Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 16 May 18 May >

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 G7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lemos[edit]

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

It appears we are the only source online for this battle [1], and the sole creators of this article have basically been going about creating what appear to be a major hoax/POV-push related to Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia (see earlier AfD). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoemaker's Holiday, you are wrong. Wikipedia is not the only source for this Battle. Please see all references cited in the article, some of them are available online. Please also bear in mind that, being an event part of Spain's history, it has been published mostly in Spanish. Qqtacpn (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

I quite don't understand. You have just marked for deletion all of my articles, which are perfectly noted and referenced. It looks pretty arbitrary to me to just label them for deletion, when most encyclopedias in Spanish language include them (Gran Enciclpedia Gallega, Enciclopedia Garcia Carraffa, Enciclopedia Espasa, etc.). (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Again, I have provided enough bibliography. To just ignore it and say it belongs to the realm of fantasy is arbitrary. Just to mention a recent example, Brian De Toy, Ph.D., arguably the highest living authority in military historian (Professor at West Point Academy), has published on this particular campaign. See, for example, Dr. De Toy, Brian (2009): "Defeating Napoleon’s Designs: Littoral Operations in Galicia, 1809", International Journal of Naval History. You can even read it online at http://ijnhonline.org/volume7_number3_Dec08/article_detoy_dec08.htm#_edn2. (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That is not a source. Provide a source which actually mentions these people and battles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. [2] - "Lopez De Prado, Baron of Lemavia Location: Chicago, IL," which just happens to be where the perpetrators of the Barbaro hoax came from. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About 8 million people live in the Chicago area. To make you points even more absurd, I do not even live in Chicago. The truth is, you just labeled a bunch of articles for deletion without verifying the sources. As a proof, I have just pointed out a number of articles that mention this battle in particular.
Dr. De Toy, Brian (2009): "Defeating Napoleon’s Designs: Littoral Operations in Galicia, 1809", International Journal of Naval History http://ijnhonline.org/volume7_number3_Dec08/article_detoy_dec08.htm#_edn2].
The Battle of Monforte de Lemos http://www.1808-1814.org/articulos/monforte.html.
List of civilians assassinated on April 20, 1809 in the parish of Penela http://club.telepolis.com/apenela/HISTORIA.htm
With all respects, please read the articles before arbitrarily marking them for deletion. (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You'd have a better case if I didn't check the first one, and discover that the word "Lemos" doesn't appear in your link. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday, your arguments are once again baseless. I understand you are not familiar with the geography of Spain. Monforte de Lemos is part of Galicia! What about http://www.1808-1814.org/articulos/monforte.html? This is taken straight from one of the best well known books in Spanish on the Peninsular War. It dedicates an entire epigraph to the Battle of Monforte de Lemos ... Please just acknowledge you have been overzealous, it's fine, I understand (Qqtacpn (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Having checked up on things: All the most contentious descriptions are completely unjustified by the sources you provide. The section on "Outcome of the Battle" has nothing even resembling its description in the source cited, which lacks the words "Monforte" and "Lemos" completely. It would appear to be completely made up, or, at best original research on your part. The sentence "Pillage and butchering of civilians by the French followed at large scale" is cited to parish records. This appears to be at best original research, and at worse a hoax. Some of us read foreign languages. Show us a decent source that discusses the battle and justifies the facts in the article. Don't give us sources that talk in general terms, and ask us to accept this as justifying very specific claims cited to them when these claims do not actually appear in them. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parish record from the 19th are public official documents, preserved in Archives and Libraries, microfilmed and available to the public in general. This is not original research, anyone with good will can go to the sources and read it (Qqtacpn (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Again please read the sources, which I have provided in the article. If you want to start with a website, read http://www.1808-1814.org/articulos/monforte.html. Can you find "Batalla de Monforte de Lemos" there? This is the kind of stuff that a newspaper from Galicia will laugh about, once they know you called this battle a hoax ... (Qqtacpn (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]


I have answered all your questions for hours. You have made very offensive accusations based on:

  • 1) Your inability to read Spanish.
  • 2) Your lack of interest for sources published in paper. You only accept websites as sources.
  • 3) You are not interested to search the websites of the Spanish Goverment I have provided (search "lopez de prado", between quotes, at http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas/servlets/Control_servlet?accion=0).
  • 4) The fact that my area of expertise (War crimes commited in Galicia during the Peninsular Wars) has offended a group of French Wikipedians (Equendil, Frania W., etc.).
  • 5) Ridiculous suppositions (do I live in Chicago? Are these 5 users in the same Continent? Why are they interested in similar topics?)
  • 6) Discrimination based on being a new contributor.

Anyone with access to this Encyclopedia (http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/geneal/index_gc.html), available at the Library of Congress and everywhere in the Spanish Speaking World, please go to Volume 72, pages 101-120. Or go to the http://www.granenciclopediagalega.com/, also available in the Library of Congress, and search the article dedicated to Lopez de Prado. These are but a few more proves that these individuals are making false accusations. I do not doubt your intention is right, but the conclusion here is that a very small number of Wikipedians ignorant of well published research actually have the power to remove legitimate content. Fine, if this is how flawed Wikipedia is, please go ahead and remove these articles. They belong to the paper encyclopedias available in the Library of Congress. End of discussion. (Qqtacpn (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was superseded by complete overhaul of the article without reference to the original topic. The original article has for all intents and purposes been removed from the article, consistent with the unanimous wishes of the contributors to this discussion. non-admin closure by nominator,  Skomorokh  00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, Arizona[edit]

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

Unverified article; the existence of the subject has not been confirmed by reliable sources and has been questioned on the talk page.  Skomorokh  23:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Likely hoax. Nothing about it here:[3] or here:[4]. Fences and windows (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems like a hoax. Can't find any info showing it was an actual town. And as Yuma is literally on the border with California, a town being between the two seems impossible. --Oakshade (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How lame is that? If you're going to do a hoax, you should at least make it interesting. We have enough stubs about real things that are as boring as the name of this town. One might as well try to do a hoax about an American postage stamp, because there have been lots of books about ghost towns. Nobody has ever seen or heard this one, not even Jennifer Love-Hewitt. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as obvious hoax. —Wrathchild (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stupid hoax. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even if true, not a notable ghost town per my standards. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --Jmundo 15:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterboarding in the 21st century[edit]

Waterboarding in the 21st century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unless I'm mistaken, this is an exact duplicate of Waterboarding, with a few section cut out. I don't see the point: either cut them out of waterboarding (or drastically shorten them), or keep a single article. Since waterboarding isn't (yet) overly long, and since this seems an unlikely redirect target, we may as well delete. Biruitorul Talk 23:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started this page, it was stuff that was agreed to be split from waterboarding, then one editor re-added to waterboarding what was cut from it. Seeing as the article is under arb com probation, 1rr and stuff i've not edit warred and now trying to delete the stuff one section at a time. I've also provided sources for stuff that could be added to this article that is not in Waterboarding at the moment, but as most editors in this area prefer to troll rather than work its been slow going. (Hypnosadist) 00:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed some more from waterboarding (as much as i can without the cries of censorship ringing out hopefully). (Hypnosadist) 00:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21st century stuff needs to be moved from waterboarding to this article. there have been some objections, mainly from Badagnani, that have slowed down the process.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 05:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should I withdraw this until the conflict gets worked out? I'd be glad to - only the key point is the duplicated content should go. - Biruitorul Talk 15:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, if you could give us a month or so that would help. (Hypnosadist) 15:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. To be honest I hadn't read the talk page discussions before making the nomination, but that's fine - I now withdraw this debate and you are free to close it. - Biruitorul Talk 15:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A borderline case, but with at least two distinct media references, I see no evidence that the company is inherently non-notable. However, there does not appear to be consensus in this case. RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medtral[edit]

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

Non-notable company. The only reference is an article in the Washington Post - that's a good reference, but not sufficient to meet WP:CORP. Previously tagged as being written like an advert, but tag removed with little improvement to the article. gadfium 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, not speedy material but defiantely fails WP:CORP. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 22:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added sources asserting notability. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 05:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 23:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. Except for the WaPo article mentioned, all the sources seem to be press release reprints so independent sources just aren't available to establish notability. I'd let this run a week in case someone can point them out, I couldn't find them. Also offer to userfy or explain it can be undeleted when sources are available because medical tourism is still growing very rapidly. Drawn Some (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are working on finding sources, but as mentioned above it is difficult because medical tourism is still in it infancy and new zealand is an emerging market. Have tried to improve tone of article so as not to read like an advertisement. User talk:Seejaynz 12:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, satisfies WP:N/WP:CORP. Articles in the NZ Herald[5], The Press[6], as well as the Washington Post. All from July 2008, but there are unique details in each (e.g. Roger Styles, Arnold Milstein), and Eleanor Black Watkin may have resold the story. XLerate (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure if I'm seeing a later version of the article than the rest of you, but it looks perfectly notable to me, and I am usually in the "delete" camp. Hairhorn (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:N or WP:CORP. Only two of the cited ref's actually talk about the subject, and not in an in-depth sort of way. This is not enough to pass the bar. Dlohcierekim 19:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More references added. Don't want to add too many as many of the referring sites are covering off similar topics (price, new zealand, medical tourism options) User talk:Seejaynz 12:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't see where the added external links refer to the subject. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the NZ Herald, and Press articles noted above, and the National Business Review and Washington Post articles referenced in the article above represent multiple independent sources all covering the subject. This meets notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All these articles appear to come from the same source. They demonstrate one independent source, not many.-gadfium 19:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I read them. They are published in different periodicals and the content is not substantially the same for each. -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just 2 articles isn't enough - there seems nothing really notable about this co. NBeale (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It isn't just 2 articles, it's three. -- Whpq (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). (non-admin closure) Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DWIFL[edit]

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

Non-notable "lifestyle". KuroiShiroi (contribs) 22:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: pick a criterion, any criterion, and you'll probably hit one you can use to rid us of this thing. Hairhorn (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I get like 43 G-hits for this usage, so NN protologism. Wikipedia is not collection of snappy pop-psych abbreviations. Dlohcierekim 19:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FileQube[edit]

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

Non-notable web service. Article's creator seems to be affiliated with the company, as evidenced by his username and the blog post here. Brianga (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this article can be salvaged. This a a significant web service. We need someone from a WP:NPOV, however. T3chl0v3r (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if we take a look at this article, we see that other hosting companies are just as notable as this one. T3chl0v3r (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I see no assertion of significance. The link to Alexa does not show a significant web presence. I see nothing that stands out about this in the online reviews. I do not see significant 3rd party coverage that shows this meets WP:WEB or WP:CORP. keeping an open mind. Dlohcierekim 19:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not seeing the coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. T3chl0v3r, can you point out any coverage for us since you appear to be bit more knowedgeable about the topic. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough coverage in reliable sources not related to the company. Hipocrite (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Methods (Strauss)[edit]

Legal Methods (Strauss) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable textbook being spammed, see my talk page. Drawn Some (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Drawn Some (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that there is no assertion of importance or significance, no independent resources, and the article is primarily the table of contents or outline of the book. Drawn Some (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I am the creator of the article. My understanding is that the concern being discussed here is notability, not copyright.
  • Just in case copyright 'were' an issue, I emailed a copyright professor in my law school (I have never taken copyright so I can't make the assessment myself). He responded, "[displaying the TOC in this fashion] comes down to a fair use question; though on balance, because it is so clearly educational and non-commercial, I highly doubt it would be infringing." I understand that copyright is a fuzzy area of law, so this doesn't mean he's right. But I hope that, unless you get a contrasting second opinion from another copyright expert, those concerns will be allayed.
  • Actually, I can't come up with arguments for why this content is notable. Would you mind if I moved the content to my userspace? I created the article because I thought it would help students (like me) to study for upcoming exams that rely on this casebook. The article serves double-duty as a wikified list of the cases that are most prominent in the law school curriculum, organized according to subject. Thus, it benefits Wikipedia as a to-do list of which articles to improve. That is why I would like permission to keep this content on my userspace. Thanks. Agradman (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just userfy it yourself and let the AfD run, someone else may see why it is notable under the guidelines? Drawn Some (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll userfy it and let the AfD run. But my inclination is to delete (not notable.) My professor wrote the casebook and I don't want him to benefit from free advertising. Agradman (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't see anything in the article to indicate that this book is notable. I'm also very worried by the comment, in the article, by the article creator in this and other articles that every legal case should have a Wikipedia article. The vast majority of legal cases should not have a Wikipedia article. If the creator wants this then they should consider starting a legal cases wiki separate to Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 02:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • pardon me, I agree that only important cases should have articles (and that the vast majority of cases don't deserve articles). But I also think that the cases taught in law school almost always meet that threshold of importance. We are only taught cases that either made precedent, or contributed to the creation of a precedent, or else are notable because they summarize the existing law so articulately that they are often referred to as reference texts. I think that under this heuristic for notability, you will see vastly more false positives (cases that seem at first to be not notable because the author of the article wasn't articulate, as happened with me writing Chysky) than false negatives (cases that are not notable, even though they were included in a law student's casebook).
  • Incidentally, could I ask the admins on this page to stop making me feel as though I were some kind of juvenile prankster or vandal? Drawn Some called me a spammer; Canterbury Tail, I can't complain about your tone, but please be aware that it's off-putting not to be addressed in the first person when you are giving me advice. Look, we share the priority of improving Wikipedia; in my case I want to make it a valuable resource for law students and others who are trying to learn the law. I will always be open to persuasion if you disagree with me about how I go about doing that. Agradman (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't believe you're a spammer, I think you're a very good intentioned editor who is just new to Wikipedia and the way things work. I nominated the pages for deletion as I don't believe, personally, that they are notable. Others may disagree and in that case that is perfectly fine, that is why we bring the articles into a discussion space like AfD.
With law case articles, and I'm no expert on law, the articles need to be inherently notable in themselves, and need to be written in a way to be accessible to the general populace and readership. Placing articles in a law case format isn't really the way to go, as there is no context, no reason to believe they are notable (see WP:Notability, and the average reader stumbling across the articles will not know what they are about or why they are here.
As I said above, every court case isn't inherently notable, and neither should Wikipedia be an repository for all such information. Wikipedia is a reference work yes, but it's a general encyclopaedia, not a law specific reference work, and as such I don't believe that a lot of these cases articles should be on here. We shouldn't be building a whole section of the project for law students to use as an online linked reference source, that kind of project is best done on it's own elsewhere outside of Wikipedia. Now these are just my opinions, and others may disagree, which is why we bring things to these discussion areas. Canterbury Tail talk 10:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not userfy There is no encyclopedic content at the present, and userfication would serve no purpose toward article/'pedia buidling. I am not able to locate any WP:RS or evidence of meeting notability requirements. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a law library, so reproducing an outline (or content from} the book is not the way to go in article space or user space. As a side note, if the work is under copyright, we can not have a derivative work-- the outline on Wikipedia. All content must be public domain or released under the terms of the GFDL. On policies on copyright matters are stricter than the law would allow, so whether something is legally permitted or not is moot if it's not allowed under Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made the page slightly different (and created an article for the author, Peter L. Strauss). Again, I have no attachment to this article, so I'm neutral whether you delete it. -The creator, Agradman (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Cricket Club[edit]

Hilton Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An amateur cricket team who play in Derbyshire County Cricket League Division Four South, cricket notability guidelines consider clubs in ECB Premier Leagues as notable, this league is four divisions below that level Jpeeling (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless some form of notability can be established - age of club could lead to something? Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Jpeeling (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A great many local cricket clubs date back to the Edwardian era. I doubt the age alone makes it notable.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article makes no attempt to establish the significance of the club and could ven be considered for speedy deletion under criterion A7. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was unable to establish notability via a Google search for significant coverage by reliable third party sources with verifiable information. I concur with the assertion that this meets WP:CSD A7. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as this seems like this is heading for WP:SNOW. Although I still believe it needs better sources to prove notability, others seem to disagree so I'll leave it at that. Tavix |  Talk  02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian repeated place names[edit]

List of Australian repeated place names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Delete This is a trivial/unencyclopedic list of a non-notable intersection. What is so notable about the fact that there are ~35 place names what have doubled words in it? Tavix |  Talk  20:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sydney? Sydney? What's this all about? It's not unique to Australia, as witness Walla Walla and Pago Pago and Sing Sing and New York, New York. I think that a list of repeated place names in general would be encyclopedic, in that it would fall under the subject of the etymology of place names in general. No opinion one way or another on this particular list. Mandsford (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New York, New York isn't in this category, that's the city and state. Walla Walla or Ty Ty are more like what you're looking for. Drawn Some (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean that there's a state called New York and a city called New York? When did they start doing that? Mandsford (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it original research to look for sources that explain the function of reduplication in Australian locality naming? Toponomy is a valid field of research and who is to say that there is not previously published thought on this topic. It's only OR if editors choose to make their own assumptions about reduplication based on their own interpretation of the data in the list. I don't think that was the intention the editor meant in the sentence you quoted. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with your rationale is that you are assuming that there is some published material of this subject. Have you gone out and actually done the research? I have yet to find good sources that prove why this list is notable.
  • And likewise, you make the opposite assumption that the sources don't exist. As mentioned, I am not calling for original research, I am inviting people to find those sources. Eauhomme (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean sources like this one for example. That was a 30 second google search, heaven knows what one would find if one was to visit a library! -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there's more at here! -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A general list might be an idea, but the motivation for this list seems to be original research, and it doesn't really contribute much as it is. Rebecca (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just for interest's sake, the Australian folk singer Greg Champion released a song called Don't call Wagga Wagga, Wagga! -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unencyclopedic, trivial and impinges on OR. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way is it unencyclopedic other than in the sense of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It is a list of place names derived by reduplication which is a common theme in Australian toponomy, especially in names derived from Australian Aboriginal languages. This connection is not trivial, but one of encyclopedic relevance.
  • WP:IDONTLIKEIT has nothing to do with my vote. The list is purely trivia and the claims you have just stated are not even mentioned—let alone referenced—in the article. The article is comprised solely of a list that provides no information on why the subject is notable, and many of the place names have no information for their meaning. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. I believe even if this article was fixed up, it would still remain unencyclopedic trivia; hence the basis for my vote. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OSE? Please base your rationale off of this article and not other random repeated word articles that are actually notable. Also, who said encyclopedias are fun, that is impossible! (failed attempt at humor) Tavix |  Talk  11:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, "other stuff exists", the most overused allegation on Wikipedia. Did I use that as a rationale to keep? NO! Anyone who says "off of" has no understanding of Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oi Oi Oi anyway. Lighten up ... WWGB (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure being fun is a reason to keep either. You used OSE to suggest deletion for a notable article that has nothing to do with the notability for this article. Tavix |  Talk  21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your proof being...? Remember this isn't a vote but a discussion. Tavix |  Talk  21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naming conventions and aboriginal names in particular are the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources as here [7] mate. If you don't like the focus just on double names you could merge, but seems a reasonable enough subtopic to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Comment' Where's your proof that the article is mere trivia? I have pointed out above the reasons why this is not a trivial intersection despite the claims in your nomination. IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial listcruft that doesn't belong here. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So far is informative but needs work. Keep on basis it definitely has potential. Donama (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is similar in intent and no more trivial than other place name articles such as -land, -hou, -onna, -ovo/-evo etc. I am still puzzled at the insistence that the process by which localities obtain names is not a subject worthy of encyclopedic treatment. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some comments in this afd simply not worth responding to or engaging with - duplicated names in Australian indigenous place names are a notable and well documented feature in the Australian landscape - that should be accepted and understood SatuSuro 06:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with SatuSoro's comments above. Dan arndt (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepKeep per SatuSuro and Mattinbgn ... it's a linguistic feature of Aboriginal languages and therefore part of the culture rather than simply pertaining to place names. Plenty of songs and jokes about it. Orderinchaos 13:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I fail to understand any of the arguments for deletion. This is indeed notable and well documented. Regarding the discussion of fun, I sometimes find we ignore our readers. This is is just the kind of article that many readers will enjoy and find useful. I remember as a kid when I was recovering from a bad illness spending every day browsing through the "Children's Encyclopedia" and coming across lots of amazing material. That gave me my love of encyclopedias. This article could give that love to someone else. Think carefully before deleting interesting material. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Zakrzewski[edit]

