Some thoughtful additions about embedded systems, mixed signal systems, etc. could broaden the reader's imagination to invent new specialized designs, or at least understand the need. I'm not an expert on this subject, but I can imagine dropping by and making some additions in the next few months as well as the whole outline project, when I feel a little more comfortable with the intended outline style. Mostly internal links and very little commentary? --Dgroseth (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RUBBISH. The way the OOK WikiProject is going, this outline will be improved eventually. Topic merits an outline. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How so? There's nothing to suggest that this page will provide anything the main article cannot. It's a pretty small topic, and both pages are small. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SNOW keep Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trapper Keeper (South Park)[edit]

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

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

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

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

The result was merge to List of grape varieties. Spartaz Humbug! 10:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Onaka (grape)[edit]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Climate Caper (book)[edit]

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

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

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

The result was keep. we have a consensus now. Spartaz Humbug! 12:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-graphy[edit]

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

Pure dictionary definition with no hope of making encyclopedia article

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

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

  • Delete for the naming violation. We should check with the Wikitionary people if they want any of this. Gosox5555 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The modifications are significant enough to make it a glossary under WP:GLOSSARY, not a dictionary article. However, there should be more sources.Gosox5555 (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a proper glossary though. A glossary is used for a particular purpose, and are not simply chosen via lexical means, but this is just a grab-bag of words with a particular ending. There's no purpose for this article, it doesn't support another article or group of articles. It seems to me that it has the form of a glossary, but is still just a modified dictionary article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is primarily a list of topics presented in the encyclopedia. Its purpose is navigation to "graphy" topics (see WP:LISTPURP). If a reader is interested in topics that end in "graphy", this list will help him find them. Wiktionary doesn't link to Wikipedia articles. The Transhumanist 17:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list linked only by a lexical element though; there seems to be no other commonality between these words.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a dictionary entry. For the record, I think the closing admin who closed the first AfD as keep should have explained the rationale as there was no consensus for keep there. I42 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Joe Chill (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still don't see what the point of the article is. It still looks like something that belongs in a dictionary.Joe Chill (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or rename to graphy or subjects ending in graphy would be in order. This is considerably bigger than a dictionary entry, and in more in the form of a disambiguation page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between a dictionary definition and an encyclopedia entry is to do with the nature of the article, and the form of the topic, not simply size. The wiktionary has many large entries, these are not encyclopedic. This topic is purely lexical, which is explicitly disclaimed in WP:NOTADICT. And it's not a disambiguation page either, since the articles linked to do not share the same name. Really, individual affixes do not do well in the wikipedia; in the wiktionary they slot right in, it has over 200 of them, and is far, far more comprehensive.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, you could consider making it into a glossary, the wikipedia does have them, but I'm not sure why you would want to really, it still doesn't seem to me to reach encyclopedic to do that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is enough to keep it. The glossary of philosophical isms is about words that are linked by an inner meaning and is a constructive idea that can be used to generate new isms. OTOH this is simply a lexical pattern that is used to construct an article; it's not that dissimilar to listing all the words starting with the letter 'k' or something. Doing that puts it squarely in the dictionary style. If the wikipedia covered the different types of graphies like writing and studies in separate articles, then it might makes sense in theory, but in practice, I'm sure that it would still not make the grade.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really, with these types of articles being covered pretty well (and in future better still) by the wiktionary, they've become kind of pointless.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the wiktionary glossaries is that the listed links do not link to Wikipedia articles. So they are useless as Wikipedia navigation aids. As a list, this page is highly useful as part of Wikipedia's navigation system. The definitive annotations make it even more useful. The Transhumanist 00:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's useful is considered an incorrect argument at deletion reviews.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not if the usefulness is in disambiguating topics covered in the encyclopedia, like "graphy" articles, which can't be located via Wikipedia's search feature by typing in "graphy" (because the search engine does not report matches to parts of words). One of the main purposes of lists on Wikipedia is navigation, and this list does a very good job of that in an area where the search box fails. The Transhumanist 16:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would someone search for a page that has a list of words that end in graphy in an encyclopedia? Joe Chill (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He wouldn't be searching for this page per se. If a reader was searching for "something-graphy", that is, for a graphy he could only remember the "graphy" part, he'd could type in "graphy", and he would find this page which would help him find the topic he was looking for. Or, if a person interested in photography wanted to explore other "graphies", he could type in "graphy" and would also find this page (it turns up at the top of the search results, because it redirects from "graphy", and because "graphy" is in the first sentence of the article). The Transhumanist 17:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is still a WP:USEFUL argument, but apart from the fact that that is bankrupt here, I can't imagine that people would look up words in an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I commend Transhumanist for trying to save the article, but my !vote remains delete. WP:NAD is clear: a dictionary is concerned with words, an encyclopaedia is concerned with the things the words describe. This article is still clearly about the words. I42 (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article has clearly grown beyond a dictionary definition to a list. If a reader knows the subject he is looking for is a "graphy", but he can't remember the rest of the name, this page may help him find it. The Transhumanist 16:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone only knew the last part of the word, why would the person search for graphy in an encyclopedia? Joe Chill (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because full-featured search engines would find it. The search feature of WP:WikEd finds search strings wherever they are, and so does the search feature of Firefox, even inside other terms. Wikipedia and Google are lagging way behind the state-of-the-art in search support. But not every user knows that, so they may assume they can find what they are looking for, and type it in. And since we can anticipate this shortfall of the search box and support these readers, we should. The Transhumanist 17:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The wikipedia isn't to do with names or words, it's to do with the properties of the things or concept. The wiktionary is explicitly to do with words, affixes etc. By all means transwiki it or something.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia presents topics, and the means to find them. Navigation is one of the purposes of lists. See WP:LISTPURP. The Transhumanist 17:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You renamed it as a glossary, not a list. A list may well do that, but a glossary is intended to help people that are reading something that may have lots of unusual words in it, and it assists them in their understanding. In this case, what the heck kind of weird-ass text would have large numbers of words ending in -graphy?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • A glossary is a type of list. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's very typically a heterogeneous list that is constructed for a particular purpose to help the reader understand something. So far as I am aware, simply sharing the same ending is not a reason to be in a glossary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Transhumanist. Also, this list (glossary) is similar to -phil-. It has some definitions with a similar meaning, and some (Chemistry/physics) with tangentially related meaning. Also keep for navigational purposes, closest to a disambig page maybe.
    • WP:OTHERSTUFF- articles are to be judged on individual merit. And not that it's not a disambiguation page, those are intended to disambiguate uses of a single word.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Side-note: IF any of these lexical lists are to be transwikied (and for any that already have been), it would be very helpful to replace the deleted article here with a WP:Soft redirect to the new location.) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, if we accept the argument that you can make a glossary on any lexical elements then you can make a single article on rocket and add multiple dictionary definitions in there including the vegetable and the space launcher in one article; just rename it to glossary of x. You're just using it to try to avoid WP:NOTADICT, but I don't think it works like that; this isn't a glossary any more than glossary of rockets would be it's just a list of words ending in -graphy.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think you might be right. I just remembered the conclusions we had come to regarding "glossaries vs word lists" at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Glossaries#Scope_-_word_lists_vs_glossaries. No time to re-review (please do!), I'm back off on wikibreak. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in the discussion that you point to in that post, Rfrisbie (RichardF) summed it up very well in favor of keeping these, even giving an example of a featured list that meets all of Wolfkeeper's criteria for deletion: List of English words containing Q not followed by U. It's a featured list, and therefore not "crap". If that list is not based on lexical factors, I don't know what is.
See Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 7#arbitrary section break inserted to aid editing 2.
The Transhumanist 02:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. Tell me, why is every single reference in that article pointing at a dictionary????- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OMFG I just read the AFD and the FAR for that. Basically it survived both because a bunch of stupid people think that the best tool to play scrabble is a dictionary an encyclopedia. Yeah, that makes sense, in their bizarro world, which has no dictionaries, I'm sure.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the article's name and the the article's intro indicate that we're dealing with a dictionary term, the article also provides a list. The list is valuable and should not be deleted because of other problems with the article. --Pink Bull (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be more or less arguing for transwiki-ing it to the wiktionary; I'd accept a vote to move it there.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((since its been updated further discussion about the articles utility after the change would be useful.in sufficnet discussion for a consensus given the changes so far Spartaz Humbug! 06:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)))[reply]