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

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anant Kapoor[edit]

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

While there is a claim of fame, I can't find sources in a good faith gsearch to back this up. Also a search of the website given as a reference turns up 0 hits, and a gnews search turns up 0 hits for this Anant Kapoor. Because this is 12 years ago, dead tree sources in India may exist showing notability, so bringing to AfD instead of prodding. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article claims that he isrecognized for his numerous achievements but does not say what. Google does not return any references. If his awards were notable, he should have thrown up at least one entry. Delete for now. --Deepak D'Souza 12:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could find no dead-tree references by doing a Lexis news search for "Anan! w/2 Kap**r" and "Anan! w/2 Kap*r" Agradman (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of verifiability and lack of any sourced indication of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. The assertions of notability are so vague that they are useless for establishing anything, and escpeially useless as a way of narrowing the search. Based on the searches therough Google, there's no evidence that offline sources will be able to yield any more information. -- Whpq (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The current article content is too nebulous to verify and clarify, despite good-faith efforts by several editors. Abecedare (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peopletizing[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This is a non-notable neologism - for example the book from which it originates doesn't have a page & has an Amazon sales rank of 1.7M. Even if it was somehow notable it would still fail WP:DICTDEF. ThaddeusB (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Page's author (who appears to be the book's author - Chad L. Coe) wrote the following when contesting the PROD - "This word has been used for over 5 years now. In Deerfield IL. many people use the word and concept of it on a regular basis. We are in the process of creating a group on Facebook and Linkedin as well. I understand that via the web there are not many other users of it. There are more and more everyday. Please allow us to have it on Wikipedia." --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NEO or WP:MADEUP. This is what Urban Dictionary is for. Drawn Some (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a local neologism failing the guideline for neologisms. The article is also a conflict of interest as the page's main author's username is very similar to the author of the book that contains the term. A quick Google search provides only results from the local area where the term is used, as well as stores selling the book that started the neologism. A search on Google News brings up only press releases for lectures based around the book. No other reliable sources can be found, and the article is unreferenced. Also a possible self-promotion by the page's writer to promote their book. In conclusion, this article should be deleted as a local, non notable neologism. If the author reads this comment, I would strongly suggest the Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. NnCv2 21:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an example of "the power of Adver-tizing". Google news search yields [8] some mention in two articles in Chicago's newspapers in 2006. Wikipedia is not the place to promote one's book. It's unappletizing. Mandsford (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NEO. No reliable sources; also appears to be WP:COI, WP:MADEUP. Cnilep (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for all the reasons Cnilep enumerates. Do I sense WP:SNOW? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FoxyProxy[edit]

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

I can't fidn any reliable sources that show notability. Iowateen (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE I use the software, but can't honesty say it's notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talk • contribs) 04:32, May 18, 2009
  • Weak Delete - There is this short review in a daily newspaper. A Google news search shows there are many hits in non-English sources. I can't read them but they appear to be more in the way of software listings rather than an article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing that meets notability about this. NBeale (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – No sources, and most extensions aren't notable. American Eagle (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X factor discography[edit]

X factor discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not suitable subject matter for an article- contestants release albums and singles, not the show. For the most part, the show has nothing to do with the release. J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria Town[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic and non-notable article of a real-estate developer. The article seems to be created as an advertisement as a way to showcase their projects. Tavix |  Talk  18:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It would appear [9] there's some notable dirt on these guys. Not only have they built half of Rawalpindi, but they have lost a lot of investors money in the process, according to allegations. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of sources available from a Google News archive search, the very first of which is a feature in Newsweek, so the article subject even has international notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually that Newsweek article is about an gated community called Bahria Town, (like the area of Dubai), and states it is 45,000 square acres, when this article calls Bahria Town a "Real estate developer". It seems the article is intending on profiling the company, but many of the Google results are reflecting the place, not the company. However, this definitely is about the company, and I'm sure there are other sources to be found as well. Notable enough for their negative business practices that were covered by news. Ariel♥Gold 13:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.   JJ (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DCBMMA[edit]

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

I originally prodded as made-up, but I see now that this martial art is now merely non-notable (or of limited notability in the Hull area). No Ghits or references to suggest otherwise. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shunner[edit]

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

A classic case of a non-notable neologism, I feel. The term isn't even listed in the Urban Dictionary, so the chances of getting a listing here are remote. Of course, that's neglecting the fact that it is probably 100% something made up this afternoon, indicators of which include the rambling nature and the lack of any references, but more importantly the probably self-attribution of the term ("Crame", the surname of the supposed starter of the phrase, also appears in the article creator's username). Need more be said? The only thing that surprises me is the evident literacy of the authors. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. RP459 (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self-authored neologism, using Wikipedia to promote the term. Acroterion (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—straightforward non-notable neologism; without references, it's inappropriate for Wikipedia. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO Drawn Some (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seconded PROD was removed by original author with no explanation; no evidence for existence of the term except as used by one family. Totally non-notable and unencyclopedic. PamD (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence the term is used. References unreliable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

INewsit[edit]

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

I have been unable to find any independent, relaible sources which could be used to form the basis of a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia article about this six month old website. Third party sources are a requirement of the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for web content, the only sources I can find are the one's given in the article which are just links to the website itself, an advertisement, a Facebook page and a page in Arabic which (from judging from an online translator website) appears to be a similar advertisement. Guest9999 (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author of this page. This page should not be deleted. the reason and created it was because it is now one of the major Citizen news websites. I use to contribute to CNN's I-Report but now am a regular contributor to iNewsit. I have now added the link to the Alexa Ranking statistics in the references. The site has been ranked around the top 200,000 sites in the world and it has been very useful for me as a student journalist as one of my videos was purchased by a news agency in the middle east thanks to iNewsit. I have also added another third party article mentioning some controversy surrounding iNewsit in the references now. Hope that is ok.

Moghul (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Moghul[reply]

I could not find much else in the mainstream media about iNewsit, TheDailyClarity is another journalist/blogger who contributes to many Citizen News websites(very well known in this community). Why do you say TheDailyClarity is not a reliable source? I found out about iNewsit from ijnet which is a totaly independant organisation for journalists to network. The reference on their(www.ijnet.org) site and the arabic site are totally independent and are not advertisments by iNewsit. These organisations actually research different opportunities and will only publish somthing if its worthwile. Moghul (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)moghul[reply]

  • I apologise for my characterisation of the ijnet link as an advertisement, that is how it appeared to me as it highlighted how people could get involved and the weekly deadline. I'm not really sure how "opportunity postings" like that are usually considered. Reliable sources are sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy - this is not the case for most bloggers, as I said above I'm not certain as to whether the site mentioned could be considered reliable, i.e. I genuinely didn't know and wasn't able to find sufficient information to satisfy the question one way or another. Guest9999 (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I understand where you were coming from, but the problem is trying to find many references for this kind of thing is extremely hard as most media will not talk about their competitors due to the fear of promoting them at the same time. Most of the discussions about iNewsit are on forums etc. Most similar initiatives are owned by large media organisations such as CNN and these organisations will try and avoid mentioning one of their competitors. I wanted to write about a few other smaller and less well known Citizen News websites but I could not find anything about them anywhere at all except on forums. Is it worth me writing about them and referencing forums or will those new articles be deleted if I do this? I Am quite new to wikipedia but love the fact that I can contribute to this amazing knowledgeable. Feel free to add any information to my iNewsit article. Moghul (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Moghul[reply]

  • I'd never say never with Wikipedia but I think it's unlikely an article based only on forum posts would be accepted. An exception might be if the posts were made by accepted experts in the field - see Self-published sources (online and paper). Guest9999 (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. Note that the IJnet articel is essentially a want ad posting in the training opportunity section. That isn't something that (in my opinion) counts toward notability and the reliability is questionable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Furr[edit]

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

This article is tagged as a hoax. There is no mention of Joseph Furr in the cited pages of the article's reference Encyclopedia of Urban Legends ([10]; also no mention of a Joseph Furr anywhere else in this book). I have access to Informa's online archives and I viewed the full pdf for the reference "Mechanisms of Acute Human Poisoning by Pesticides"; it also includes no relevant information to substantiate the article. I can find no verifiable references to substantiate the subject's existence. Suggest deletion as unverifiable and a probable hoax. Muchness (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • G3 Blatant hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete ate roaches in the summer of 73 but died in May 73? Looks hoax like to me Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete hoax. Drawn Some (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete hoax...I don't understand why this wasn't speedy deleted when first tagged? TeapotgeorgeTalk 21:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hoaxes are generally not speedy candidates unless they're "extreme cases of blatant and obvious hoaxes"; presumably the editor who removed the speedy tag felt the hoax was sufficiently elaborate or plausible to warrant a thorough investigation at AFD. --Muchness (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Editors still say "speedy" though here on AfD so hopefully it can be deleted without sitting around for a week. Drawn Some (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Using the boldfaced word doesn't make being a hoax a speedy deletion criterion, however many times the boldfaced word is used. Hoaxes are deleted for being unverifiable. That is the part of deletion policy that actually applies to them, and it is not a speedy deletion criterion. Unverifiability cannot be safely determined by just one or two pairs of eyes, as speedy deletion criteria are applied. Muchness has done research. But what AFD needs is for other editors to double-check this. It does not need sheep votes, which are, basically, useless. What research, for example, did you do to come to the conclusion that this is a hoax? Your rationale mentions nothing at all. AFD, and Wikipedia as a whole, needs you to do the legwork, so that we can have confidence in the conclusion that is come to. Uncle G (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with Uncle G. I am the admin who removed the speedy deletion request from the article (three times now!). The article is not "nonsense" nor is it "blatant" vandalism. We have very specific speedy deletion criteria, and if an article doesn't fall within them, it doesn't fall within them, no matter how strongly you feel the article deserves deletion. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A wikipedia hoax, not an urban legend hoax. Good call, a well referenced article but every ref is a hoax. These are hard to spot. See here for one of the ref,a nd no story there. Look here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Air Taxi[edit]

Yellow Air Taxi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unscheduled air-charter service lacking significant coverage in secondary sources to support WP:COMPANY ttonyb1 (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. RP459 (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per comments above.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A brief news search turns up what looks like reasonable sources. [11]. [12] is really short, [13] looks good but is behind a wall, [14] seems fine as does [15]. The sources listed seem local, but [16] isn't. I'm curious if others thought these sources weren't enough or didn't search. Hobit (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hobit's links, and in particular this article which mentions the previous scheduled, international services should be enough to contitute 'significant coverage'. ∗ \ / (⁂) 08:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no refs - nothing that asserts notability> NBeale (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snuggle This article just needs some love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.83.208 (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Poorly written is not a reason to delete an article. While the references may be weak, I'm not convinced that this airline is not notable. Having an IATA and ICAO code along with sources says keep and cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vegaswikian. Hobit's links provides multiple, reliable sources. Typically, local companies like this will primarily be featured in local and industry sources and don't receive much attention from national media, but that doesn't make them non-notable. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just needs a bit more history and content. MilborneOne (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jagger/Richards[edit]

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

This article says absolutely nothing that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards don't already say. It is almost identical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John/Taupin, a redundant article on a similar songwriting pair which was also deleted as being purely redundantly redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to G N' R Lies. The Helpful One 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Used to Love Her[edit]

Used to Love Her (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, never released as a single, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deathcursed[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Upcoming, unrecorded album. Lacks verifiable information, and the title is also unconfirmed from what I can see. Amalthea 15:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Artifact (band), protect if necessary. Conceivable that a fan might search for this, but as stated above, does not currently warrant an actual article. Badger Drink (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, from what I can tell the title is not confirmed. A redirect would not be helpful. Amalthea 21:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Confirmed or not, if this is what someone's going to search for, it should be a redirect. Redirects are cheap. Badger Drink (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, per WP:V. We do not take part in spreading rumors. Unless there is a source confirming the title, or there is at least a reliable source speculating about the title, we can't have that redirect. Amalthea 10:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speculative. No sources. Rehevkor ✉ 04:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Austin (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Useless dab. These people aren't exactly known as Mary Austin, so no dab is really needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do want to point out that one of them is known as Mary Austin, but per WP:DAB "...when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article." This is not happening in this case, so there should not be a disambiguation. Tavix |  Talk  17:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will err on side of Keep. I can see a person coming across "Mary Austin" in a reference or a partial reference, and using this to figure out who it is. I find a lot of partial names in newspaper in Google archive, and have a hard time figuring out who in history they are referring to. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, a hatnote can be used on the more common Mary Austin to find the other article. You would not need a disambiguation for that purpose. Tavix |  Talk  11:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie☆S93 19:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kushrem[edit]

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

Bringing this article to AFD as it's been tagged as a hoax. I can find no evidence that this instrument exists outside of WP mirrors (Google search). Suggest deletion as either a hoax or an instrument with insufficient coverage to meet notability guidelines. Muchness (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom due to the lack of evidence to support the existence of this instrument which would suggest that even if it does exist, it probably fails to meet the notability criteria. Adambro (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax article Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hastily. Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable or hoax, not worth puzzling out. This has been accumulating mirrors for over two years now. Shameful. Drawn Some (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co.[edit]

Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A court case, but no claims of any reason it is notable. Not all court cases are notable, only those that act as a precedence. There are millions upon millions of court cases, 98% of which do not deserve an article. Wikipedia isn't a collection of court cases, but an encyclopaedia of articles on topics that are notable. Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a notable court case; badly written Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Might have potential Arma virumque cano (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. If you're wondering why these random cases are popping up with the strange formatting and YELLING, look at "What links here" and you get this: Legal Methods (Strauss) which is a textbook outline. It probably needs to be put up for deletion as well but I'll leave that to the legal experts. Drawn Some (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and did it myself after the spammer contacted me. Drawn Some (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I hate to be referred to here as a "spammer" :) . I have responded at that page.. To summarize what I said there: I actually concede that the article Legal_Methods_(Strauss) is not notable. So I ask for permission to move the content to my user page. My classmates have found the page useful as a "portal" to the cases that we have been discussing in class. And I inquired with a copyright professor at my law school, who wrote back in an email, "[displaying the TOC in this fashion] comes down to a fair use question; though on balance, because it is so clearly educational and non-commercial, I highly doubt it would be infringing." I understand that copyright is a fuzzy area of law; so this doesn't mean he's right; and I have never taken copyright so I can't make my own assessment. But I hope that, unless you get a contrasting second opinion from another copyright expert, that will not be a concern.
  • Delete: I can't figure out why it would be notable. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (I'm the creator of Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co.)
  • I must admit: I am guilty of being lazy and inarticulate. "Arma virumque cano" is quite correct that my recent articles have been poorly written, and I have not invested the effort necessary to explain the notability of the content (I will start getting into the habit of developing these articles on my user space before posting them here).
  • I know the topic of this article (biting a nail in a pie) must seem silly and childish. Haverly v. United States is another example of a case that is exceedingly mundane-seeming; there, I invested a little effort to show how the law uses really mundane events as a vessel for a highly complex and profound question of law.
  • In the present instance, Chysky v. Drake Bros. is part of the 1930s progression of cases that is called the "products liability" synthesis and led to a transformation in how people are liable. These seemingly non-noteworthy cases are important because they were all cited in MacPherson_v_Buick_Motor_Co., which is perhaps one of the most important cases in American law. Justice Cardozo relied on these cases in crafting his argument to determine whether a person could be liable for a defective product to someone other than the immediate purchaser. This created the law of product liability. I will add this statement to the page. Agradman (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Legal briefs are not articles. Wikipedia is not a place for posting your homework. Hairhorn (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles on inherently notable cases always have the potential to be improved beyond "legal brief" quality. The question we're asking is, "Is the case notable." JD Caselaw (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a classmate of the article's creator, so I'll take the liberty of posting here what he said on another page. The gist of the argument is that these articles don't just help law students; they help non-law students learn the law (which is important, because the topic has traditionally been inaccessible). JD Caselaw (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I agree that only important cases should have articles (and that the vast majority of cases don't deserve articles). But I also think that the cases taught in law school almost always meet that threshold of importance. We are only taught cases that either made precedent, or contributed to the creation of a precedent, or else are notable because they summarize the existing law so articulately that they are often referred to as reference texts. I think that under this heuristic for notability, you will see vastly more false positives (cases that seem at first to be not notable because the author of the article wasn't articulate, as happened with me writing Chysky) than false negatives (cases that are not notable, even though they were included in a law student's casebook)."
  • Keep - notable court case: first case that acted as precedent for products liability law; from highest court in New York (I know it is weird, but the New York Court of Appeals is our highest court); can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now I'd like to see the article improve so notability is more obvious. But it sounds like we have good-faith contributors who believe it can. Hobit (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like it might be notable, but the sources and content there don't show that it is. Delete unless they're improved. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It clearly states the reason for its notability. Cases like this showed an obvious need to change the law, and that change greatly affected everyone.
Chysky is part of a progression of cases that influenced the products liability synthesis that emerged in the 1930s. These cases influenced Judge Cardozo's argument in MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. that a person could be liable for a defective product to someone other than the immediate purchaser, and thus contributed to the modern law of product liability.

It clearly mentions why it is notable at the top of the article. Dream Focus 14:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that information was missing when the article was AfDed. However there is still not references to support that notability. Is there evidence that it influenced the decision, and the results of this case directly impacted the judge in that later case? Needs to be reliably referenced, not just because the article creator's law professor said it was so. Canterbury Tail talk 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, I have added two citations to scholarly sources. (this has been a good experience, I had no idea there was such a high standard for new articles. In the future, I'll try to develop articles on my page until I can establish good citations for them.) - the creator, Agradman (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clarify. The case certainly claims notability and others have already found sources referring to it. But I'm still left a bit confused by the article. First, please do more to avoid jargon for the non-lawyers among the readership. Second, what was the actual impact of this case on product liability law in the US, or even internationally? To a reasonable person, Chysky was obviously entitled to compensation as the negligence of the company left her with three missing teeth, but the judges ruled to the contrary on a technicality (privity of contract). Was the law was amended and was this ruling discussed? To partly answer my own question:[17]. Some more context in plain English is needed. Fences and windows (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not kept then alternatively redirect to an appropriate article discussing the evolution of the privity doctrine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The justification for the importance is now obvious. Any case included in standard textbooks as a leading precedent should be included in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 20:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Students for Palestine[edit]

Students for Palestine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Students for Palestine" is hardly a notable organisation that is worthy of an encylcopedic article. A Google search will only come up with their blog, the Wikipedia article and an article on a "Green Left" political activist website that says that the group has more than 20 members. SirThomasMitchell (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: oops, I seem to have just taken out most of the content as the references did not support it. Supporters of the article need to verify that the organisation, rather than concerned students not affiliated to the organisation, are the ones taking any action described.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnotable student group Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources seem to exist and be fairly reasonable. As the nom claims a finite list of web hits, the 21 news hits would seem to indicate the nom is flawed. Hobit (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hobit, problem is that "Students for Palestine" is also an umbrella campaign which has thousands of members who sign petitions, go on marches etc. It's not the same as this organisation, which seems to have sprung off the back of the SfP campaign, but has only a few members. The first of your news items (the Monash one) is about someone who was active in the campaign, not someone who was a member of the organisation that the article is about. Tricky one. If the rest of your references relate to the Aussie organisation, then yes, you're right, it is notable.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, then we should have an article on the main group and a section of it on this one I guess. Still think we should keep. Hobit (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hobit, the term "Students for Palestine" is likely to be a popular one. Using the search that you link, the only news sources are socialist/left-wing political websites and not legitimate news sources. It is no coincidence that the creator and edit warrior of this article is called "Marxisright" has something to do with this. And as another person stated, some of those links are not related to the Australian "Students for Palestine". The organisation does not have any information regarding how many members it has or anything that would make the general reader believe that this is a notable organisation. If we were to make an article for every student organisation out there, we'd have a couple from my university (that have a higher membership) including an organisation that provides free hot dogs on thursdays and wants the government to do likewise, a medieval recreation society etc. Until SFP (or S4P, they can't agree on a correct acronym) does something or becomes notable, it doesn't deserve a Wikipedia page. SirThomasMitchell (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Dsmdgold (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 22:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sil Yanku[edit]

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

Unremarkable person. No assertion of notability. Even the author questions the subject's notability. Google only turns up myspace and twitter. It's me...Sallicio! 14:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't understand why the author created the page with problem templates, I did wonder if it was a copy and paste from a previous reincarnation of this article but it doesn't seem to be the case. The article fails to establish notability primarily due to the lack of any independent sources. The article Jonny Lupo seems to have similar problems and I note there that it is stated that the individual's label is "Li Empire" which I note is the same name as the page creator. There is probably a conflict of interest here with someone related to this individuals creating these pages possible to promote them. Therefore, delete this and I'd also support the deletion of Jonny Lupo. Adambro (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the same things (and it does intrigue me when authors create articles with problem templates). TPH placed a speedy on the Jonny Lupo article. Which I also second that motion, as well.--It's me...Sallicio! 18:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Law & Order (franchise). Ill, make a redirect so that the content can be merged. Consider this closure a merge then. Tone 19:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York Ledger (Law & Order)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
New York Ledger (Law & Order) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fictional information, no notability out of universe. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 13:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Law & Order (franchise). Drawn Some (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least until there's a article on recurring elements in the Law & Order universe, then Merge. (Another such item for that proposed article would be Hudson University.) As the article in its current state shows, this fictional newspaper not only appears in a number of episodes, but was the setting for a L&O spinoff. In other words, it meets the standard for notability, but just barely. -- llywrch (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually the standard for notability still requires verification. The piece could do with some references.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even as such, what exactly needs to be said beyond "This series was set in the fictional New York Ledger"? What even can be said, beyond tedious in-universe minutae? Badger Drink (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No cultural impact outside of Law & Order, and extremely minimal impact even there. Probably not even worth a mention in the main L&O article, definitely no need for an article here. Would be nice on a L&O wiki, which I'm sure exists somewhere. Badger Drink (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the content Keep the redirect for GFDL purposes, though otherwise not needed. DGG (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a fictional newspaper that no real-world newspaper (or magazine, or scholar, or etc...) has ever written about in the sort of detail we would demand for detemining the notability of real world newspapapers. Yet here is this steaming pile of an article on a non-newspaper, that has no independent notability apart from the fictional world it inhabits (and precious little notabilty within that world, even, so no need for any merging but a redirect).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 19:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glory hunter[edit]

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

If you cut out all the WP:OR, and content that belongs on the sports page of a tabloid newspaper (which club has glory hunter fans this season), all this article's content boils down to one specific application of a very old word which has the general meaning "someone who takes part in an activity in order to share in the glory." Its application to someone taking part in a football fan activity is no more notable than its use elsewhere (eg referring to a military activity[18], angling [19], falsifying claims of heroic behaviour [20], in industry and commerce [21], in charity activities [22]. The list is long - you get the point. All this warrants is a sidenote in the dictionary. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Colloquial use of the term has meant that it has become synonomous with football. The page is an excellent addition to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.215.152 (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to mark this keep? I would have thought the half dozen sources I provided in the nomination were conclusive evidence that the term is 'not synonymous with football. Do you want another half dozen - General Custer's nickname "Glory Hunter" referenced in a song by the band Armored Saint[23], "glory hunter" used for a gold miner or panner [24], the term used as a name by a hacker with a penchant for the social networking sites of the rich and famous[25]. Here's a military example from wwII - from a first hand account [26]. Should I start on dictionaries next?
Uncle G, if you want to redirect this article to Bandwagon fan, be my guest. Do we need a consensus that the two terms mean the same thing though?Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just to confirm, while I'm not sure what Uncle G was getting at, it wasn't that 'glory hunter' is the same as bandwagon fan. It isn't the same as fairweather fan either. It isn't synonymous with football (whatever that means), and a glance at the sporting press indicates both that it is used of other sports and that even in soccer it has three differnt meanings - fans who follow a very famous team they have never actively supported (Man U supporters in India), UK fans who change allegiance according to the team's fortunes, and footballers who are not team players but only in it for themself (similar meaning to the military meaning). Strip out the ever changing content about which team is suffering from glory hunters this season, and all that is left is a subset of the dictionary definition.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium-Kyrgyzstan relations[edit]

Belgium-Kyrgyzstan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Belgium has no embassy in Kyrgyzstan. Coverage is mainly about multilateral relations [27], French coverage even less coverage. [28] LibStar (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the search, I'd like to see those who always vote keep try to rescue this...LibStar (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no argument here appears to me. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since no reliable sources treat this relationship. There's no sourced content at all (barely any content period) so there is nothing that could be "merged." I have no objection to someone creating a redirect to whichever of the foreign relations of articles seems most relevant after this is deleted.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would oppose even a redirect in this instance. In order to have an article on a bilateral relationship, there needs to be one simple criteria: there should actually be a relationship. In this case, there just isn't! HJMitchell You rang? 23:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, random X-Y intersection article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability for any of these. Most of them are just random combinations. Renaissancee (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above. If someone comes along and votes Keep, I'll reconsider, but for now I've got to add the arguments already presented by others. Yilloslime TC 22:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Songfacts[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable third party sources, fails WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 12:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There seems to be significant coverage of this site. [30] There are other sources that cover the site although not as significantly [31] [32] Captain panda 03:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Time[edit]

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

From the phrase, "There are no references" being included by the article's creator, I assume that there is no way to make this page remotely verifiable. Most of the synopses look like they're either original research or copied from the producer's website. The article's creator removed the PROD tags without explanation, and refuses to stop creating more articles in the same style. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the appropriate episode articles (as these are from different series). It's plausible that somoone could be looking for these. I am all for episodes of most TV shows getting articles, but these are pretty bad (very little info, no sources, etc.). TJ Spyke 19:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, what do you suggest redirecting to? These are the episode articles, what "appropriate" ones are you referring to? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I prodded List of Episodes because it needlessly duplicated information in The Old Guys. Matt (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - if any episode becomes notable through an award of similar then it can be recreated Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Impossibly bad articles: teasers, and non-encyclopedic. Possibly there should be a proper list of episodes, but this probable copy and paste job is not the way to do it. I am not myself completely sure there should always be a redirect from episode titles, though there should for all significant characters. DGG (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 20:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CHERUB (organisation)[edit]

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

The article is written in an entirely in-universe style and thus fails WP:IN-U. The entire article is written as an historical account and an incautious reader may easily be deceived into believing it is a real organisation. All the sources, save one, are self-references, booksellers or fansites so fails WP:NB in that there are not multiple reliable sources, but admittedly, only marginally failing. The one reliable source does discuss the in-universe organisation in a more than trivial way, but not in enough depth to source the entire article so failing also WP:V. SpinningSpark 11:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this article. Firstly, you seem to cite WP:IN-U as deletion rationale, when in fact it is part of the Manual of Style. Perhaps cleaning the article up would be a better action that heading for deletion?
As for WP:NB, the CHERUB series is one of the most popular young adult series around. The Recruit alone has won eight separate awards. With regard to WP:V, it's always difficult to find sources about a novel's concepts beyond the original creator. There are no fansites - the sources are mainly from the original books and the series's website, but these are both written by the author. Alongside this are sources from Waterstones, the Telegraph and Powell's Books (two admittedly are booksellers but I don't see how this limits verifiability).
The concept of the CHERUB organisation is key throughout the novels, and is the sort of thing people are likely to come to Wikipedia to to investigate. Whilst there are in-universe issues to overcome, the article is far from disrepair, in my eyes at least. Greg Tyler (t • c) 11:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited (WP:NRVE), admitting the author and/or the books are notable in no way confers notability on any of his fictional constructs. SpinningSpark 12:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In-universe style is not grounds for deletion, although it can be grounds for re-writing the article. PatGallacher (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Removing all the in-universe, unencyclopedic fluff would show just how non-notable this fictional organization is. No significant coverage from reliable, mainstream sources (a mainstream source mentioning it in the middle of a plot summary is, unfortunately, not significant coverage). Badger Drink (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to CHERUB. There is no independent notability established but a condensed form of the material would be appropriate for the article on the book series. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Helpful One 15:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singa goody[edit]

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

Promotional article about a single fast food stand. No notability demonstrated beyond local mentions. ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply Please read carefully and examine all reference before you state your claim. I have spent time researching and drafting my paras with several admin and work with them. It is seriously not fair or whatever to just put it in one sentence and based on your opinion to get the page deleted. Dreams20 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked at a few of the sources given. Most of the links listed as references at the bottom would not quailfy as a reliable source or even don't mention the restaurant at all. This source just gives contact details for the establishment, this "review" does not actually list reviews, and this link appears to be a forum. These links do not even mention the restaurateur at all. In conclusion, the article does not qualify to be kept under the notability guidelines for businesses, and also appears to be a conflict of interest. Essentially, should be deleted as local and non-notable. NnCv2 11:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • G11 Blatant advertising, tagged as such. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 11:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notability not established and the lack of any decent sources. Effectively just an advert. Whilst I support the deletion, I've not deleted it under G11 and so removed the speedy tag since I feel that now we have this AfD we might as well let it run so that consensus can be established and any issues properly discussed. Adambro (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note in your recent edit summary you say "i don't see a previous speedy which was turned down". The earlier speedy deletion request was declined here and I think there was at least another turned down on the basis that speedy deletion had already been declined with the suggestion that it should be taken to AfD. You can consider my removal of your tag as declining the speedy deletion as well and I've explained the reasoning. I recognise you are keen to see this article deleted but you should realise that getting it deleted via an AfD is a stronger signal that this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia rather than the opinion of a single administrator deleting it under the speedy deletion criteria and so makes it more difficult for it to return without addressing the concerns that have been raised. We might as well give Dreams20 (talk · contribs) the opportunity to comment on these concerns now an AfD has been created. Adambro (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable spam, per Knuckle Curve's research. Drawn Some (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi there, this article was typed by me. Prevously when i completed the article, it was accepted and one admin has already helped me editted it. I do have reliable sources and if you viewed closely , what i mention was mention by the newspapers or Internet materials. I don't understnad why some claim that it was advertisement and want it deleted. Look at other similar establishment like BREADTALK and crystal jade have lesser references. I can provide you reliable source. Please do not waste my effort on the article and it is obviously not advertisement. Please look at other similar articles. While typing this article, I have been trying to write closely to the guidelines. I don't understand why it is considered ads. Btw, pardon me for being late here cos i din know how to come here. I only write articles and edit articles. Some functions I am still not familiar. Btw, if u read on other history, one admin who helped me with the article said : Singa goody is the 1st of its own kind, it can be placed on wikipedia. Please advise me rather than wanting it to be deleted. Previously, i have tried to contact some admin, they didn't even want to reply me and just wanted the article to be deleted. Seriously, please don't waste my effort. Dreams20 (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The reliable sources are here: 1- http://yzone.omy.sg/index.php?articleID=11890&option=com_article&task=detail&type= Singapore press holding OMY article mentions Singa goody as the 1st local Halal fast food place. Means Singapore's style fast food . 2- http://www.singaporehalaldirectory.com/cocode-80095612-dirid-76-coname-SINGA+GOODY-CompanyProfile_MG.aspx Halal directory showing Singa goody being a Halal fast food place. Singapore did not have any Halal fast food before Singa goody. So its the first. 3- Maple tree bulletin. http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:3Tygo3100W0J:www.mapletree.com.sg/get_blob.aspx%3Ffile_id%3Dec9_June%252008%2520e-bulletin.pdf+singa+goody&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=sg The above justified my claim of Singa goody being the 1st local halal fast food.

My references are from these reliable sources, from Singapore's newspaper and organisation. Some articles don't even have any references or uses their own homepage as references. Just 3 reference to justify my claim. Thanks a lot. Warmest Regards. Dreams20 (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that it seems all of the sources are questionable. A trivial mention of the company here and there doesn't estabish notability nor does it meet the standards of verifiability that are required. Many of the links listed in the "References" section aren't appropriate. I've already removed one which was simply a link to a forum where the business was discussed. Most of the others are simply directories with basic contact information. There remain two fundamental problems the notability of this particular business hasn't be adequately established and much of the content is unsourced even if we were to consider all the current links to be acceptable. Finally, other articles with similar problems existing does not justify this one being kept. Additionally, I consider Dreams20's claim not to be associated with the business to be potentially suspect, particularly considering all the images they uploaded which don't look like something an average customer would have or create so there is possible a conflict of interests here which makes the requirement for good sources all the more important. Adambro (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images are taken down from their bulletin and i scan it. Look at the quality of the picture, if it will to be from the shop owner shop will they upload pictures with these quality. Please examine carefully. I have typed other articles and edited a few and posted some pictures. Ok, some references are from forum and i added them to show that I have done my research. Please post me more qns. I seriously find it weird. And one thing to note, some pages of similar organisation do not even have references to start with and my page has 3 reliable ones. I have more, if u need it. Pardon my typing as I am writing new articles now too. warmest regards. Dreams20 (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the images could well be copyright violations then... Adambro (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

of course, seek permission before I upload. Dreams20 (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with deleting the images but some images that I posted are taken when i dine there. Ok, let be more focus, in the first place, the article was up because it was the 1st of its kind. And hence, several admin accepted it and went on to help me with setting it up and editing.Dreams20 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Adambro for posting me and giving me some light. However, I thought it should be fair for all articles? "Finally, other articles with similar problems existing does not justify this one being kept."? Dreams20 (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles with similar problems should be deleted or the problems resolved, just as needs to happen with this article, but we've got to start somewhere so there are always going to be articles with outstanding problems whilst other articles are being deleted due to similar problems not being sorted. Adambro (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see many and they all followed the guidelines as stated like mine. regards. Dreams20 (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i just need to know what errors are there with the article and i adjust it accordingly. I have deleted the pic as requested. FYI, the paragraphs are edited by admin before to make it non-marketing. I have typed several pages and I saw this page getting into deletion just because someone has vanadilised my page and it leads to so many issues going on. Initially, it was deemed as fine. Like I say, the page is under 1st of its kind to be included in wikipedia, that is why i took it up for writing into wiki. Dreams20 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem is that the article fails to meet the notability criteria which states that: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable." This is not the case here. The subject has not been the "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". What we have in the sources you cite are merely trivial mentions, some of the sources are merely directories or review sites and some don't even seem to mention the company. All the content is certainly not verifiable, the extensive section listing all the food they serve being the prime example. Adambro (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

like i say, the article is on because it is the 1st of its kind. It met one of the criteria under one section of being the 1st of its kind. Unique. If u are talking about secondary sources, they are many bulletin and print materials. However, if you want to talk about reliable secondary sources, i gladly refer you to almost all other related food cafes eatries. They don't even have reference and their references is their own website. At least the article I did up has more than 3 references. Like i said, some of the reference i put up is to show where i read my info from...some may be reviews from others but some are reviews and writings from respectable organisations. If refer me to a wikipedia article that has met what you mention. I can show you many which i followed and are accepted for many many years already.Dreams20 (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i be back again. I am rushing an essay for my school now. Dreams20 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I don't accept that being the "first local Halal fast food outlet in Singapore" is enough to disregard the established notability criteria which requires "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". I note that rather than demonstrating why the current sources should be considered reliable or appropriate, you instead suggest that other articles don't have proper references. I would again suggest that other articles having similar problems is not a reason to not deal with any articles with problems, either by addressing the issues or deletion. We've got to start somewhere. None of current sources are enough to support this article. Of the three you previously highlighted, this is simply a directory listing, this is merely a trivial mention which provides only a tiny amount of information about the subject, and this doesn't really add up to "significant coverage". Adambro (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you misinterpret what i was trying to mean. I am trying to draw your attention that food articles cannot give as solid evidence as compared to Historical, factual as well as famous being. My article being a food article should be placed in the sasme catogory as other food articles. It is impossible to expect a food article to be shaped like a factual article. Reliable sources does not mean long sources. Reliable sources should come from respectable organisation or prints and my articles have references from respectable organisation. Like i say, other FOOD article do not even have similar references and as solid as mine. What i am driving at, is not other food articles shuld be deleted but I meant food articles have reliable sources for food articles whereas factual articles have factual reliable sources. Its difference. You cannot compare apples with oranges. Dreams20 (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd generally hope that all articles on Wikipedia could be described as "factual". The notability criteria are well established and have the acceptance of the majority of the community so to disregard the fundamental criteria of a requirement for a subject to have coverage, beyond trivial mentions, in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, is going to require an extremely compelling argument. So far, it doesn't seem that has been the case. With regards to your distinction of food articles, I am sure that there are a great number of properly sources articles related to the subject and equally a great many that aren't, just as is the case with all subjects. That doesn't mean they are acceptable though and shouldn't be deleted if they can't be brought up to the required standards. Being a "food article" does not, and is never going to, exempt such articles from the most basic of notability criteria. One food outlet is only going to be considered notable enough to merit a Wikipedia in extremely limited and exceptional circumstances. This isn't one of them. Adambro (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What i am trying to mean a reliable and a notable one is not determined by its length but by its reputation or respectability. Being a food article, means the article will mention about the stall's uniqueness as well as speciality. The references present may be short but it is equally reliable. The topic is short that is why the references are short. I don't understand why length and reliability should be placed side by side and compare like that. I need to know which food article has sources that are notable? I don't see any. Most food article don't even have and I have been browsing and researching. Basically, I hardly find one. Please show me an example.Dreams20 (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not suggested that the length of the content about Singa goody has any bearing on whether that source can be considered reliable. The length is independent of whether a source is able to be described as reliable but to meet the notability criteria, there must be more than trivial mentions and that has to be from a reliable source. Someone could write a thousand word blog post about Singa goody but that wouldn't be an acceptable source because whilst it would constitute significant coverage, a blog isn't generally accepted to be a reliable source. Equally, if a highly respected newspaper like the The New York Times for example made a brief mention of the company in one of its articles that wouldn't be acceptable either. Whilst it would be from a reliable source, the coverage would be trivial.
You again seek to compare the article with other, unnamed articles also related to the topic of food but it isn't appropriate to do so. As I've said, I am sure there are many examples of articles across every subject area which do not meet the notability requirements. Their continued existence is not a signal that the community consider them appropriate but rather simply a consequence of the enormous nature of this project. Where there are other articles with similar problems to this one, if they aren't addressed then the article will be deleted. There are many food articles which are concerning notable subjects and are properly referenced. You will find though that those are the ones that meet the notability criteria. You won't find many articles about single fast food outlets because they aren't notable. Adambro (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a bunch of brief mentions and directory entries. That's not enough to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A reliable and notable one does not mean a long essay or lengthy page. It is determine by the source, its reputation as well as reliability. Not the length of its mention.Dreams20 (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A trivial mention doesn't confer notability no matter how reliable the source. All of the coverage of Singa goody has been relativity insignificant and many of the sources you cite, particularly the directories, cannot really be considered reliable. There is not significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources so it fails to meet the notability criteria. Simple as that. Adambro (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At the end of the day, it's a small article about a fast food restaurant that has no bearing on general life. The author is seeking to publicise and draw attention to the establishment but they should ask them self the question... Is it worth the effort? People don't go to Wikipedia to look for places to eat. Besides, even if all they wanted to do is draw attention to their achievement then they should reconsider the articles content as it does nothing to give informed insight into the establishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom991 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Forces of Satan Records artists[edit]

List of Forces of Satan Records artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely redundant. Only four bands and they're already listed with more detail in the main article Forces of Satan Records. A separate list at this point is unnecessary. Maybe when the record label becomes more notable and expands its lineup to more than just 4 bands it can be split off into a separate list. OlEnglish (Talk) 11:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as un-needed spin-out of primary article. Drawn Some (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with others, it is not necessary. I made the article one year ago, but wouldn't have made it today, so I support its deletion. Bulgakoff (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Helpful One 15:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pencak Silat[edit]

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

Okay guys, long text:

The article is (in my opinion) a copyright violation. The CopyVio was created in October 2007, when the article was “constructed” by copypasting sentences or complete sections from various sources and mixing it up with (hopefully) self-written stuff. Yesterday I discovered this and requested a speedy deletion.