  • Delete or soft redirect to Wiktionary, list of words that share some suffix, not a proper "glossary" topic. Kusma (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would have closed this as "no consensus", but given that it's been relisted, I suppose I'll weigh in. In its original state, the article was a mere dictionary definition, and thus unsuitable for inclusion. However, it's now been converted into a more appropriate glossary, which I believe is suitable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I also thought it was a no consensus close before relisting. Keep per Juliancolton and the WP:HEYMANN improvement work done by The Transhumanist. It is now sufficiently more than a DICDEF and thus is a glossary article. Note that the title is now a proper article title: Glossary of graphies and that -graphy is now a REDIRECT to it. — Becksguy (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Graphies isn't even a word!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, who needs wiktionary when you can just create a wikipedia glossary for each and every dictionary entry in it? I'm not kidding; let's do it!!! Twenty different definitions for a single word? No problem- it's a glossary of that word!!!!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If an encyclopedic entry can be created for every single word, I'm fine with that. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and fix. This is not a "textbook case of WP:DICT", it is a textbook case of an AfD submitted by somebody too lazy to think of ways to handle a difficult case. This could be a disambiguation page, or a redirect to a section, but it this would need editorial expertise. Submitting an AfD does not need editorial expertise. The question is, will Wikipedia benefit from -graphy being a redlink? I do not think so. The real question here is, what is the status of th stuff in Category:Glossaries? Are these articles? Do they all violate WP:DICT? We need a wider discussion of this and a more satisfactory solution than what we have now. This isn't something that can be solved in a bunch of isolated AfDs. If you really want to push this, you will need to AfD all of Category:Suffixes, since there is no conceivable reason to delete an article on the suffix "-graphy" while keeping articles on other suffixes. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Toadfish Rebecchi[edit]

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

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

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

The result was snow delete. Blueboy96 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kleeb[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Child injuries solicitors[edit]

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

Blatant advertising for law firm despite removal of multiple refs to its websites and addition of .gov sources; biased, poorly sourced information not suitable for article or merger into other articles without considerable work, especially when source editor realizes his/her commercial links will not be included in any resulting article or merger. Flowanda | Talk 04:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is certainly a peculiar article, and I wonder whether the author has understood the purpose of an encyclopaedia. The author is certainly more familiar with promotional or persuasive writing than the usual encyclopaedic style, and seems to have turned the article into a "how-to" guide partway through writing it; it seems to be a detailed description of the process and likely outcomes of a child injuries compensation claim in the UK. This doesn't in itself mean the article's so far beyond repair that it should be deleted, though, and I want to reserve my opinion on that for the moment.

    From my personal knowledge, the contents of that article seem to be perfectly accurate and truthful, and mostly could (with a little effort) be sourced, though someone with access to a case law database should be the one to do that.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not blatant advertising, but Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide about suing people who injured your child. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weakly. While there might be valid information in the article about the process of litigation for personal injury claims involving minors in the UK, that subject should be addressed in an article about the statutes, procedural rules, or legal principles involved. The title is surely unacceptable, and links to particular solicitor firms taking credit for this text are even less acceptable. If this can be saved, it ought first to be moved to an appropriate title, such as personal injury litigation for minors in the United Kingdom or something that comports with their terminology. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, violates WP:HOWTO. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cannot see a way to save it. --BozMo talk 06:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep; NAC. POKERdance talk/contribs 02:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absal[edit]

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

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

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

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

The result was speedy keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia Chiefs[edit]

Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia Chiefs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Census-designated place. utcursch | talk 12:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhauli,Darbhanga[edit]

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

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

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

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

The result was speedy keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard H. Sylvester[edit]

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

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

  • Keep of course. The deleter argues: "Simply being a police chief of a major city does not make one worthy of inclusion into this compendium". However, I would say any police chief who gets an obituary in the New York Times and one by the Associated Press does deserve an article. He is also listed in over a dozen books as the person who coined the term third degree (interrogation). He also was the first president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. I will leave it for the community to decide and stop adding material until it is resolved. While I have eyes on the article, can anyone figure out his middle name? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I highly doubt your sources concerning the third degree. The term was popularised in the nineteenth century, well before the subject of the article was around. If you have these sources, please show them. I hope they are reputable. Torkmann (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so your the guy that added "Thomas F. Byrnes" as the originator of the term but didn't add a reference. Is this your way of punishing me for removing the unsourced statement? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not punishment, this is a discussion. The discussion is on whether this Sylvester fellow is a notable enough comrade for inclusion here. Please take note of a subject's notability, or lack therefore, before starting new articles. Torkmann (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just add references, it is less work than a retaliatory AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well looks like I now have a wikistalker. See Suffrage_Hike AFD
      • Another one? This is the second person you've accused of "wikistalking" in the past few weeks. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:WAX is an extremely poor argument for anything, let alone deleting an article. There is no "must have written a book" policy for justifying notability. The coverage in multiple reliable and verifiable sources -- Wikipedia' gold standard for determining notability -- along with the innovations and accomplishments in his career at the national and international level all combine to clearly satisfy the Wikipedia standard of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. !vote by nominator stricken for procedural reasons.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I just read what WAX was, and in no way did I make that argument. Please stop mischaracterizing my statements to construct your "straw boy." I never said we shouldn't have this article because we don't have other articles on police chiefs. I said we shouldn't have this article because this guy did not accomplish worthy or notable enough things as police chief. Torkmann (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you allowed to nominate and vote? I think this a "bad faith" nomination and should be closed by an administrator. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously notable and verifiable; those sources alone in the article alone make it notable IMO. Pzrmd (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a chief of police doesn't make one notable. What makes Richard H. Sylvester notable is the general notability guideline, which he passes. Therefore, he should have an article. I agree that much of the deletion nomination boils down to WP:WAX, and while the idea that his article should be deleted because he didn't write a book or a memoir is refreshingly novel, I suspect it's unlikely to gain much currency as a deletion criterion.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-referenced and points to multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The nominator's "what if every X in history had their own article" and "how is he unique" arguments are unconvincing and have nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. cab (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG; the Times and AP obituaries by themselves make it likely that any person is notable, and the plethora of other sources confirm that Sylvester is. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG--Cube lurker (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep. Notability asserted and sourced even, certainly room for improvement but flies past GNG. -- Banjeboi 22:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom - As Torkmann didn't give any valid reasons for deletion in his nomination, I'm taking that to mean that there are no good reasons to delete. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is abundantly clear that the subject has significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, so they are notable. The fact that the subject hasn't written memoirs is irrelevant. Hut 8.5 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

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

Kim Benson[edit]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John E.S. Lawrence[edit]