It was declined, and the Admin told me that it would be better to go step-by-step through the article, find the sentences/sections that are CopyVios and remove them. His reasoning was that even if the copyvio-sections were removed, the article would still have enough “substance” to keep on existing, and that since 2007 certain parts of the article that initially were copyvios have by now been changed by several users so that they can’t be called copyvio anymore.

I did as the Admin said, but well, almost the complete article is CopyVio. And, if you compare the current version with the first one, you see that the difference is actually not that big. Approximately 90% of the article are still the same.

Take a look please at the very first version with copyrighted material. It is structured into 4 major sections: Introduction, terminology, history, styles & techniques.

Now, again, please compare this with the current versionand you’ll see that basically all of the copyvio stuff is still in there. If you remove it, all that's left is half an introduction and three paragraphs of the "History" section. Thus my suggestion is to delete the whole article and let it restart, hopefully under the supervision of someone who knows what is allowed in the Wikipedia and what not. DavidDCM (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the notability of Pencak Silat and would be among those that would re-create a new article. I just think that a complete re-start would be easier than trying to safe the text fragments of the current article (which are potential copyvios, too). Btw, I made a version with the copyvios being marked red: [33] --DavidDCM (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's notable the copyright material should just be removed even if it leaves a stub with only history. How would deleting it be easier, I don't get that part. Just delete everything except the part you know isn't copyvio, hit edit button, highlight, backspace, type "remove copyvio" in edit summary, hit save page. If someone later replaces it warn them about adding copyrighted material. Drawn Some (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay guys, you convinced me that deletion is not the proper way for this article. I'll try to work on the article in the next few days. I only ask for one more advice: Should I completely remove the "History" section or keep the white part of the text? I could not find a source for that part, but maybe the website it was copypasted from does not exist anymore. It was added to the article at the same edit as all of the copyvio (red) stuff, so I think there's a reasonable suspicion that it might be copyvio as well? Thanks for your contributions to this discussion. --DavidDCM (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment thanks for taking this on! Definitely remove any known copvio stuff, but you can work with the rest and the bias should be toward not deleting referenced/verifiable content. JJL (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have removed all known copyvios (found two more sources in the meantime, so the article has been cut down even more).--DavidDCM (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wow, this article is nominated for deletion? I am very surprised. Pencak Silat is a sport by itself. And is very well known among people in South East Asia. It is also in the SEA Games since 1980s. I don't think it should be deleted only because it contains copy vio materials. I shall give a hand to rewrite it if you need me to. (: Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 09:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy if someone would support me building this article up again. :) But in regards to your surprise: Every article can be deleted if certain criteria are fulfilled. Being well known does not mean that an article can not be nominated for deletion. Even the article United States could be deleted if one of the criterias for deletion would be fulfilled. --DavidDCM (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think what DavidDCM want is to do a partial deletion of the article back to completely non-copyright violation version. Thus, in order to do that, the article needs to be deleted to have a fresh start and reupload together with the history section without the copyright violation. If the copy vio entries are still in the history section, editors can easily revert or put back again the copyright paragraphs or sentences to this article. I think a history purge on the article is needed, just a history purge which needs the article deleted and recreated. ax (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I know of an article where the history section purge is used. Polytechnic University of the Philippines article has lot of copy vio entries back then. Garion96 dealt with the article. He was able to delete the copy vios as well as the edits on the history section of the said article, but was able to retain the part of history section where there is no copy vio left. I do not know how to elaborate it more, but the article is still there although parts of the history section's edits with copy vios were gone and I was able to have a fresh start on the article. Of course, be sure to have a copy of the present state of the article, because as I see it, it has been rewritten without the copy vio. ax (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly notable. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' It is a well recognized and clearly notable sport. And as the Colonel said, AFD is not cleanup. Dream Focus 17:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation, not notability is the issue, for the third time. Please read the discussion before you post. What WP:Cleanup has to do with this is beyond my knowledge. --DavidDCM (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BEFORE which emphasises that If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.. Also see WP:Copyright problems#Alternatives to deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful for you to withdraw the nomination. JJL (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand A wonderful martial art that is even popular in some areas of the United States, though it isn't in ver many fighting games unfortunately. Also, it needs to be expanded to include pop culture references and appearances in various media, and also add sections on uniforms and stances. Angie Y. (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Open Hearts (2002 film). Cirt (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Hearts (2011 film)[edit]

Open Hearts (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested {{prod}} with no reason given. Pretty blatant violation of WP:NFF. Matt (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 03:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Salonen[edit]

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

Fails both basic and additional criteria for notability. Also issue of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BIO1E. This article is about some custody battle involving a child, so there is also a privacy of names issue too. Martintg (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Yes, it has been in Finnish tabloids even a year ago as "tragic family story". Now when this "kidnap" happened again, the foreign minister commented it with a one sentence. That doesn't make it notable at all, you don't even remember this a few months later. Unless there are major diplomatic consequences, which there aren't and probably won't be, it's not notable by any means. --Pudeo' 09:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However there is not even a corresponding Finnish Wikipedia article at present, so why should there be an article in English wikipedia when there is absolutely no English language sources. Custody battles are a sad but mundane fact of life and child abductions where one parent returns to the old country with the child are unfortunately quite common, particularly in immigrant societies like the USA and Australia. --Martintg (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Europe, there's a general principle that child custody cases are to be decided under jurisdiction of the child's original residence country. Because of this, these issues are very infrequent between two different EU countries. Unfortunately, Russia is not a signatory to the relevant treaty, and child custody battles go sour between EU citizens and Russia's citizens at a considerably higher frequency. Maybe an overview article of the issues titled something like Child custody battles involving international marriage with citizen of Russia would be appropriate. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 06:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. One event. Peltimikko (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The media continues the issue for a second week (The Yellow media don't have anything better to publish right now...). Peltimikko (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The media coverage is enough to satisfy the Wikipedia's notability requirements. There plenty of reliable sources.--Dojarca (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not Wikinews. There are millions of news subjects every year, some of which you don't remember the year after like this. One child under a trunk. In reality, thousands of people are smuggled with human trafficking every month. --Pudeo' 16:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP. If the case itself turns out to have some historic notability it can be covered without mentioning the child's name. Yes, there are plenty of news reports available on the web that name him, but they will very likely be taken down over time, with our article remaining indefinitely. The events described must be pretty traumatising for this poor kid - let's let him grow up without the first search engine hit for his name always being a reminder of what happened to him. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have moved the article to Anton incident and removed the full name from the article. Most news coverage however mention the full name. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under new name, per Petri Krohn's change. This is an international issue that has been discussed widely for some time, and so long as we focus on the incident and not so much on the specific child, I see notability and no real privacy issue. I'd almost want to remove the full name redirect as well, but it isn't as if that'll do anything to quiet the publicity surrounding the boy's name. Avram (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I strongly support to keep this article because this case shows clearly the problems of Estonian apartheid. The mother of the child is born in Estonia with no citizenship. Her only way out to find better life and possiblities from Estonian apartheid is to marry abroad. This is the way how Estonia is making the "ethnic cleancing", finally getting Russian speaking population to leave the country. The marriage is the ticket to freedom. It might be a dissapointment to the man to find finally that he has been used only for "transportation". This Anton incident is a perfect example to show, how does the Estonian apartheid effect in people´s life.90.191.10.50 (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please discount that vote as it is obviously sock of Roobit,a permabanned Black Hundredist troll. --Miacek (t) 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sock accusations against User Roobit (talk · contribs) were false, the real sockmaster was Bloomfield (talk · contribs). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never known Bloomfield (talk · contribs) to engage in anti-Estonian hate speech previously. Judging by the tone of the rant, it is definitely Roobit (talk · contribs). Martintg (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Also, it is not Bloomfield's style to start with a rant on a talkpage, then copy it over. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin might want to disregard the arguments of the IP for being formulated in a disruptive way. Also the IP is probably a sock of a blocked user Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with User:Phil Bridger in this. The publicity of this single event will eventually die down, while the Wikipedia article will remain indefinitely. Therefore if the article is kept with a new name, then at the very least the redirect must be deleted. --Martintg (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability borderline. BLP concerns push this clearly onto the delete side.radek (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, so his full name is covered in thousands of reliable sources, and you still want Wikipedia to censor it for no reason other than some misguided rules, even though Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored. Makes perfect sense. — Kingalex56 (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I would suggest moving the article to a title that includes the child's name in order to avoid unnecessary and despicable censorship; e.g., Anton Salonen incident. — Kingalex56 (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT#NEWS. Nobody unconnected will remember this in a year's time. Stifle (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Michael Martin (politician). While there is substantial support for a merger, the support for deletion makes it clear that an article shouldn't exist at this title; the content is there under the redirect for anyone wanting to merge. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of British MPs calling on Speaker Michael Martin to resign[edit]

List of British MPs calling on Speaker Michael Martin to resign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Okay, this might be a news story but a list of people involved in it is unnecessary. This list isn't notable. This should at the very most have 1 section in Michael Martin (politician). Computerjoe's talk 09:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we're not a newspaper, this is gossip. Perhaps a brief mention of the call for his resignation in his article and in the expenses article, perhaps including notable names like Clegg's, but nothing more. - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge (at least for the time being) - this is currently a major event in British politics. It is possible that this could have profound affects on the future of politics in Britain. In wanting to find this information this site was my first point of call and to not have these details I feel would be unforgivable. Review this debate in a few months time when the actual affect of these calls is known. Arnie Side (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely we should be working the other way around? We're not supposed to be a news site so our primary focus isn't about providing information immediately in response to events. A few months time is the point at which we'll be in a position to assess the notability of this particular situation and decide whether a unique article is appropriate. We shouldn't be trying to pre-empt events and create articles on the assumption that it will be a significant event where that could well not be the case. Adambro (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - this doesn't need it's own article as a list. If Martin is removed there's an article that could be written, but it's not a list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or rename This is either a storm in a teacup or an event worthy of its own article. Either way we should wait until the issue is resolved. Martin451 (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Michael Martin (politician), this is where the main content about this seems to be. Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament is already 91k long, and very likely to expand. Martin451 (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the vote of no confidence is very notable, but it doesn't justify a standalone list Sceptre (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be some kind of RSS feed of reality, or an alternative to Associated Press. This is mere trivia from people who like the idea of listing everything but haven't read WP:LIST recently. There is no point putting here what, ultimately, is a list without a formal reason for its existance. Inventing truths to justify Wiki articles is not how things work. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, at least for the time being - the ultimate fate of this list may depend on the outcome of the no-confidence vote (if there is one). But this is constitutionally unprecedented territory and hardly non-notable. Vilĉjo (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - worth keeping, but not as a separate article. edd (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge-the information is useful for anyone wanting know more but as a list I don't think it merits its own article Godfinger (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge-the information is historically interesting and notable since it's the first time it's happened in 300 years. I personally find it quite interesting to know exactly which 30 MPs (less than one in twenty of the total) broke with convention and made public statements on the matter. As the matter is now resolved the list presumably will not change further. --Merlinme (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate place to merge it (if that is the decision) would be Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament, as the interesting thing about it historically is how MPs came to be calling in public for the resignation of the Speaker. --Merlinme (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - an accurate list of the mp's makes a turning point in the knowledge of the parliament. and can allow outsiders to easily see in and give their own opinions of the events that are occuring. and i believe it to have historical significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRGregory (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is undoubtedly history in the making. I'd like to see the list cross referenced against a list of MP's dodgy expenses!Twoquidtunes —Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge This is noteworthy, but merge to Michael Martin. Thats how I see it. America69 (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List is simple trivia and would be more suited to a newspaper than an encyclopædia. Tc1415 (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Noteworthy but merge with Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament as this was directly in connection with the scandal as it is the first time in 300 years when a speaker of the House of Commons is forced out of office. --Joshuaselig (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dateline-- London, May 19 (AP)-- Michael Martin, Speaker of the British House of Commons, resigned today. Asked to comment, Mr. Martin said, "It was that blasted Wikipedia article. When I saw all those blue-linked MPs on the list, I felt that I could not do otherwise."
  • Keep -- This is the first instance of a UK Speaker resigning in several centuries. Does this make it as notable as List of signers of the United States Constitution? No. But looking at the references, seems to indicate that this information is not gathered in one spot anywhere else. Geo Swan (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Several other respondents have suggested merge -- but they suggest two different merge targets: Michael Martin (politician) and Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament. I suggest multiple targets for a merge is a strong argument that the article should be preserved, as-is, merely being linked to by the various suggested merge candidates. One respondent suggested merging the list to BOTH target articles -- an obvious maintenance problem. Another respondent has pointed out that Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament is already 91K -- also a strong argument against merging. Geo Swan (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to potential closing admin(s): Most respondents left their comments prior to Martin's resignation. I suggest this article be re-listed, now that he has resigned, which is likely to get a different cross-section of opinion, and their main concern -- keeping the list up to date -- no longer applies. Geo Swan (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The resignation of Michael Martin is now probably significant enough to warrant its own article, so it might make sense to replace this article with an article about the resignation. Also, the list of MPs who signed the Early Day Motion is probably far more definitive than a list of compiled news stories. Whether it's worth including this list is a matter for discussion, but an alternative would be to provide a link to the relevant page on Hansard Online. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having a separate list of this is magnifying really small details. The event is probably worth a separate article, but not this one. I don't think the list of who has made the motion is encyclopedic content, so I am not suggesting a merge. DGG (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The article is a POV fork. The majority of information in it duplicates the main article on this subject—Nanking Massacre controversy. Some text was actually copied verbatim from the latter. So, I see no justification for its continued existence. (If someone thinks that some parts of this article could be merged into Nanking Massacre controversy, I am ready to provide a copy of the text for the personal use.) Ruslik (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre[edit]

Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reason the page should be deleted PCPP (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article that violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Most of the article's content is well covered in Nanking Massacre controversy, and only a fringe minority of historians deny the the occurance of the Nanjing Massacre. WP is not a promoter of fringe theories. Furthermore this article is written in a manner than gives weight to the denialist claims with little refutation from mainstream historians, making it seem as the Nanjing Masscre denials are undisputed, especially the photographs section, which violates NPOV. Last of all the tone of article heading higly suggests that the massacre is fabricated, instead of being a concept held by a minority.--PCPP (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I was not even aware that there were two so similar pages. Even though both of them are long, would it not be an idea to merge the content of both articles into one? Mlewan (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear case for a Merge. It should certainly not be deleted, if for no other reason, because of its excellent image content. SpinningSpark 12:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to delete after examining in more detail. Comparing the ledes of the two articles, it is now clear to me that this is a deliberate fork of the Nanking Massacre controversy article and not an accidental duplication. The almost identical sentences could only have come from the original article (borne out by the edit history). SpinningSpark 17:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Propoganda comparable to Holocaust denial. Gives undue weight fringe theory this is not notable. All the references are Japanese suggesting this article is for POV pushing and reducing the reliability of sources Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart form each other. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive193#Arma_virumque_cano AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment One look at the author's contributions [35] State that this is clearly a POV pusher SPA account. With a Japanese sounding name, no wonder Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Denial of Nanking Massacre along the line of Holodomor denial. Notable as a propaganda event.Biophys (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as per biophys.Smallman12q (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant POV fork. Drawn Some (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Based on mainstream Japanese sources. Hovewer, we do not want this material in Nanking Massacre. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some parts to Nanking Massacre controversy. This article is the result of user:Richardshusr's good faith initiative following user:Arimasa's attemp to introduce excerpts from his article here [36] into Nanking massacre. I've tried my best to give a balanced view to the negationist POV by adding many sourced citations from reputed scholars or excerpts from contemporary testimonies but I must admit the overall result is a failure and is more propaganda than anything else... --Flying tiger (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename I'm not a deletionist. I believe that nearly all articles can have a home on wikipedia, but that name has to go.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a POV fork and does not attempt to give a neutral account of the events it covers. If the article is kept it requires a total re-write to provide a balanced account and move on from its current status as a thinly veiled collection of denialist propaganda. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge (probably non-existent) relevant material to Nanking Massacre controversy. Right now the article is nothing more than a collection of denialist propaganda and much of the current content reflects the main contributor (Arimasa)'s website advocating the fabrication of said events. It's one thing to argue that the topic is notable (it is, and is already quite well-covered in the controversy article mentioned). The page was primarily created by Richardshusr to divert people like Arimasa from being a distraction from those working on Nanking Massacre and Nanking Massacre controversy. Now, I'm sure we've all read the POV fork guidelines. Sure, it's ok if a topic grows so large that it deserves its own article. That's not a POV fork. Indeed, that is why there is a separate article on the controversy. But what do we call an article that is a haphazard collection of information that has been deemed unsuitable for inclusion elsewhere and makes no pretense at being a neutral account of a (fringe) theory? Indeed, the selection of topics right now in the article are the result of the following process: 1) Arimasa includes topic X 2) someone clarifies point made about X which makes the denialist argument look less convincing 3) Arimasa removes X and replaces it with Y. So we see here that due to this cherry-picking of contents (rather than neutrally trying to describe the denialist theories) makes the article itself a propaganda piece for denialism, rather than an encyclopedic account. Looking at Nanking Massacre controversy, I don't know why that article doesn't do an adequate job and why we need this 3rd article. Indeed, Richard has mentioned in discussion that he is uncertain what the article should be about. So I don't think this article was very well-conceived from the start and should thus be deleted. --C S (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CS et al above as an irrecoverable POV fork and redirect the title to Nanking Massacre controversy. A merge might seem appropriate at first glance as there is sourced content unique to the article, but I fear such an outcome will result in this propaganda piece lingering indefinitely as editors try to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and may spill over into content disputes on other articles. It looks to me like there's nothing in this article that we can't afford to lose. EyeSerenetalk 11:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - largely a duplicate of Nanking Massacre controversy. This is an obvious violation of WP:POVFORK and needs to go. Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the existence of Nanking Massacre controversy. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As others have said very clearly, this is a pov fork and we already have an article which has in its title 'controversy'. Turn it into a protected redirect. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obvious POV fork. The only reason to have an article of this name is to present a certain non-neutral POV. I don't see any need to keep a redirect at this title, since it doesn't seem to be a likely search term. There might be some material worth moving into Nanking Massacre controversy. If the Article Rescue Squadron want to make themselves useful, perhaps they could look into that. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Denial of Nanking Massacre as per biophys. However, I won't have much heartburn if the article is deleted as it is currently written in a POV style which is in desperate need of a complete rewrite to make it an NPOV description of a particular POV. I created both this article and Nanking massacre controversy at about the same time. In fact, this article was named Nanking massacre controversy for a short while before I realized that there was a need to describe the controversy from a historiographic perspective (which the current article on Nanking massacre controversy does). This article "drills down" and focuses on the denialist POV. It could be an encyclopedic article except that Arimasa keeps trying to make the denialist case rather than allowing others to describe the denialist case in a more dispassionate and hopefully objective perspective. The duplication of text noted by Spinningspark is deliberate. That text was copied over here to provide context for the thesis of the article. --Richard (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is hopelessly redundant; only one article is necessary to describe these Japanese fringe theories. If this article is to be about the denialist POV, what on earth is Nanking Massacre controversy supposed to be about? It is instructive to note that there is only Holocaust denial to describe the denial of that particular atrocity—this one doesn't need two. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the denialist points should themselves be assessed in context, although it’s not absolutely necessary that this should be an independent article. Many of the denialist arguments are simply repeated again and again and again in the current article as rebuttals to claims made. That’s unnecessary. The cure would be to restructure the article to identify the main denialist arguments and offer mainstream rebuttals (which are almost entirely absent), but since this would require a total restructuring and rewrite of this article, I don’t see that it cannot be achieved in the Nanking Massacre controversy article. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Arimasa is an uncooperative editor it is best dealt with in other ways than giving him a toy article to play with. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Giving him a chew toy was an easy way to buy time so that the controversy article could be written in peace, primarily by Richardshusr. Now that it is largely settled into place, Arimasa's POV thrusts can be better parried. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let me get this straight. This entire article was written to give one POV-happy editor something to occupy his time rather than vandalize the more accurate and NPOV version of the same topic? What the fudge? Since when is it up to Wikipedia to babysit uncooperative editors by giving them their own articles to corrupt so the rest of WP can run smoothly? It sounds to me as if something needs to be done about this Arimasa rather than turn WP upsidedown to accomodate him/her. This article is a pointless exercise in redirecting a bad editor's efforts away from the original article. Big, fat delete. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge. Yesterday, I had looked at what it would take to make this an NPOV article focused on its topic on its own merits, but could come up with nothing short of a total restructuring and rewrite. I fully agree with C S. Merge any useful information into Nanking Massacre controversy. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork. -- Avenue (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (if possible) and delete - piling on; POV forks are not good things. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons given above. Of course nobody deserves a soapbox at WP, but as Arimasa Kubo already has his own elsewhere this one somehow seems particularly unnecessary. (Oh, a note on the nomination: only a fringe minority of historians deny the the occurance of the Nanjing Massacre; of historians, yes, but politicians sympathetic to this view are routinely elected to power by the Japanese citizenry.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose early close of this AFD with result being Merge any salvageable text and then redirect ***

The current consensus is 20 for Delete, 5 for Merge and 5 for Keep. Given the close parallels to Nanking Massacre controversy, Merge is effectively the same as Delete. It seems to me that 30 opinions is a lot for an AFD and I doubt that additional time will change the outcome of this AFD. We can just delete the article and then re-create it as a Redirect. If anyone wants to try and salvage some of the text, I'm an admin so I can restore the text of the deleted article to their userspace for them to pick through at their leisure.
--Richard (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawn. --Richard (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily a bad idea but it's rather an odd one. First, by your own reckoning the most popular vote ("!vote") accounts for under 70%, low as a "consensus" even as the word has been bizarrely extended by WP. Secondly, "merge" might very well not mean the same as "delete" (if it meant delete, I'd wonder why people saying it didn't instead say "delete and redirect"). Thirdly, this AfD is neither particularly long nor (rather surprisingly) at all rancorous. And lastly, somebody might later complain if the AfD had been cut short. -- Hoary (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • smerge POV fork. Hipocrite (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Too much information to merge. And the denial is wide spread in Japan, they censoring their history books and claiming they were not the aggressors in the war. Anyone who tries to speak about the truth of what happened during that time, is harassed, and even has their life threatened according to a bit I saw on the History Channel about this years ago. Plenty of references for everything. Dream Focus 10:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nanking_Massacre_controversy A lot of information was split, the article too long otherwise. Dream Focus 11:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a glaringly obvious POV fork. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. Artw (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV Fork; this is appalling. Such articles need to be more carefully watched and watched for. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    nb: there appears to be widespread POV violations related to this: [37], for example. Jack Merridew 14:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a POV junk page with the worse conspiracy theories being tossed in without any balance. Fake history is not encyclopedic and the only article should be to show and refute the rediculous claims. Jmcnamera (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fringey junk. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed early per WP:SNOW, and by extension WP:IAR. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Oldroyd[edit]

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

Subject has explicitly requested deletion via OTRS (2009051710005054). PeterSymonds (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the sourced content to mobile phone mast, delete the rest as a courtesy to Ms Oldroyd.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Delete. 1 Event, reasonable request for a BLP. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 11:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is of marginal notability (leading a successful local campaign over a mobile phone mast and making a few films for the news do not make a great claim for everlasting significance) so her views ought to be respected. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 12:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:BLP1E. The only thing I see, even with research, is one local media campaign, that really was not covered very widely. Even without the OTRS request, notability is very iffy; with it, it is a clear delete. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 16:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One eventer, maybe a blurb in another article is good enough Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy-deleted (G7) by Anthony Appleyard. Non-admin closure. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order of León-Sable[edit]

Order of León-Sable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

More of the same undocumented and unfindable hoaxing as Battle of Lemos, House of Lemavia and Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who then was a gentleman?, first you accused me of being from Chicago, and I have proven you wrong (follow my IP address). Second, you said there were no references to these battles, and I proved you wrong again sending you the article of Dr. Brian De Toy. Third, you asked for a website (as if websites were the only acceptable source in Wikipedia), and I even sent you a link extracted from a history book fully dedicated to the "Batalla de Monforte de Lemos" ( http://www.1808-1814.org/articulos/monforte.html). Fourth, you said this was a hoax, and I pointed out websites citing the list of people killed that day ( http://club.telepolis.com/apenela/HISTORIA.htm). Fifth, you started to nominate a whole bunch of articles for deletion without reading any source. Sixth, every time I prove you wrong, you keep shooting in the dark for the next "nice try". Please, I understand where you are coming from, but as a new contributor I find hard to believe ONLY VETERAN CONTRIBUTORS CAN WRITE? This would be the end of Wikipedia.

A hoax? This link comes straight from the Ministry of Culture of Spain. These are protocols of nobility about the House of Lopez de Prado, another article you nominated for deletion without ever reading it:

http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas/servlets/Control_servlet?accion=2&txt_id_fondo=184080

I hope this answers all your questions and we can keep working together. (Qqtacpn (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

How does any of that cut-and-pasted response, which you seem to prefer rather than addressing questions appropriately, have anything to do with the suject of this discussion in particular? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I posted notices to this and other related AFDs at WP:SPAIN and WP:HERALDRY. Checked googlebooks, the whole bunch seems highly suspicious, but not enough for a definite nay. NVO (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as complete hoaxes. There are no reliable references at all for any of this elaborate hoax. European heraldry and armigerous lines; battles, skirmishes, and engagements of the Peninsular War, including the activities and whereabouts of the honorable Marshall Ney; and Orders are all well documented in reliable sources. These are clear hoaxes and while palausible at first glance fall apart in the details as well in the absolute lack of any documentation. All of it is historical fiction and some of it not even well done. Don't waste everyone's time with this. Delete and salt and block. Drawn Some (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered all your questions for hours. You have made very offensive accusations based on:

  • 1) Your inability to read Spanish.
  • 2) Your lack of interest for sources published in paper. You only accept websites as sources.
  • 3) You are not interested to search the websites of the Spanish Goverment I have provided (search "lopez de prado", between quotes, at http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas/servlets/Control_servlet?accion=0).
  • 4) The fact that my area of expertise (War crimes commited in Galicia during the Peninsular Wars) has offended a group of French Wikipedians (Equendil, Frania W., etc.).
  • 5) Ridiculous suppositions (do I live in Chicago? Are these 5 users in the same Continent? Why are they interested in similar topics?)
  • 6) Discrimination based on being a new contributor.

Anyone with access to this Encyclopedia (http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/geneal/index_gc.html), available at the Library of Congress and everywhere in the Spanish Speaking World, please go to Volume 72, pages 101-120. Or go to the http://www.granenciclopediagalega.com/, also available in the Library of Congress, and search the article dedicated to Lopez de Prado. These are but a few more proves that these individuals are making false accusations. I do not doubt your intention is right, but the conclusion here is that a very small number of Wikipedians ignorant of well published research actually have the power to remove legitimate content. Fine, if this is how flawed Wikipedia is, please go ahead and remove these articles. They belong to the paper encyclopedias available in the Library of Congress. End of discussion. (Qqtacpn (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of music featured on Doctor Who[edit]

List of music featured on Doctor Who (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this article contains a lot of original research.

(PROD tag removed) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per extensive precedent, lists of songs used within TV series are non-encyclopedic trivia. Being used in a TV series has no effect on the notability of a particular song and the songs on this list have nothing in common past having been used in a particular TV show. Otto4711 (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial importance Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems entirely relevant and a valid break-out from the featured article Doctor Who. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: seems to fit with the rest of the Doctor Who content and is a list of sufficient notability and content to be worth having.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable, not relevant. it's a shame that it even got here. After a whole week with the prod on it, all it takes is one person (after the prod had actually expired) to save it. 129.215.149.97 (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stifle. This is content that would be perfectly valid in Doctor Who and has only been moved because the article is too long anyway. There might be music on the list that can be removed but music that was composed for those episodes or was later made famous because of being featured in DW is perfectly valid to have there. SoWhy 11:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the main article is too long, as others have said, you have to break it out into a side article. The information is perfectly valid on its own. Dream Focus 15:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    General comment > nobody seems to have twigged that the extremely long article contains only two references (it therefore contains an awful lot of unverified claims, and reading through it, a fair amount of original research), and the Notes column is just full of commentary such as, "Classical music," (who's to say what is and isn't classical?), "The Charleston was a popular dance craze in the 1920s. Black Orchid is set in 1925," (who's to rule on what counts as popular?) and so on. I don't think that it would be valid in the main article, as it's just an indiscriminate dump of information - and I use the word 'information' in its broadest possible sense, since most of the article is uncited [38] [39] ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Otto's impressively convincing list of other "List of songs from X" AfDs which clearly shows consensus that these articles are not notable. I try to find sources online to justify articles but here I just can't find anything. This information needs to be included with the relevant episode or series, they're just not notable enough on their own. Note to closer - if deleted, please kindly ensure this information is userfied, it will be required to reinsert it into other articles. Also, is there a Whopedia or similar to move it to as well? Bigger digger (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SoWhy. I see no reason why this isn't a valid topic for an article. The lack of sources is an issue but surely this can't be hard to fix considering the huge amount of literature that exists about virtually every detail of this show. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EXTension Port[edit]

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

Contested prod with the reason that it is a longstanding article and should be sent to AFD for discussion. As in my reason for prodding, I cannot find anything that can establish any verifiability of this Nintendo feature. All the information given are from unreliable sources, and nothing by those who edited the article have been able to provide anything about this port. Because of the non-verifiablility, there is no logical place for a merge or redirect; also, this port may refer to several consoles. We have tried at WT:NIN to see where this can fit, but we couldn't find anywhere in which it could. MuZemike 07:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Budget[edit]

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

Can't find any google news results of WP:RS. Nothing else obvious. No indication of notability in article. Shadowjams (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No indication of notability. Postoak (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as software that does not establish notability, nor does give reliable sources. The author of the article claims that "the freeware version of Desktop Budget has been reviewed and talked about by several bloggers", but the only links to one review by a blog writer. This should not even be considered a reliable source per the third notability guideline of web content, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)." The only other links given are the official website and a second link to the same review. In conclusion, the article describes non-notable software, and should be deleted under the web content notability guidelines. NnCv2 12:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kanonkas :  Talk  16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lemavia[edit]

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

Undocumented hoax, related to Battle of Lemos and Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop doing this. There is more than enough references listed in the article which you can check yourself. (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Point to specific pages, not general websites. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited dozens of books, all well known and available at the Library of Congress. Since when is a requisite for an article to be based on websites? (Qqtacpn (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete as unadulterated hoax. There are no reliable references at all for any of this elaborate hoax. European heraldry and armigerous lines are always well documented in reliable sources. These are clear hoaxes and while palausible at first glance fall apart in the details as well in the absolute lack of any documentation. All of it is historical fiction and some of it not even well done. Don't waste everyone's time with this. Delete and salt and block. Drawn Some (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered all your questions for hours. You have made very offensive accusations based on:

  • 1) Your inability to read Spanish.
  • 2) Your lack of interest for sources published in paper. You only accept websites as sources.
  • 3) You are not interested to search the websites of the Spanish Goverment I have provided (search "lopez de prado", between quotes, at http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas/servlets/Control_servlet?accion=0).
  • 4) The fact that my area of expertise (War crimes commited in Galicia during the Peninsular Wars) has offended a group of French Wikipedians (Equendil, Frania W., etc.).
  • 5) Ridiculous suppositions (do I live in Chicago? Are these 5 users in the same Continent? Why are they interested in similar topics?)
  • 6) Discrimination based on being a new contributor.

Anyone with access to this Encyclopedia (http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/geneal/index_gc.html), available at the Library of Congress and everywhere in the Spanish Speaking World, please go to Volume 72, pages 101-120. Or go to the http://www.granenciclopediagalega.com/, also available in the Library of Congress, and search the article dedicated to Lopez de Prado. These are but a few more proves that these individuals are making false accusations. I do not doubt your intention is right, but the conclusion here is that a very small number of Wikipedians ignorant of well published research actually have the power to remove legitimate content. Fine, if this is how flawed Wikipedia is, please go ahead and remove these articles. They belong to the paper encyclopedias available in the Library of Congress. End of discussion. (Qqtacpn (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by PMDrive1061. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AppleiPod[edit]

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

Article already Exists. See Apple Ipod SKATER Speak. 06:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orice jenkins[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia[edit]

Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability, written entirely from primary sources, appears to have been created solely to push an extreme POV Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoemaker's Holiday, the article states well known facts, documented in the sources provided. Like in the case of the Battle of Lemos, being an event part of Spain's history, it has been published mostly in Spanish. (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Had you used any encyclopedias, that would be one thing. However, this article is cited exclusively to Parish records and similar, except for one reference in a background section of dubious connection. You can write an article on pretty much anyone who lived in the last five centuries with such sources. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite don't understand. You have just marked for deletion all of my articles, which are perfectly noted and referenced. It looks pretty arbitrary to me to just label them for deletion, when most encyclopedias in Spanish language include them (Gran Enciclpedia Gallega, Enciclopedia Garcia Carraffa, Enciclopedia Espasa, etc.). (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Try citing one of those encyclopedias. Bart133 t c @ 06:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'd lean toward deleting it, but if the article exists in Spanish encyclopedias, it might be worth inclusion in a more NPOV form. Let's at least see if there are more sources in Spanish. Bart133 t c @ 06:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The actual sources used are baptismal rgisters, parish registers, and other governmental and chuch registers. No encyclopedias are cited. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of these articles show up in the Spanish Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as pure hoax, there are no Barons of Lemavia and no reliable sources for any of this author's balderdash. This is a total waste of time and deserves a block. Drawn Some (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have answered all your questions for hours. You have made very offensive accusations based on:

  • 1) Your inability to read Spanish.
  • 2) Your lack of interest for sources published in paper. You only accept websites as sources.
  • 3) You are not interested to search the websites of the Spanish Goverment I have provided (search "lopez de prado", between quotes, at http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas/servlets/Control_servlet?accion=0).
  • 4) The fact that my area of expertise (War crimes commited in Galicia during the Peninsular Wars) has offended a group of French Wikipedians (Equendil, Frania W., etc.).
  • 5) Ridiculous suppositions (do I live in Chicago? Are these 5 users in the same Continent? Why are they interested in similar topics?)
  • 6) Discrimination based on being a new contributor.