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

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

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 03:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. GS gives cites of 35, 20, 9, 6, 5, h = 5. Does not look encouraging for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet notability requirements for academics or general notability requirements. There may also be conflict of interest issues as the only major contributors to the article appear to be John E.S. Lawrence and his wife.Dgf32 (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I contested this speedy as A7 only applies to an article that "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". The article says he's an adjunct professor, one of the links in the article clearly states that he has over 100 publications and by reading the talk page and going to one of the articles mentioned it would appear that the Lawrence Peaks were named after him. To me this is more than enough to not be speedied as to survive a speedy there only has to be indications why they may be notable - it does not have to be proved. At the time I thought it unlikely that the article would survive WP:PROD (unless removed by author) or WP:AfD but thought it deserved longer consideration in case I'd missed something. Dpmuk (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I nver claimed it does. However I do think that having the standing of a full professor (this page suggests it is adjunct full professor) is a indication of possible notabality and that to me, especially when taken with my other points, is enough to pass the lower standard needed to surivive speedy. Dpmuk (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is so such thing as an "Adjunct (Full) Professor". The web page with the CV stating that he's an "Adjunct (Full) Professor" is pure self-promotion at best and academic dishonesty at worst. The terms "full professor", "associate professor", and "assistant professor" refer only to tenured and tenure-track faculty. Since an adjunct professor is a non-tenure track, part-time, temporary, non-salaried position, the terms full, associate, and assistant professors don't apply. Dgf32 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to carry on comments here as they're irrelvant to this AfD but a fuller discussion is on my talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no indication that the topic meets WP:PROF or WP:BIO. No indication that the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", meaning that WP:GNG is not met. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An adjunct full professor is usually a person of some very considerable degree of distinction, usually in the real world rather than academic professional field of the department, who is affiliated with a program. The implication that if they were part of the regular academic world , they'd be qualified for full professor. DGG (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you talking about? He's a regular adjunct professor. It says so right on his CV and on his faculty page. Gigs (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal: (i) Columbia University does not list Lawrence as an "adjunct full professor", merely as an "adjunct professor"[38] (ii) does DGG have any WP:RS backing up the implicit claim that the position of "adjunct full professor" has any formal existence, let alone the claims they make about this position? (iii) Even if "adjunct full professor" (a) did in fact exist as a formal position, (b) Lawrence was one & (c) DGG's claims about it were verified, it still would not meet WP:PROF #5. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the United States at least, adjunct professors are also commonly part time teachers that fill positions that do not require a professor to teach. Examples are college speech courses and basic and intro to English courses, often taught by someone with a Master's degree. I've also seen the positions used to allow teachers in basic fields w/o having to meet all the salary and contract requirements a uni has to its faculty. In general (but not always) it is not a position of particular importance.Fuzbaby (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (in response to DGG) DGG correctly described a set of terminology in use at a very small number of U.S. universities that have abandoned the traditional academic titles in favor of creating their own systems, which usually are designed to correlate with pay grade. However, the vast majority of universities in the U.S. use the the traditional titles as I described above. Dgf32 (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Columbia University one of this "very small number of U.S. universities"? If not, then DGG's description of their terminology would not appear to be relevant to Lawrence. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Columbia University does not use the term "Adjunct Full Professor" for any faculty. All "adjunct professors" are referred to as such. Dgf32 (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Lawrence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment from subject - Just for the record, let me briefly explain my recent introduction to WP, because there seems to be misunderstanding here, and unprofessional statements being thrown around. Firstly, when (rashly) ignorant of WP criteria, my original purpose in contributing was in specific reference to Antarctic exploration, and to an exploratory expedition that I led to the Victory Mountains for the NZ government. That expedition is extensively documented (I have provided several independent, published references). If I remember correctly, my name was highlighted in reference to the mountain range which now bears my name, with what I thought was a request for further information on me.. so (then unaware of COI limitations) I offered such information, which can be seen on other (history) pages. All of that information is independently verifiable, and detailed sources were provided. As already noted, my CV, and a selected sampling of more recent publications (in books, reputable academic journals, and published technical reports) are available at http://www.cambridgedata.com/johnlawrence/ and in many other web sources. Whether it is `notable’ or not is a fair question, and for WP fairly to decide. But anyone would ask for, and expect fairness here. The reference below to my wife is wrong and uncalled for. She neither contributed to, nor knows anything about this page, or any of this discussion. I have published what I said I published, and any suggestion of `academic dishonesty’ is unfair and unacceptable. The point about no difference between ranks in adjunct faculty is also incorrect by the way. My rank at Columbia is that of adjunct (full) prof, not adjunct associate or adjunct assistant. Whether or not to delete this page is entirely within you folks’ judgment, and I respect that. My information on mountain exploration (documented in the Alpine Club Journals of New Zealand and the US as well as other journals), and on my work in human development and the UN system (on which I have been widely published) was offered, perhaps mistakenly, but in good faith. Jeslw (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if your personal article is deleted, your contributions to the encyclopedia are still welcome. It's not necessary to know all the policies before you start, so no one will hold it against you. We have higher standards of inclusion for standalone articles than we do for information inside articles. A subject must be both notable and verifiable to get its own article, information inside articles must only be verifiable and neutral. Gigs (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll defer to others to judge notability claims on the basis of exploration and such, but from the academic perspective the subject does not appear to have any substantive notability. I base this assessment on his claimed publication record, i.e. "he has over 100 publications". His website lists some conference papers, university reports, course materials/handouts, etc. Let me respectfully remind our commentators here that, with some very specific exceptions, institutions do not typically consider these as being of the same caliber as archival journal publications for the purposes of academic promotion, tenure, etc. There are a few entries that look like they could be journal publications, but they could not be readily verified. For example, the link he gives to Lawrence and Singh Sustainable Livelihoods and Employment, Int. J. Tech. Cooperation 3(1), 1997, 92-109 is dead – the journal seems to be defunct. I also checked Web of Science using the following, fairly complicated search to filter false hits based on the commonality of the name: Author=(Lawrence J*); Refined by: Document Type=(ARTICLE) AND Institutions=(COLUMBIA UNIV) AND [excluding] Authors=(LAWRENCE, JR OR LAWRENCE, JF OR LAWRENCE, JJ OR LAWRENCE, JM); Timespan=All Years. This returned 10 hits, which I checked individually, finding none of them to be authored by our subject. I did not see any published books in his list either. It is possible that he has older papers that do not appear in the electronic version of WoS or papers authored while at another institution. Please note any of these if such are found. Otherwise, I think that when taken with the GS results found by Xxanthippe, a fairly solid picture of non-notability on WP:PROF #1 has emerged. None of the other WP:PROF criteria seem to be satisfied either, including #5 (as an adjunct). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment from Lawrence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment from subject

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

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

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

  • Comment. I have repeated the search of all the databases on Web of Science for "Lawrence JES" and confirm the findings of Agricola44 with cites of 8, 4, 3, 0, 0, giving an h index of 3. I have been unable to find citations to the paper in "Psych Bulletin". Looking back at the history of the academic AfD pages the minimum standards for notability WP:Prof on the basis of scholarly citations appear to be taken to be around several hundred cites and an h index of 15. Many subjects have numbers far greater than that. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Per the discussion above, we don't have enough of a record of heavy citation of his works to justify passing WP:PROF #1. Merely having a long list of publications of some sort is not part of the WP:PROF criteria. And I don't see any other reason for keeping. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof #1 or other academic criteria. Only other claim to notability is the happenstance of being the leader of a New Zealand Antarctic expedition that identified the Lawrence Peaks, an article also extensively edited by the subject. My view is that the matter is dealt with sufficiently in that article. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Still more comments from Lawrence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Further note from subject again, in the interests of fairness and accuracy, WP editors' inability to find the `Science and Sentiment' article for Psych Bulletin is curious... it is referenced under Lawrence JE (as #53 in the first listing in ISIWK N=71)) and has been cited 49 times... anyway, until this series of discussions I had no idea about the web of science data source, and thank WP for introducing me... find myself reasonably placed with an index of around 5 with many more distinguished full-time colleagues, falling well short of WP `notability' criteria notwithstanding....the funny thing is, Ive only really been an `academic' since retirement! and by the way, does WP really stand behind `happenstance' as a standard of judgment for NZ Government selection of its NZARP field crews? . Jeslw (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every editor speaks for themselves here, not for the project. That said, notability rests on third party coverage. The "Lawrence Peaks" seem only marginally notable themselves (only a few mentions in scholarly works). Even if they are notable, notability isn't inherited. Gigs (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brief (and final) reply from subject Points well taken, thanks, but the `project' in general - which is an extraordinary contribution to knowledge, and increasingly well respected - will be judged substantially by the quality/integrity of its editorial process. Fairness and accuracy seem worth arguing for. Furthermore, my own case aside, resting the concept of `notability' mainly on western `scholarly' journals might be considered questionable itself in today's global environment. Value-added of professional contributions in different settings, regions and cultures (adequately documented by third parties) would also seem relevant. Anyway, perhaps that's a suggestion that should be made elsewhere.Jeslw (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - upon reading the stub, the arguments from independent editors, and WP:PROF, it does not appear this person passes WP:PROF as an adjunct. If additional sources can show his notability as a consultant, then he might pass WP:N generically. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Catholic University Law Review[edit]