Anyone with access to this Encyclopedia (http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/geneal/index_gc.html), available at the Library of Congress and everywhere in the Spanish Speaking World, please go to Volume 72, pages 101-120. Or go to the http://www.granenciclopediagalega.com/, also available in the Library of Congress, and search the article dedicated to Lopez de Prado. These are but a few more proves that these individuals are making false accusations. I do not doubt your intention is right, but the conclusion here is that a very small number of Wikipedians ignorant of well published research actually have the power to remove legitimate content. Fine, if this is how flawed Wikipedia is, please go ahead and remove these articles. They belong to the paper encyclopedias available in the Library of Congress. End of discussion. (Qqtacpn (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was nom withdrawn, speedy keep. Dlohcierekim 23:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Aloys Zötl[edit]

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

prod was contested. I am unclear as to why this artist is considered notable. Unless article can be improved to the point that his notability is made clear to those of us not familiar with his work, I suggest article be deleted as nn artist. If he is truly notable, someone should be able to tell us why. Postcard Cathy (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn, request speedy keep.Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; there are few sources in english but he was known quite well as a painter of fantastic natural history scenes. He was discussed in length by Andre Breton in Aloys Zötlin in Surrealism and Painting. See http://www.iobabooks.com/books/3810315.html. The article could and should be greatly expanded; not deleted. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I said when I removed the prod tag, he has an entry in a print encyclopedia, which is generally accepted as a sign of notability. There are plenty more sources available from Google Books. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand what Phil is saying BUT (of course there is always a but): The purpose of an encyclopedia is to tell you what is notable about the person, not send you to another source to find out if he is or is not notable. Other sources, the way I see it, are if you are interested enough in the subject to learn more than an encyclopedia can give you. If there is notability about the subject at hand, it should be in the article. Even if it is summarized in only one or two sentences. No one has taken the time or the effort to do that here. If it isn't said, I can't help but wonder if he really is as notable as you two say he is. Postcard Cathy (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such sources and statements have been added with more to follow. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With recent additions, I am clearer now on why this artist is important and would not contest the decision to keep this article. Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lenora Claire[edit]

Lenora Claire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Strong deleteSeveral problems exist that cannot be remedied. Firstly, the main editor (the page's subject Lenora Claire) is unable to provide any substantiation for the majority of claims made (major modeling contracts, 200 articles, interviews etc) and abuses editors who seek to remove unsourced claims. Where sources are in existence, they are almost entirely along the lines of weblogs or online gossip sites -- which violates wikipedia policy on valid sources. Additionally, the main editor/subject, is unwilling to not see this page as a glorified CV which she retains ownership of and can control the content of. I see that she previously created another page publicising one of her events that was deleted as blatant advertising. I think Ms Claire views wikipedia as essentially no different from Myspace and this article -- fatally flawed as it is -- reflects that Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While some new references have been added and some unsubstantiated claims dropped (and user LenoraClaire seems to be inactive at the moment) the major flaws of the article -- and the fatal ones -- remain.
  • The sources are almost entirely one of two types: trivial, passing mentions or mentions in unreliable sources (zines, blogs, gossip sites)
I believe that the best possible sources have been found based upon the great deal of effort users LenoraClaire and DogTownClown have expended (and one of them -- LenoraClaire -- is the subject -- I am sure she will know of any and all relevant press/refs)
  • The article has grave verification issues (this is related to the first problem)
  • The subject fails to meet WP:CREATIVE standards of notability as a model and a writer and a curator.
There are no compelling reasons to give this article a pass from normal notability standards. I know DogTownClown argues Claire is unusual and interesting. Maybe she is; but we need more than that to warrant an encyclopedia article I am afraid. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How does that extremely high standard - WP:CREATIVE - reconcile with the fact that Wikipedia routinely includes scores of biographies of "people who are relatively unknown ("non-public figures")"? - from here WP:NPF - "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." A generally well known person would be a "public figure", no one here is trying to imply that Lenora Claire is a household name, a public figure, or famous - but it seems that all the argument against her bio page are aimed in that direction, ie "she's not well known", "she's only had 3 events covered in the media", "she's only written articles for one magazine", "she's only mentioned in one bestselling book", etc. etc. Dogtownclown (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Really? They all seem aimed at showing that she fails known critera for notability. You seem to just say that shes unusual and interesting (see below). And then garbnish that with OTHERTHINGSEXIST for good measure. Its really hard infact to get a handle on what your arguments are as they chop and change akll the time (here Angelyne is the benchmark, there shes too high). 12.162.2.182 (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Writing 200 articles for the same publication - one of the most noteworthy accomplishments in the article - it not in itself noteworthy at all. There are thousands of staff writers for magazines and newspapers worldwide who have published ten times that number of articles. Hairhorn (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems to me that the more noteworthy point is the famous celebrities who were interviewed in these articles. Also, writing 200 articles for a publication is far more noteworthy than, say, writing one or two or a dozen. Dogtownclown (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. When you write magazine articles, a good portion of them will be about noteworthy people - artists, actors, musicians. There are thousands of working journalists who have written more articles about people more noteworthy. That doesn't make them worth an encyclopedia entry. As for 200 being more notable than a dozen, so what? Hairhorn (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You assume that her writing is the most noteworthy accomplishment. That is your opinion. Another opinion might hold that she is more noteworthy as an cutting-edge art curator in the cut throat LA art world, who happens to also be a journalist. Dogtownclown (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you're going to concede that the writing isn't notable, you can probably stop debating me... Hairhorn (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't notable at all, did I do that? I said that I don't consider it the most noteworthy accomplishment. I do think it's notable that she seems a jack-of-all-trades, a renaissance person, many faceted, etc. Dogtownclown (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that note: I think she would not be notable if she were just a writer, or just a model, or just an art curator, or just a celebrity of sorts in the LA art/film world, but the fact that she is all of these things makes her a little unusual and interesting, ie noteworthy. Dogtownclown (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only addressed a narrow issue about journalism, there's no point debating me with points about curating or other achievements. Also, do minor, non-noteworthy achievements add up to make one noteworthy one? This debate has gone on before. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mai_Griffin. Hairhorn (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All one has to do is enter "Lenora Claire" in to Google to verify all of the claims are true. Information can be confirmed by following links to LA Times articles, LA Weekly articles, MTV.com articles, BoingBoing.net, TMZ.com, IMDB.com, WireImage, Getty Images, and the Associated Press. All one has to do is put in the tiniest bit of effort to confirm all of the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenoraclaire (talk • contribs) 06:09, May 17, 2009
  • There are plenty of references listed in this article. Implying that this article is "fatally flawed" or that there are problems that "cannot be remedied" are CLEAR INDICATIONS that this is some sort of personal vendetta being played out on Wikipedia. Dogtownclown (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
    • Please assume good faith, Dogtownclown, and tone down your rhetoric. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't appreciate the personal attack. I have been active on the wikipedia since 2007 and have made many hundreds of edits to artciles related to numerous fields. I have also created or heavily improved a number of pages. You -- I see -- have not; but feel free to leave all manner of attack comments on my motives. Please, address the issues and keep the name calling on the play ground. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did address the "issues" sir. Again, the article is NOT "fatally flawed". It can be improved, sure, but why the big push to have it deleted? Dogtownclown (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        • Actually, you didn't. You just asserted that there were "plenty" of references and accused me of some vendetta. The issue -- as I see it -- is that the subject is NN and sources (that aren't blogs or gossip sites) do not exist to show otherwise. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 07:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • MTV News and LA Weekly are sourced in the article (that's 'plenty' for a stub class article). Other sources like The Los Angeles Times are not used in the article, though they could and should be. Adding a 'citation needed' here and there could help improve the article I think. "Fatally flawed" is an overstatement in my opinion.Dogtownclown (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
            • The problem with that line of argument is that the MTV article isn't about her -- she is merely interviewed as a participant in a show. It does nothing to establish notability. I cannot see the LAWeekly ref in the article. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Weekly article is the THIRD REFERENCE listed. http://www.laweekly.com/2008-01-10/la-vida/world-of-wonder-gallery-where-camp-meets-vamp/ - quite amazing that you "cannot see" it.Dogtownclown (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Please tone down the personal abuse, rudeness, and rhetoric. Other editors have also asked you. It does nothing for your cause and indeed hurts it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just added another reference from the Los Angeles Times which shows this woman is in fact a mover and a shaker in LA art scene. These are high profile events that she is producing in the second largest city in the US. Dogtownclown (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
From the page you linked: "A lack of notability does not necessarily mean that reliably-sourced information should be removed from Wikipedia." Dogtownclown (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Also for the page you linked: "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article.... It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute."Dogtownclown (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is legitimate. There are plenty of references and material is already out there on the web to substitute any of the claims made on this wiki bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniimotek (talk • contribs) 06:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC) — Aniimotek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Okay, at user LenoraClaire's urging I looked at all these supposed google hits that will be just fine as replacements for real secondary sources. Number one of the top ten is this wikipedia article and another five are created by her: e.g. livejournal, myspace, flickr etc. As an aside I note that one of the top ten is her twitter where, interestingly she is trolling her friends for help in supporting this articles keeping. Apparently "even with all of my links to various press some stalker creep is trying to delete my wikipedia page. Can anyone help?" This doesn't seem to me to be appropriate behavior by a wikipedia editor interested in actually developing an encyclopedia. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is highly inappropriate behaviour. She should undo what she has done and refrain from doing it again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in third-party sources. Anyone smell socks? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 10:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Show me the money: significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:BIO, not all of these irrelevant articles written or blogs or MySpace or anything else that doesn't meet WP:RS, isn't about the subject, or is trivial. If notability can't be demonstrated the article should be deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the second paragraph on the page you linked WP:BIO "This notability guideline for biographies is not policy", again, I believe that the article meets the criteria for a biography stub.Dogtownclown (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The qualifiers "significant" and "in-depth coverage" are not found on the page you linked - reliable sources Dogtownclown (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Ok, from WP:BIO, this is close to what you were saying Drawn Some: "notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary."

Notice that the qualifiers are "significant", "interesting", "or unusual enough".... not all 3 together, but any one of the three.

Also, "This notability guideline for biographies is not policy" (in other words, it's not a hard and fast rule). Dogtownclown (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Scroll down just a wee bit in WP:BIO to the part that says "Basic criteria" as a section title. It's okay to ignore rules and policy and guidelines but only for good reason. It also liable to get reversed by consensus, which is what is happening now, someone created an article that probably didn't meet notability requirements and editors are deciding whether or not it should stay. Like I said, show me the reliable sources etc. as above. Drawn Some (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "good reason", as I see it, would be that this is an "interesting" person, and a person "unusual enough" to be included (2 of 3 notability requirements), in my opinion. There are reliable sources posted in the article, I've even added some myself. As far as someone thinking it "probably didn't meet notability requirements", that has been addressed as well - from WP:NOTE: "A lack of notability does not necessarily mean that reliably-sourced information should be removed from Wikipedia." and "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article.... It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute." Also, keep in mind that "consensus" is decided by the weight of arguments, not on the number of people raising concerns. Dogtownclown (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Clean up[edit]

I've spent a little time doing some research and editing/pruning the article. I've also added some information and sources which bolsters the article's notability, it is clearly "interesting" and "unusual enough" to be included in this encyclopedia as a biography stub - in my opinion. Dogtownclown (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment -- appreciate the hard work - as I'm sure everyone does - but some of the refs being added aren't really reliable sources from the wikipedia perspective (online mags/websites). Lots of non-reliable refs and cites may look impressive but still don't establish notability. For a pretty good summary of what is needed I would review the comments of Ricky81682 and others. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in turn, some of the references are good. I added a Los Angeles Times article (a reliable source) as well as a mention of Claire in a book which uses her as one of 3 examples of "goth" fashion models working in the world today. Dogtownclown (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been flagged for rescue[edit]

"All too often, an article about a perfectly notable topic lies wounded, badly written, unsourced – but should its life be taken at Articles for Deletion? No! Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement. Improvement is the opposite of deletion. An article should not be deleted just because it is ill-formed. Some writer worked hard on that article. Some reader can use that article. Those writers and readers, if reached out to, can help us preserve this worthwhile content."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron

I agree! Anyone want to help? Dogtownclown (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who tagged the article for rescue, I'd advise would-be rescuers that the best way to save this article is to find and provide evidence of third party coverage of her in respectable publications. Examples of this would be a story found via a Google News search for "Lenora Claire" which devoted multiple paragraphs to Claire's work, or a scan of an article about Claire in an offline reputable magazine. Making unsubstantiated claims that the subject has been featured in reliable sources does not impress anyone, nor do claims about the subject's importance. From the debate so far, it's clear that those favouring deletion have made the stronger case thus far, and I say that as an editor sympathetic to rescue efforts. Regards,  Skomorokh  21:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing the clean-up team should do is confirm her age, IMDB doesn't count as a reliable source for that. Drawn Some (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I can only assume that it is not possible (given that the attempted clean-up has left this untouched). I think that this is merely another indication of lack of notability. A truly notable person's birth date/place could be quite easily confirmed from reliable sources with little effort. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Aren't birth dates usually published in biographies or autobiographies? Isn't it highly unusual for a news article or an interviewer of any sort to mention someone's birth date, especially a woman? The date of someone's birth seems pretty trivial in my humble opinion. 166.77.103.133 (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the LA Weekly articles (there are several online and a couple linked in the article) does devote a few paragraphs to Claire's work - http://www.laweekly.com/2008-01-10/la-vida/world-of-wonder-gallery-where-camp-meets-vamp/ . Is the LA Weekly not considered a reliable source? Many of it's writers, including the one who penned this article, also write for the Los Angeles Times (Lina Lecaro has since 2000). Hell, some of these writers have won a Pulitzer Prize. As far as I can tell Lina Lecaro is one of a handful of experts on the LA fashion, art, and music scene. Dogtownclown (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Can someone explain to me how the above is not a reliable source. I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to know. Thanks. Dogtownclown (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
(1) I believe the LA weekly is reliable, which is defined at WP:RS. However, our concern is that coverage of her isn't particularly significant, and the tone doesn't indicate that it is independent or particularly professional (but that's a matter of judgment). (2) is your argument now that because she's written with people who have won Pulitzer Prize, that's adequate? That's not particularly strong, especially considering you earlier said that the number of articles she's written isn't significant. Is she famous as an article, a writer, a model, what? There are very specific standards for all of those types of notability. Claiming she's generally well-known isn't productive (3) the WP:SPA designation isn't an insult, it just indicates that you aren't someone who seems to have a grasp of the entire encyclopedia, especially the policies as a whole. These rules have been built up over years and years of discussion, and they are somewhat complex. (4) Please stop with the "there are several sources out there" arguments, and your general antagonism. Your tone and rhetoric isn't helping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering the question. There seems to be some confusion... I was indicating that some writers for LA Weekly are Pulitzer winners because I thought people were saying that the LA Weekly isn't a reliable source. I didn't say that Claire wrote anything with a writer for the paper. My argument is that she seems to be a notable person, a person of interest, an unusual subject - from what I read, those are a legitimate criteria for determining if a person is noteworthy - a step or two above whether she's famous or well known (right?). Dogtownclown (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that she seems to be a notable person, a person of interest, an unusual subject. Based on what? We don't go on mere speculation and gut feelings. That falls under original research and would be a nightmare in terms of consistency (as the early years of this project were), so we go by, "are there independent third-parties that discuss her significantly?" -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basing it on what I read in the LA Weekly articles referenced in the wiki entry, the writer claims things such as "(Claire's) show gave the gallery its first taste of real media frenzy". I'm not basing it on a gut feeling, there seems to be some real excitement about what this lady is doing. Dogtownclown (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, generally, an encyclopedia focuses on people who are notable because of what they have done, not on what they may do. I have to follow the group that disagrees about her notability, although probably a little biased since I both am from the LA region, am used to people like Claire, and am dealing with another article that has both the same COI concerns and the same notability issues. However, you are still free to have your opinion and you are free to try to convince anyone else who comes here of that. Again, though, assume good faith with others and keep the rhetoric down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that direct links to images at the LA Weekly (like here like this citation) are really frowned upon and make the LA Weekly looks like a reliable source and more like an unreliable blog. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ricky81682, Could you clarify your comment here? I am attempting to help clean this up where I can, but not sure what you saying here. Ericboyd (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my discussion above. Coverage is at best passing and feels like a sort of synthesis of reliable and non-reliable sources into making some attempt at notability, but not enough. Sources that are reliable mostly are on the "Golden Gals" exhibit which is not enough for notability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to kindly disagree once more with your assessment that the subject isn't noteworthy. I don't believe that I or the article I just quoted implies that her notability rests on what this woman "may do" but on what she has done. She is causing a stir, at this very moment, in the LA art scene. Los Angeles is not an easy place to gain attention, as you should know, everyone and their mother is fighting for the spotlight. The fact that an "expert" on the art scene in Los Angeles (the LA Weekly writer) is gushing about her speaks volumes, in my opinion. Dogtownclown (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Note that this is a discussion and not a vote. There have been times where the closing admin ignored the "votes" and overruled based on which person had the better arguments. There's still plenty of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I cannot speak to the writing but a curator by profession and one of note would nave more than 3 shows in 2 years... or is it 3 shows in 3 years? Its not clear. Plus, notable curators (a few have articles here) also generally have numerous publications in art monographs, journals etc. Also how does the art sell? This is incredibly important. Fini12 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC) contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
I think these criterea are the relevant ones:WP:CREATIVE
Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries
Comment I think its pretty hard for an editor to say that the subject of this article satisfies any of the above statements.Fini12 (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real evidence of notability, just the occasional publicity stunt and lots of online self-promotion. An Angelyne-wannabe for the social-networking set, a long way from any real success. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you bring up Angelyne, who has a wikipedia article of course, and whose only achievement has been purchasing billboards of herself. I'd argue that this young lady Lenora Claire is far more interesting and has accomplished more in just a few short years than Angelyne's 30 years of doing absolutely nothing. As I understand it, being a "success" isn't a requirement for being a person of interest on wikipedia, I think the lack of success on Angelyne's part goes towards proving that. Dogtownclown (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument for keeping an article. Whether Angelyne does or doesn't deserve a place in the wikipedia has no bearing on this article's validity. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it doesn't. But it might show something else... Angelyne's wiki page has only 2 references. One from the entertainment section of LA Times (Claire has an LA Times reference from the same section of the paper, with the same amount of info - as well as a few from the LA Weekly) and Angelyne's only another reference is from TMZ, which is not being considered a reliable source for Claire. Just a thought to consider. Dogtownclown (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- if you think the Angelyne article unencyclopedic or wanting in some way, you are free to edit it or indeed to bring it here as an AfD. This; however, is not a discussion about the Angelyne article (although a news search reveals more than 3 LA Times articles fully about the woman) it is about the validity of this article. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid. The invalid comparisons are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales. When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc." Dogtownclown (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree again Bigdaddy1981. The validity of Angelyne's article is relevant to this discussion. Please re-read the above, "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." This intro paragraph from the page you wanted me to read specifically says legitimate comparisons shouldn't be disregarded simply for the reason, the exact reason, you are stating that they should be disregarded for. Dogtownclown (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, although I think a discussion of Angelyne is best done on that article's talk page; I will say that I am hesitant to compare Angelyne to Lenora Claire. A google books search turns up a chapter on Angelyne in "Claims to Fame" by Joshua Gamson (Univ. of Cal. Press), an entry in something called "Jane & Michael Stern's Encyclopedia of Pop Culture", and more than passing reference to her in John Waters' "Crackpot". Moving on to news media, I can find a score (can't be bothered to count them) of articles in the LA Times alone with the first several (stopped reading them) being entirely about her. This all within about 10 minutes of searching. So, I don't really think that a comparison to Angelyne is all that helpful to the current debate and the presence of (even a poor) article on Angelyne sets no precedent for one on a (frankly) lesser light like Claire.Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just located a book, the 2009 update of the wildly popular "L. A. Bizarro: The All New Insider's Guide to the Obscure, the Absurd, and the Perverse in Los Angeles", previously a best-selling book in LA - #1 Non-Fiction in the LA Times - which features Lenora Claire, and actually dedicating a story to her. The pages aren't available online, do I need to scan these pages in and post them on the web? Or how does this work exactly? Dogtownclown (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Nope, that would be a copyright violation. Free feel to just cite the pages in the article, and mention the diffs here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon shows that book as still unreleased --- publication date September 2009 --- but I'll take your word that Claire will be mentioned in it when it comes out. I wonder though if "featured" isn't overdoing it given the one page mention. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Taken together, all the achievements would tend to show notability, but there is a real verifiability question here too. No prejudice against a new article if it overcomes these issues. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I guess it was a fair call to nominate this article at the time, but following improvements it now seems to meet WP:BIO several times over. From checking several other BLPs it doesnt seem that common to have a source to confirm age, and generally the article now seems much more densely referenced than average. Seems nPOV to, one could easily have bigged up the subject from the existing references, the article now seems to be a fair reflection of Lenora's achievements. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Im not really sure what improvements have been made (aside from the largely cosmetic changes you made recently). No one still can show any notability, just a dense tangle of trivial mentions in largely unreliable sources - sure it looks well referenced but overwhelmingly the refs are online blogs, zines and gossip columns. Moreover, some of the references aren't even relevant! Two of the ref that purport to show that she's been in televsion programs have nothing to do with that. I really can see no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage. I cannot see she is notable as a model, a writer, or a curator -- or all three. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:NOTE: "A lack of notability does not necessarily mean that reliably-sourced information should be removed from Wikipedia" and "it is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic." Dogtownclown (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, its looks like ten new sources have been added by others since the Nom. Now granted you'd be within your rights not to count them as improvements if this was an article for say a leading politician , as the sources arent generally of the highest quality. However Wikipedia:Reliable sources advises.
Sources like the books or latimes have editorial control, and they can reasonably be regarded as trustworthy for the subject at hand, which is an LA popular culture celeb with some global reach. If you dont like the sources what better ones are there for popular LA (sub) culture? I still think this article easilly passes our notability criteria. The only problem that hasnt been resolved is that the subject hasnt apologized for her rude comments about some of our editors who were acting in good faith. I suggest that any local US based editor could fix this problem, as going by the sources I read the subject would likely accept a spanking if she was approached in the right way. :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the global reach? I agree that these are likely the best sources available (given that a major editor of the article is user LenoraClaire and Dogtownclown apparantly somehow has access to unpublished books mentioning the subject); however, with few exceptions, all are trivial mentions, not about her, or of totally unreliable nature (zines, websites, etc). Perhaps one day Claire will have sufficient notability re. Angelyne and others but at the moment --- no. The most notable thing she's done seems to have been the Golden Girls parody and that was judged NN. In any case, I think I have exhausted my interest in this article . I am glad you see that editors who object to the article are working in good faith btw. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some global reach as in the appearance for France's Canal Plus, and the trans US appearances that show she's more than a local LA personality. Im sorry you've lost interest here and we wont have the chance to convince you this one's a keeper. At least thanks to your attention the article is vastly improved! FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Almost the entirety of the article is sourced directly or indirectly to the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This statement doesn't make sense to me. Can you put it in layman terms? Dogtownclown (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason the subject gets any press is that she gives good quote. The press is all "here's a good quote." Hipocrite (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not completely true. Many of the press mentions, as well as the book mention, are about the stir she's causing in the LA art world. Dogtownclown (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reference section clearly links to MTV and elsewhere that mention the person. That makes them notable, by current guidelines. Dream Focus 15:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you read the refs. The MTV article isn't about her -- she is merely interviewed as a participant in a show. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I removed the reference from the section it didn't apply to, but I kept it as a reference to her own art being curated, by another curator, for a show. Dogtownclown (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added 2 references of Lenora Claire's writing as well as a citation backing up the assertion that the book she appears in is actually a #1 LA Times Bestseller. Dogtownclown (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be a best seller if it is not yet released? Also, the reference to her at Fronteirs says she is an Editorial Assistant not an editor and is currently there? Are you sure about all these references? I think quality is better than quantity. Fini12 (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an updated printing of the book, which previously sold out. Also, the claim is that she's on the editorial staff, an editorial assistant is on staff. Dogtownclown (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh -- well maybe this one will be a best seller, but you can't say it is a bestseller --- because it hasnt even been published yet! Fini12 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording I used in the article itself is pretty clear, "in the 2009 update to the bestselling book L. A. Bizarro: The All New Insider's Guide to the Obscure, the Absurd, and the Perverse in Los Angeles." Dogtownclown (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, feel free to reword things or add improvements, I'm not married to all the changes I've made. :) Dogtownclown (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added references to a few articles I found of interviews Claire wrote for Frontiers Magazine. Dogtownclown (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the claim of "written more than 200 articles" since I'm not sure how this can be verified. Dogtownclown (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I found a press release from ManiaTV which references a TV episode on which Claire appeared. I believe I read somewhere on Wiki that press releases can be used as a citation, does anyone know for sure? Thanks. Dogtownclown (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The curating thing is the only possible claim to fame since the modeling is limited to a handful of depictions by erotic artists and an appearance in a US Network campaign which is billed as being all about "Average Joes." In a few years, with greater accomplishments behind her -- curating more than 3 events, for example -- Claire might rate an entry. 208.78.120.69 (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 14:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:NOTE: "it is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic." In other words, I don't think we are required to wait for "greater accomplishments" to determine that this young lady is doing some notable things in the LA art world. Or that she herself is pretty unusual and interesting - ie, noteworthy. Dogtownclown (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • fixed typo. Dogtownclown (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She gets mentioned in plenty of mainstream media, and is featured in a bestselling novel. Dream Focus 03:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is mentioned in a yet to be released update of an existing book? How nice. But behind all the puff, there isn't much there that establishes notability. There is also a problem with verification, since reliable sources don't treat the subject of this blp in any depth.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Reading over this discussion I can't help but find Miss Claire totally NN. The "accomplishments" listed are repetitive, inflated and not very noteworthy themselves A curator should have more than 3 or 4 shows under their belt as well as art specific publications to their name. A model should have more than 2 or 3 artists listed and none of them should fall under the "I asked 50+ people at random to sit for me and 40+ of them did" This isn't modeling it's posing at random. None of the other 40+ people would attempt a wiki article. As to the international interest of the subject a short segment in a French made for TV doc about random things of passing interest in LA does not show international interest. The book L.A. Bizarro the new edition is not available through Chronical (it's publisher) or any book seller until September 2009 - a quick check of Amazon shows it avail for pre order not purchase. This begs two questions, one how can an unpublished source be used and two how did Dogtownclown receive copies of the pertinent materiel this far ahead unless he/she is the subject, author or works for the publisher any of which would be a COI. To say it's the combination of her "achievements" is not a very good argument. "Interesting" is a subjective word which is why there are guidelines that should be adhered to. I feel for Miss Claire, she is obviously working hard to gain notoriety but that simply isn't enough for an encyclopedia entry. Lest anyone shout "encyclopedia snob" there are pop culture articles that belong here this one just doesn't make the grade. . 76.90.87.23 (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 09:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)— 76.90.87.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: She is more than a mere mention in the book, which was released yesterday btw. She is a notable person in the LA art world, it might not seem important on a world-wide, earth-shattering level, but that is not the claim being made. No one is saying she's a household name. No one is implying that she is famous. But she is what she is, a mover and a shaker in a colorful and thriving subculture. As per the guidelines for a "relatively unknown person" WP:NPF, it seems she would qualify for a bio page. Dogtownclown (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Atomic says the book is not yet avail - it listed yesterday as a release date on their site but it cannot be purchased through them - it appears a mistake has been made as Amazon, Barnes and Noble and Chronicle all list Sept 09 as the release date see the publisher Chronicle: http://www.chroniclebooks.com/index/main,book-info/store,books/products_id,7894/ As to implying she is famous or important on a world wide level the reason that was broached was a previous comment regarding the Allez LA TV doc. I didn't raise the subject merely refuted it. BTW what exactly is a Mover and Shaker and how does having 3 or 4 shows demonstrate that? It could be she is merely a flash in the pan. 3 or 4 TV commercials does not an actress make. That is why additional accomplishments are needed here. It's no insult to Miss Claire, she just needs to keep at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.87.23 (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the wiki article I made it absolutely clear she is in "the forthcoming 2009 update" to the book. And the fact remains that this book is a quintessential guide to any and all colorful persons, places and things in LA. I doubt that the authors would have mentioned her at all if she were not notable. Dogtownclown (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment yes in the article you comment it is upcoming but that still is not acceptable - it isn't useful as a source until it is published and I have amply proven it has not been - also here you repeatedly refer to the book as being published May 20 2009 and further you discuss it's contents. How do you know what is said about the woman in an unpublished book? You can claim it says anything you like. That doesn't make it valid. Simply restating the same unsubstantiated claims repeatedly doesn't make them valid.
    • 'Answer As I understood it, the book was to be released on May 20th, I've shown where I got that silly notion. I know the contents because I spoke with the author of the book, who assured me of what he wrote and where it is located in the book. Perhaps adding a 'citation needed' tag will suffice for now? I've given the new ISBN number and page number. Dogtownclown (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --- reading the back on forth on this book I have the following take. The book is unpublished and basing the subject's inclusion in it on a conversation you had with the author (and please, don't take this the wrong way as I am not questioning the truth of your representations here) raises a huge verification problem here. I think the best thing is to remove the source and when it is release add it back. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a problem, the information can be verified once the book is released and then I will restore the book citation. Dogtownclown (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood what I was saying. I said that no one is claiming that she's famous or important on a world-wide scale. Please read my previous comment again. Dogtownclown (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment"Some global reach as in the appearance for France's Canal Plus, " this is the comment I was referring back to.
  • The guy said she was a local celeb with "some global reach" not that she was world famous. I can't put words in his mouth, but that's the way I read it. Dogtownclown (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More clean up: Just tidied up the "Golden Gals Gone Wild" references - removed all blog citations. [[User: |Dogtownclown]] (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another addtion: Added citation and info on a show curated by Claire. Dogtownclown (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who questions if I am notable as a model I'd like to think that appearing on billboards in Times Square, having my face in the NBC window in Rockefeller center, appearing on subway ads all over NYC, as well as having my face in Vanity Fair Magazine, Variety, and multiple commercials for the USA Network Character project would qualify. If anyone would like they are free to visit my Model Mayhem profile and see all of my other modeling credits which include nation wide ads for Hot Topic as well. I have also appeared in over 30 music videos. As a writer, I was on staff at Frontiers magazine (easily verified) and have interviewed a wide range of celebrities. As a curator I honestly can't think of anyone in the art world who is written up from a wide range of media as TMZ and NPR. All of which can be found on the internet. My IMDB verifies the tv programs I have done as well. I've also been a guest multiple times on Sirius radio for Maxim magazine and Out Sirius Q. I also appear in multiple books such as American Character for the USA Network, Faces of Sunset Blvd, Vacation Standards, and the update to LA Bizarro. As a performer I've opened for the Dresden Dolls and played on stages all over LA. Again, anyone who took the time to google would know this. So if I appear in books, magazines, television, radio, ad campaigns, and perform wouldn't that qualify for a wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenoraclaire (talk • contribs) 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reading a description of the USA Character project (http://www.usanetwork.com/characterproject/#/about/press) raises some questions in my mind to say the least. The theme of the project is that America is full of characters and the project seeks to celebrate "average joes" rather than professional models. Being photographes as part of this would seem to undermine claims of notability rather than increase them. Also, your "model mayham" site is not valid as a source. It would never be possible to verfiy the information in an article if it was based on materials controlled by the subject. After all, you are free to oput anything you want up there. 12.162.2.182 (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I understand the only things that are acceptable to "prove" facts here are news articles in mainstream newspapers, books published by major publishers, and the works/opinions of scholars. Photographic evidence is not acceptable - maybe someday it will be, but for now it's not. Dogtownclown (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A friendly warning (which you're probably aware of already) Lenora: this place frowns highly upon people writing their own wiki pages apparently. Thanks for your input above, when I find a little more time I'm going to try verifying the things you've offered. Dogtownclown (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Another addition: Added a citation which shows Lenora Claire's age in 2007. Dogtownclown (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally non-notable outside the walled garden of a sub-set of the LA club scene. Fails verifiability and has no non-trivial sources. Likely vanity page created to bolster her Myspace etc. Only two editors dominate the edit hisotry DogTownClown and LenoraClaire and neither edit other articles.12.162.2.182 (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)— 12.162.2.182 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • It's not all that unusual for one editor to dominate editing a page, especially a new one. I've also edited other pages with this account, including tagging a page for deletion, because it had no reliable references/sources, which did in fact get deleted. I have an older account/username that I don't use any longer because my username was my real name and I was being harassed, but who I am and how long I've been editing is beside the point. I've made vast improvements to this article, I've added some good citations, and I'm still working on this in my spare time at work. It's the weekend now, but I will be adding more info as I document it. From what I understand a person does not have to be a household name or be famous nationwide/worldwide in order to be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. In fact, Wikipedia routinely publishes articles on people who are "generally unknown" - WP:NPF . It would be easy if articles were only done on famous public figures, who'd have to do any research? Dogtownclown (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Dogtown. Looks to me like you've already established that while Claire may not yet be an A list celebetrity, she is fairly widely known and easily meets our inclusion criteria. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability and fame are not the same thing. Claire is neither. From reading the comments above its pretty clear that Claire's boosters (one of whom busrt in here claiming that another editor had a vendetta) and herself (who trolled it seemed for said boosters on her Twitter site -- see above) cannot come up with enough to create verifiable evidence of notoreity. She claims fame as (amongst otherthjings) a writer and curator so its clear that WP:CREATIVE is the crierion (indeed DogTownClown says that without her curating and writing she wouldnt be notable 'cause shes a Renaissance person). She fails that with flying colors. There seems to be a strong consensus that she is NN but as FeydHuxtable says --- thats for the closing admin to say. I dont envy his job given the masses of rep[etive "responses" this AFD has created. 12.162.2.182 (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for closing Admin. Hopefully you'll agree notability is already well established, due to extensive coverage in secondary sources. While not all of the highest academic quality, sources provided do have editorial control. In case you count this as a borderline case, can I please request you grant a stay of execution, as it looks like this is due for the a close very soon and the subject has recently added new claims that will need time to chase down? FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep while my hype meter is pegged, the Popular Culture WP:ENT "fan base" notability seems established to me. pohick (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only real reference for the curatorship is a few paragraphs in one newspaper, & the coverage amounts to a gossip column more than a review. The modeling is notable only if there are sources to that effect, and I don't consider any of what is presented here as remotely reliable. PR only, and trying to use Wp to add to it. I discount when subjects want their articles out, as often due to excessive modesty--and as for this sort of campaign to keep it in, just the reverse-- it's a almost perfect evidence for promotional intent. If kept, trim to the small amount of material for which there is at least some kind of evidence. DGG (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of any participants not familiar with the DGGs excellent reputation, its worth clarifying that when he says whats presented here isnt remotely reliable, he can only be referring to unsourced information on this talk page. He cant possibly mean the review in the LA Times, an awarding winning broadsheet with one of the highest circulations in the US. Nor can he mean the extensive review of Lenora's curating work in the Daily Sundial - while thats a university paper, its financially independent and has won professional awards, and DGG is himself on record as saying college papers are considered reliable. ( I just searched for "university paper reliable source" and DGG came up in the second result)
No ones disputing that Lenora likely has promotional intent, but equally hopefully no one judges her for that as US society positively encourages its artists to self promote, and anyway the key issue is whether the subject is noteable , as seems to be the case per coverage in multiple reliable sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lutheran Church of the Redeemer[edit]

The Lutheran Church of the Redeemer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable congregation; no coverage in reliable sources, not a historic building, no notable clergy. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No clear claim to notability. The article asserts that "This church has the largest amount of unique art for a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church in the Columbus Metro Area", which would be more impressive if there were more than two Missouri Synod Lutheran churches in that area. (Anyone who Googles this church should note that there are many churches called "Lutheran Church of the Redeemer" and so it is essential to use additional keywords in the search.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability can be shown. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Problems with WP:RS and WP:ORG. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would guess any claim to notability would be based on "This church has the largest amount of unique art for a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church in the Columbus Metro Area." Which is unsourced and likely WP:ORG -- and pretty damned subjective too. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I did find where they have an AED and host 12 step meetings. A book mentions that the church (assuming it's the same one) was organized in 1940, but this is a trivial, off hand mention in passing. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jars of Clay (album). –Juliancolton | Talk 01:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Song for a Savior[edit]

Love Song for a Savior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, no sources, didn't chart. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Liquid (Jars of Clay song)[edit]

Liquid (Jars of Clay song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, didn't chart, no reliable source coverage. Unlikely redirect term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jars of Clay (album). Cirt (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Alright (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
I'm Alright (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song. No idea what Christian CHR chart that is, but it ain't Billboard and is therefore not a "major" chart per WP:MUSIC. Without the chart position, there's no trace of notability for this song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Where does WP:MUSIC state that Billboard is the only "national or significant music chart" to be used for notability? Rlendog (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's kind of implied, since (as far as I know) no other U.S. singles chart is verifiable through an archive. And what chart is this by anyway? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 10:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internet availablility is not required for notability. Rlendog (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the chart is in the hardcopy magazine from 1990, that should be adequate. Just because the chart isn't on the internet doesn't make it non-notable or non-verifiable. Rlendog (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homelessness in popular culture[edit]

Homelessness in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Textbook example of how not to do "in popular culture". Listy, unsourced, no correlation besides that each tangentially touches on homelessness. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A textbook example of an "in popular culture" article would have lines like "In The Simpsons, Homer says 'Why don't all these homeless people people just go home?'". The portrayal of the homeless and the plight of homelessness in film would probably make a good article-- "Stone Pillow" with Lucille Ball, that episode of "Kate and Allie", complaints over portrayal of a hobo in Warren Beatty's "Dick Tracy", etc. This is a list with no context rather than an i.p.c. Mandsford (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's a textbook example of cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. The long list of examples of occurrences in books, films, songs, and television was split out from homelessness in December 2008. And the textbook example of the ensuing AFD discussion will be, as can be seen from the examples at User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing of where this path has been trodden before, opinions to delete or to merge back into homelessness, for the cycle to repeat months or years from now. ☺

    Of course, the solution that breaks the cycle, as also exemplified so many times before, is a proper article, written based upon sources that discuss the subject, rather than written in cargo cult fashion. See Portrayals of God in popular media (AfD discussion), for example.