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

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

This is a notable student group, and at least as notable as the dozens of other student-edited law journals with wikipedia entries. This article is supported by stronger citations than many of those entries. Consider the following existing pages: Alaska Law Review, Albany government law review, Boston College Law Review, Chicano Law Review, Syracuse Law Review, Rutgers Law Review, Maine Law Review, and Duke Law Journal, among many others under the category "Law Journals." I fail to see the purpose of the category if Catholic University Law Review is not to be listed. Stout1070 (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

As found on the WP:OSE page: "Inherent notability

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

  • Follow-up question The clause you cite speaks specifically of high schools (and I know many people disagree with that notion, but that is not the subject here). How does this apply to the CULR? The Catholic University Law School would be inherently notable, but as far as I can see, that would not apply for a journal published by it. Almost any scientific journal has some connection or another with a University, still, if not shown notable, they get deleted. Mind you, I'm at your side (I'm a member of WP:WikiProject Academic Journals and as long as any person who has been on a football field for more than a split second is deemed notable, I cannot see the problem with articles on lesser notable journals - although of course the obvious solution to this would be to tighten the WP:ATHLETE guidelines). OK, I'm digressing on my pet peeve. In any case, for this journal article to be kept, you'll need some indication of notability. Arguments that have been used in past deletion debates include: how often is it cited (one citation really is nothing here, we're talking hundreds/year), how many libraries world wide carry the journal, or, best of all, are there independent reliable sources available that discuss the journal? --Crusio (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I didn't expect this, but turns out the journal has an impact factor and although it is not stellar, for every journal included in the Journal Citation Reports there are several that are not included. ISI is very strict on including journals in their database, so the 104 that they list under "Law" should be considered the top journals in that field. That's evidence enough for me. Apart from that, article needs some cleanup, but that can be done later. --Crusio (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to be a significant journal in its field. WP:OSE is nonsense -- "Other stuff exists" can indeed be a reasonable argument for keeping, particularly if similar articles have existed for a long time and been exposed to a large group of editors. That's called "precedent". Of course no two articles are exactly alike, but it is a useful comparison to see how well or poorly similar articles have been accepted by the community. Strikehold (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - academic journal, well known in the Legal community. Catholic University is not my favorite school, but so what? Bearian (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly- your opinion of Catholic University is irrelevant. The article pertains to a notable academic journal published by the Columbus School of Law. Stout1070 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Insufficient coverage in third-party sources to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca talk 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B.J. Schaffer[edit]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca talk 21:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Things GNOME![edit]

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

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

Hello, I added some argument on the discussion page. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Getting_Things_GNOME! ). The main arguments are an article about this software notability are a reviews on Ars Technica and LifeHacker (two websites that have a wikipedia entry about them). Also, LifeHacker is not at all related with the OpenSource/Software world, meaning that GTG has reached a broader audience than the core Linux users. Also, GTG has an entry on French wikipedia with contributions of two established wikipedian. As such, it looks like GTG has reached a notability already greater than some other GNOME software with existing wikipedia pages (Galago_(software) for example). Admitelly, the software is young (less than a year) and its success is even younger (steadily growing since March 2009) but I, as a non experienced wikipedian, believe that the relatively young age of the project is not a discriminant factor. I'm of course biaised about this, being one of the developer, but I try to be as honnest as possible ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeploum (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on the Ars and LifeHacker articles. Those are both particularly big blogs, so being mentioned in them is a decent indication of notability. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm sorry but most blogs, regardless of the size, aren't reliable sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While a newsvine can indicate notability, a blog generally does not. Unless there is something else to indicate notability I'd say delete.Fuzbaby (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Triplestop x3 02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, not many sources. TheWeakWilled 19:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability, lifehacker is not an indication of notability. Jonathan Hall (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Mason[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:MUSICBIO #6? 146.130.97.105 (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - The items I linked to are not bios from music programmes. -- Whpq (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russians in Singapore[edit]

Russians in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cannot find any non-trivial, reliable sources on this topic in either Russian, Chinese, or English. The "best" sources I located were:

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bertrand[edit]

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

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

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. I will place a copy of the article in Tylerbahlai's user space so that the article can continue to be improved. If sufficient sources to meet CORPORATIONS are found, the article can be restored. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number 9 Audio Group[edit]

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

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

Comments by Tylerbahlai

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

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

If you know the exact source information, you may add those sources as references. Verifiability does not exclude offline sources that otherwise meet Wikipedia's criteria. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San-j Sanj (xzecutive)[edit]

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

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Appears to be a duplicate nomination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nabil Abou-Harb[edit]

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

Does not establish notability of the individual. Sparse IMDB page, few verifiable resources and a Google search for this person returns few hits about this individual. Most are about other Nabil Abou-Harb. HeatWillRockYou (talk) 3:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

House of Brothers[edit]

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

Band with just two EPs released and no real evidence of notablity. Fails WP:MUSIC - Delete Exxolon (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Thani bin Jassim bin Muhammed[edit]

Thani bin Jassim bin Muhammed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3Way (web series)[edit]

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salem (Days of our Lives)[edit]

Salem (Days of our Lives) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment isn't Salem the cat in DOOL? Because if he is, then the character is quite notable. I remember my sister's soap opera (but don't know which one of the 1,000 of soaps it is) where a cat named Salem appears almost daily."Antonio Black Cat Martin (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has nothing to with a cat. It's about a place in a soap opera and consists in large part of a list of spots withing that fictional spot. Seems like a bit of a mess. I'm not really sure what to do with it. Maybe merge to main aritcle and let them sort it out? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN - no sources listed so looks mighty like OR to me. Jonathan Hall (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article should exist for the mere fact that the topic needs its own article and cannot/nor should be in the Days of our Lives article. Not every topic on Wikipedia that is split off from a main topic has the same or close to the same level of notability. Flyer22 (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Article needs some work though. -- Dougie WII (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I personally don't see the point in having this article. Where is the notability? Salem is just the place where Days of our Lives occurs. That is the only thing important about it. The page seems more like a fan site, with day to day updates, which violates the point of an encyclopedia. Rm994 (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Normally, I'd suggest merging such content, but the importance of the setting and of the work make it better to have a separate article. This is far from fansite material--a proper fansite would be in much more detail, with specifics about each individual house--this is reasonably encyclopedic content. I would be appropriate to search for some actual references, as usual. DGG (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It needs some work, but I agree that the topic cannot be covered if it were merged into the parent article. Candyo32 (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Stewart[edit]

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

Entrant, and junior winner, in a talent content arranged by a local radio station. This does not appear to be a notable award as required by WP:N. Furthermore, none of the external links mention her so fails WP:V. I42 (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources to verify this, and links provided do not mention the subject. Jujutacular talkcontribs 12:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Here is verification from a local newspaper. All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ DOI.org
  2. ^ http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001378/137873e.pdf
  3. ^ http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/520/1/42
  4. ^ http://erx.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/13/3/243
  5. ^ http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?database=ged&lin=1&mode=e&look=new&sc1=1&sc2=1&nl=1&req=4&au=%20Lawrence,%20John%20E.S
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_29&oldid=1142644660"