    If anyone feels like taking up the challenge of actually writing article content, you could do worse than starting with Homelessness in American literature (John Allen, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 9780415945899) as a source for a literature section. Or you could use the "Images of homelessness in 19th and 20th century American literature" and "Images of homelessness in the media" entries in David Levinson's Encyclopedia of homelessness (SAGE, 2004, ISBN 9780761927518). This is, after all, a — literally — encyclopaedic subject with in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources. Show the cargo cultists how this is properly done. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The problem is, far too many of us can't be arsed to write a proper article. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 10:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For all British Wikipedians, I have to point out that when Americans (especially in the south) say that they were "ast" or "as'd" to do something, it is a simplified pronunciation of the word "asked". The word "ass" is not used as verb in American English, so "arsed" would not be the equivalent. Thank you. Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I learn something new every day. Mandsford (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as User:Uncle G states, this is simply a list of appearances of homeless people, and the topic is too broad. JIP | Talk 09:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a list of editor-chosen examples contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. Maybe there are reliable sources on the presentation of homelessness in popular culture, too bad no editors bothered to look them up. If someone wants to start improving this article from sources, please remove the crap. WillOakland (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Unbounded and unsourced list of I-spy trivia bound together by the new and novel concept that homelessness composes a significant part of popular culture. --Allen3 talk 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is fine. You don't need a reference to each song and film listed, to prove it concerned the homeless. The titles alone should be enough for some of them. If you have any reasonable doubt of anything on the list, then tag with a citation needed tag, and someone can bother to find a reference for it. Dream Focus 13:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Dream Focus and CoM. A lede has now been added to introduce the list. Granted the article could be vastly improved by anyone familiar with the sources suggested by Uncle G, but this is too noteable a topic for us not to have an article, and I think what we already have does a fairly good job. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, laundry list of random occurrences of homelessness. Indeed, all "in popular culture" articles are inherently unencyclopedic. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial list cruft that doesn't belong here. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. I wish those voting delete would look past the current state of articles to the importance of the topic, and I wish those saying someone should find sources and improve the article would do it themselves! You've got Google, right? It's so easy to sit back and vote delete, but it's a lot harder to rescue an article. I agree with Uncle G's cargo cult essay, but it's not an argument for deletion. The topic isn't trivial; the depiction of a massive social problem in film, TV, music and art is well worth writing an article about. This is nothing like Star Wars in popular culture or List of ways Kenny dies or other unencyclopedic popular culture cruft (how easy it was to guess titles of deleted listcruft!). It's not indiscriminate at all, the topic of the article is quite clear. I don't like list articles much either, but there is scope for a very useful discussion of how homelessness has been portrayed in popular culture. The obvious example for those in the UK is Cathy Come Home, the 60s Ken Loach film that had such an impact that the charity Shelter was founded in response, and it is still being discussed.[40] There's a whole book on media portrayals of the homeless:Reading the homeless: the media's image of homeless culture, chapter 11 of this book looks useful, this book on film noir has a chapter on the homeless in noir, also see [41], a book on homelessness has a chapter called A changing image the homeless in popular culture, 1890-1930, this book is called Homelessness in American literature, there are articles about how Hollywood deals with the topic:[42][43] and a book called Beyond the Stars has a chapter Down and out in Tinseltown. Here's some more news articles on the topic:[44][45][46][47]. Academic studies:[48][49][50][51]. The news reporting of homelessness can also be covered, e.g. "Working in the area of social exclusion, it's apparent that the media find it difficult to accurately report on issues such as homelessness. For example, the terms "homeless households" and "homeless families" (terms often generated at government level but proliferated by the media) mask the fact that the majority of homeless people are single men. Single homeless men don't engage the sympathies of your average reader, and as a result stories involving them, such as the level of violence perpetrated against them by members of the public, often go unreported".[52]. Also [53][54][55][56][57]. Fences and windows (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. "The problem is, far too many of us can't be arsed to write a proper article." Yes, quite. Also a note to fellow members of the Article Rescue Squadron: we rescue articles, we don't just vote keep. There are many more sources out there if we look for them, but those I've found should be a start on rewriting this. Fences and windows (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article topic is certainly notable, and Uncle G points out that there are sources demonstrating notability. If the article were deleted, I expect many of the examples would return to the article when it is in better shape. I fail to see why this article should be deleted now, since existing content consists of notable or significant examples. Be patient and wait for higher quality content to appear. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Not a valid use of our space. Hipocrite (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move This info was good in the article it originated in. Before it got so unweildly (sp?) huge! Perhaps it can be pruned and put back in it's original spot - Homelessness - Dogtownclown (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the sources Fences found. That there are books and chapters of books on this specific subject is certainly enough for notability, by any standard, especially the basic one in WP:N. The deletes are either IDONTLIKEIT or "needs improvement", neither of which are reasons for deletion. Come to think of it , perhaps it would be a good idea for us to start interpreting and delete giving only the reason that it needs improvement as a !keep. DGG (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne Live Acoustic[edit]

Avril Lavigne Live Acoustic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Exclusive-release album, no reliable sources. Sold only at Target for a short period and didn't get any critical reviews. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BusJunction[edit]

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

non notable travel website Gilllnnm (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A prime candidate for speedy deletion as there is no assertion of notability.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable enough to be covered by The Washington Post, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Philadelphia Daily News, Budget Travel Magazine, Jaunted, Away.com, WorldHum, etc., but it's not notable enough for Wikipedia? mdk250 (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BusJunction was written up in the New York Times today. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that officially meets #1 of the notability criteria. mdk250 (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This was nominated by a previously unknown deletionist who has done nothing creative. That is grossly unfair. Let it breathe - then we will see. FairFare (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - This article does look like advertising. However, it can be tweaked to remove such. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been tweaked to sound more informational, less salesy mdk250 (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment all you like but please only !vote once. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 17 May 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) 00:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment IMO this discussion could benefit from a little more imput. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the article still needs some work and there is unverified information that needs citations, the sources listed in the article fulfill WP:WEB as far as notability: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I didn't even have to look for more sources, they're included, very clear-cut. Drawn Some (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Agree with comments above, but I am troubled by the fact that the only significant contributor is probably the owner of the website. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion to merge elsewhere can take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of political hip hop artists[edit]

List of political hip hop artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

wp:or - This list is a subjective opinion regarding what constitues 'political rap', and such a cetegorisation is not verifiable from reliable sources  Chzz  ►  06:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article is in absolutely terrible shape, but sources such as [58][59][60], in addition to the Bogdanov book, all verify that this is a genre people have recognized for real, not just something a WP editor is synthesizing; they also identify and label specific groups as "political", so could be used as a starting point for populating the list (with a list like this you just need to make a ground rule that nothing can be added unless you can cite a source calling it "political hip hop"; that's a way to deter people from making additions based on personal opinions). See the main Political hip hop article, from when this was spun out, for more sources. This article needs a ridiculous amount of cleanup, but that's not a reason to delete it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed. Article needs major cleanup and suffers from some arbitrary list additions. But the Political hip hop article is clear, reliable, and sourced enough to serve as a guideline for the list.--Junius49 (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Hip_Hop any relevant details not already covered. I'm not certain that the citations warrant titling a whole new subgenre of artists nor does WP need to be a random collection of lists. Ngaskill (talk) 06:12, 11 May 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) 00:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this page by removing the long list that was taking over the Political hip hop article. I'm not a huge fan of lists, but in this case the community was demanding one by creating it on the political hip hop page so rather then try to argue with all the other users who kept adding names to the list it was moved here. Anarchocelt (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it would be a lot of work categorising them; but could one not use this list to fill out the e4xisting cats on your political hip hop page. For instance some may be socialists, other nationalists etc. Just a thought. BTW thanks for the info re. the reason for the pages creation -- I think thats always useful to know in these dabates. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see the subjetives edits. It can be fixed. --Volklodak 01:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This is crazy. How can anyone subjectively decide what does and does not constitute a political hip hop song without it constituting original research? Meh.  Chzz  ►  02:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it helps, I've removed the groups without sources from the list. Some were sourced from their WP articles, I've decided to leave those in for now. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs I Have Known[edit]

Pigs I Have Known (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This no doubt charming book does not appear to be notable. The worldcat entry for the author (who, by the way, may be notable) shows that this book is held by 17 libraries worldwide—an indicator of non-notability. An all-dates Google news archive search draws a blank. A web search generates catalog listings and several mirrors of the current and previous versions of this article. There are no editorial or even user reviews at the Amzon UK page for the book. Bongomatic 08:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the excellent research of the nominator. I have also done several searches for sources and have been unable to confirm this book's notability. I did discover that this book has been cited by The English pig: a history by Robert W. Malcolmson, Stephanos Mastoris, but that is not enough to establish notability per WP:NB. Cunard (talk) 08:43, 10 May 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 00:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Helpful One 15:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magic and Other Misdemeanors[edit]

Magic and Other Misdemeanors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pure plot summary, fails WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#PLOT. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article provides no context. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:22, 12 May 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 00:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merely a plot summary without any context or references. JIP | Talk 09:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sounds like a reason to improve, not delete... Hobit (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no context. Maybe grounds for speedy deletion? Bart133 t c @ 16:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep Article fails NOT#PLOT, but subject is probably notable. [61] is a brief review behind a wall, [62] lists 4 Sacramento Bee articles that at least mention the book (none currently on their site). [63] is a trivial mention, but adds a bit. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT. Links Hobit notes above don't appear to meet the notability criteria for books. Karanacs (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They do seem to meet WP:N however. We can't see the Sac. Bee articles, but they do appear to be in-depth coverage of the topic which would indicate notability. thoughts? Hobit (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for two weeks WP:NOT#PLOT is not a deletion criteria; the article may be improvable. If sources cannot be found to fix the article, Delete as non-notable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, this has been up a couple weeks, and the evidence of notability is very slim. Delete as non-notable, however, do note that WP:NOT#PLOT is still not a reason to delete: An ongoing review is reasonably firm on that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, not convinced of notability of series or author, so delete. Dlohcierekim 18:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chilltime[edit]

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

nn social networking website Gilllnnm (talk) 05:44, 10 May 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, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Already boldly redirected.. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video Flow[edit]

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

Non-notable block of music video programming. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:44, 10 May 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 00:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone has already placed a redirect on the page. "Video Flow", if I remember correctly, was simply the name given to Muchmusic's block of reglar video programming, given a name only to disginguish it from their more specialized hours. So merge, if there really is anything to merge, otherwise delete. It's not noteworthy, and it's an unlikely search term. Hairhorn (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Much Music. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much Mega Hits[edit]

Much Mega Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable block of music video programming. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:43, 10 May 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 00:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above at the least. MuZemike 19:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Thailand Universe runners-up[edit]

List of Miss Thailand Universe runners-up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Flunks WP:DIRECTORY. No discernible notability of topic Scheinwerfermann (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete / Merge - I think these runners up are included in the specific article; if they're not merge them into it. Shadowjams (talk) 20:00, 10 May 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, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for a list of runners-up, no sources, no inherent notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a little too detailed a subject. There is also a lack of verifiability. MuZemike 19:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list of runners up? what next? people that came 2nd in country X's presidential election? LibStar (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a little too indiscriminate a collection of information. Dlohcierekim 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fiji Mission to the European Union; nothing to merge, this is substantially a duplicate of that page. Flowerparty☀ 00:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Fiji to Belgium[edit]

Embassy of Fiji to Belgium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG, nothing particularly notable about this embassy. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipdeia is not a directory. Fails WP:N. Consulates or embassies are not inherently notable, any more than office buildings or businesses. Edison (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep part of series of 'embassies' articles (not about buildings; nominator should at least read the article prior to deleting it; no reason to target this one for deletion. Hmains (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, and where is the guideline that says all embassies are notable? Fails the significant coverage test. [64]. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 14 May 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, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - And where is the guideline that says embassy articles are not notable? Also per [65], an embassy is defined as "An organization or group of officials who permanently represent a sovereign state in a second sovereign state or with respect to an international organization such as the United Nations." Nowhere does that mention it as a building, an embassy is a group of foreign ambassadors not some Non-notable office building. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it is not notable, certainly say the US Embassy in Moscow would be notable...but this one? LibStar (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a strange state of affairs would have us treat all high schools as notable, but delete embassies. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. because you think high schools are notable therefore embassies are? all high schools are not notable. most high schools I've seen on wikipedia have been redirected. LibStar (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated below, the view of the wikipedia community is that high-schools are notable. I think it odd that the community can hold that view yet reject an embassy to a major country as NN. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I think the default notability of high schools is absurd. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the community determined that most high schools are notable, a decision I hate and work against. Its middle/elementary schools that are usually redirected. In the case of embassies we can establish notability using primary sources, per WP:SELFPUB which allows one to use a self published source ie. the embassies website so long as it does not make any out of the ordinary claims. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your comments. i'm not sure if embassy websites can establish notability, depends on the depth of information it contains. If it's just address, bio of ambassador, what's great about their own country, how to get a visa, then it's not useful for establishing notability as per WP:N. LibStar (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I think about you are starting to have a pretty good point, some embassies may not be notable just like some high schools are not notable. I guess this is another topic that needs discussing. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a reasonable idea to me -- merge. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is even worse than all of the bilateral relations articles; a country frequently has more embassies and consulates than there are other countries and this is heading for WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just too far a stretch of notability/encyclopedic interest. Don;t see anything mergeable anywhere else. Dlohcierekim
  • Keep. If every census designated place, almost every major road, airport etc etc is notable and every sovereign state is notable, why aren't the diplomatic missions that represent them? That said, WP:RS are conspicuous by their absence- if none can be found, perhaps "Diplomatic missions of Fiji/ in Belgium" would eb the best place for it. HJMitchell You rang? 23:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable at all. No reliable secondary sources adress this in any detail. Hipocrite (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Those above have made quite some useful arguments to keep this, and I agree. An embassy between two nations is clearly notable. It is an officially recognized group or organization that is responsible for all interactions between two nations. What could be more notable than that? Dream Focus 11:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
then it should meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, WP:ORG has nothing to do with this, we need to determine how notable this is and go from there. --Marcusmax(speak) 15:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a embassy between two nations is notable, but the possibility of merging should be considered--except that it's not all that obvious how to merge these. (embassies of Fiji, or embassies to Belgium)DGG (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Twitter. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twestival[edit]

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

I'm in two minds about this. I'm sure the Twitter-fans will call it a "revelation" and "one of the most important moments in internet history" but I'm not really buying it. Some people from the internet got together and...well, that's where the story ends. There are various mentions of this is reputable sources but I'm still doubting the article's worth. Hence, I'd like to know what the community thinks of this article and its future. Greg Tyler (t • c) 11:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge info into Twitter if it's not already there and then Delete or Redirect. Tomdobb (talk) 13:36, 11 May 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, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Twitter all material already exists (verbatim) in that article. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Bigdaddy1981. It's already there. MuZemike 19:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Transportation Proposals[edit]

Innovative Transportation Proposals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Originally included self-published original research (which I have removed). Now it reads a little advert-ish. Doesn't seem like there is much here to be saved that isn't already in the main articles already referenced. JCutter (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The first section (LeviCar/RoboTrail) is unsourced, and looks like pure speculation without much to back it up. The second part is just a shortened combination of the Transatlantic tunnel and Vactrain articles, and I cannot see any need for that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:58, 3 May 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 00:07, 10 May 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 00:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been adding brief comments about many other speculative systems, and intend to e-mail the progenitors of these systems so that they may update and augment these. This way, the referenced article can become a living source for those interested in innovative and speculative transportation systems. Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup per the improvements made in the article. It still has a ways to go, but it looks like it's suitable for inclusion, now. MuZemike 19:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Still just a here invented collection of unimplemented ideas. If kept then by all means remove the word "innovative" from the title. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basem Al Attar[edit]

Basem Al Attar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The subject does not currently meet the notability guidelines for politicians and there is no evidence of meeting the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona Jennex[edit]

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

Nonnoteworthy schoolteacher currently running for office (Nova Scotia general election, 2009). Election press-release type bio; I added {advert} and {notability} tags, which original poster removed without comment or changing the article. Hairhorn (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete blatant spam for non-notable politician. Drawn Some (talk) 07:41, 10 May 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) 00:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear pre election spam -- if she wins ten perhaps a re-think. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If she wins, it should be patently obvious that she should hold a wiki entry, though I agree with the deletion prior to the results (she looks to have an edge on the incumbent) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.67.194 (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted Mansion (Knoebels)[edit]

Haunted Mansion (Knoebels) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unreferenced article on a specific amusement park ride with no real assertion of notability (it comes closest with "The Haunted Mansion is constantly awarded for it status as best traditional darkride by DAFE and Amusement Today", which this web page [not cited in the article] does seem to claim). The whole thing seems to be original research (for example, "The first stunt is...a scary-looking man who pulls-open a door while a automatic sound clip say [sic] "Welcome" in an eerie tone"), though it appears that the web page I linked to above was probably the source for much of the article. Unreferenced or not, I just can't see the notability here. A good rating by an online darkrides-enthusiast group just doesn't cut it. --Miskwito (talk) 16:51, 10 May 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, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Advertisement. MuZemike 18:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Cut and paste promotional article. badly needs wikification and removal of weasel words. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Comment – Please could somebody do a relist on this? I think there're initial signs of salvageability & sources; it'll take a little while to look into. I don't know that a 2nd relist'll need to run a full 7 days to reach consensus, but a few days at least would be helpful. –Whitehorse1 21:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for non-notability and OR - it's already had one re-list, don't need another. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for creative professionals and a lack of reliable sources means that she does not meet the primary notability criterion either. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Favazza[edit]

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

I cannot see evidence to support notability, per WP:CREATIVE or WP:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. Note, I have removed a large number of external links, see diff. I have searched on Google News (no hits), Google Scholar (no hits), Amazon.com (no hits). The standard Google search only appears to show blog sites etc, I can see no reliable sources there.  Chzz  ►  18:41, 10 May 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, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – as a non-notable, unsourced BLP. Also reads like promotion, but that's me. MuZemike 18:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RookChat[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that notability. It was nominated for VFD in 2004 and the result was keep. For some reason, the discussion got moved to the talk page of the article. Iowateen (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I see no non-trivial mentions and the article hasn't had a significant edit since 2005. No assertion of importance or significance. On the talk page at the VfD in 2004 someone said it was used on the "popular" site rinkworks but Rinkworks was deleted on March 19, 2009. Drawn Some (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with thoughts that WP:NTEMP and in its heyday, it had notability. Suggest a request for experts be sent out, as I do not have access to computer coding languages software magazines or journals. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:30, 11 May 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, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, still maintained open source project, and as User:MichaelQSchmidt states, notable in its heyday. JIP | Talk 09:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy per lack of established notability, and nor can I find any. If it is, it needs to be shown and not presumed that some pseudo-source exists. MuZemike 18:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one may not be an easy one to clean up but there should still be something to work from. Tothwolf (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Cancer Access to Life-Saving Early detection, Research and Treatment (ALERT) Act[edit]

21st Century Cancer Access to Life-Saving Early detection, Research and Treatment (ALERT) Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bill introduced in the US Senate. Has received some coverage: Tyler Morning Telegraph and CNN. But it's not law yet, and there are lots of bills introduced that never go anywhere. Coverage is not substantial enough to make it noteworthy, thus it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Atmoz (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup This does not fail WP:CRYSTAL; an article about not-yet-passed legislation is not the same as not-yet-existent legislation. Also consider WP:PRESERVE. Nanowolf (talk) 07:46, 16 May 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, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The subject does not meet the guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kein Engel[edit]

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

Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:22, 10 May 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, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shades of a Lost Moon[edit]

Shades of a Lost Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Shades of a Lost Moon is a demo recorded by Swedish band Draconian. According to WP:NALBUMS, Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources--and this album is not an exception to the rule, as I not found any reliable and relevant source to reach its notability. Cannibaloki 02:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

In Glorious Victory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Closed Eyes of Paradise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Frozen Features (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dark Oceans We Cry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ansiklopedika[edit]

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

Turkish online encyclopedia claims to "one of the the most popular general reference work on the Internet in Turkish language". I don't speak Turkish, but the Google translation doesn't support that claim. Has not been the subject of third-party reliable sources. Atmoz (talk) 03:35, 10 May 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, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By "It serves" etc. I assume you mean that Ansiklopedika provides this service. I don't think that anyone involved in this discussion means to deprecate Ansiklopedika as such - certainly I don't. This discussion regards deleting the en.wikipedia page of that name. Cnilep (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Murphy (podcaster)[edit]

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

Article was nominated once for deletion in 2007 and kept with the assertion that material added during that AFD satisfied notability concerns, However, a review of that sourcing indicates that it does not. One is an obituary in his hometown paper, one is to an XM Radio page that no longer exists (Joe Murphy is not found in a search of the XM site), one confirms his nomination for a podcasting award (he did not win) and one is a band's blog (not a reliable source). There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that are substantively about this person, rather there are many blogs and podcasts that offer tributes following his untimely passing. Wikipedia is not a memorial and the gentleman does not pass WP:N or WP:BIO. Otto4711 (talk) 13:37, 10 May 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, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Papa Roach discography. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caca Bonita[edit]

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

The EP is extremely rare and is not covered at all in reliable sources. Therefore, it fails WP:NALBUMS. Timmeh! 23:09, 10 May 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, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_17&oldid=1142643898"