Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 24

< 23 May	25 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of GMA 7 celebrities[edit]

GMA7 is a Philippine television network, see DZBB-TV. This page appears to be a list of everyone who works for them. The article needs work - cleanup tags were added at one point, but quickly removed without any cleanup activity. There is some possible vandalism on 19 May 2009 by an anon IP. Rather than try to save the page, I think it should be deleted as a non notable list. (A category would serve its purpose more efficiently). Putney Bridge (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless references establishing notability are added. Passportguy (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates WP:NOT#DIR. The list is merely an unsourced directory of employed talents in a television station. The talents themselves are also not necessarily bound by contract to the station.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 15:08, 26 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) 00:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raptio[edit]

Article about a word. And not even an English word, but a Latin word. This etymology and usage information belongs in a dictionary. Powers ^T 23:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is this for real? The article is well written, well sourced and goes into far more detail than would or could find in a dictionary. ninety:one 00:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The dictionary elements can be placed at wikt:raptio (missing page), but that doesnt mean it cant be included in an encyclopedia as well. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Any minor dictionary-like elements we include must only be in support of a larger article about a concept. Powers ^T 01:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep. Nonsense, this isn't an "article about a word", it is about the important anthropological feature of abduction of women. If you don't like the title, make a move suggestion. Submitter is also unaware of our practice of keeping dedicated etymologies on Wikipedia, not Wiktionary (mainly because the deletionists over at wikt: hate etymology) --dab (𒁳) 05:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a serious and well-written article about a serious historical issue, with a sister article at bride kidnapping for the individual variant, still common today. An appropriate proportion is about the word itself, a little about etymology, but mostly about how usage has changed over the centuries, which is relevant to understanding the concept. Eminently suitable for an encyclopedia. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have mentioned, this is not a dictionary entry. The title might need to be changed, but that's all. Hairhorn (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wouldn't be opposed to moving to another title (or keeping it where it is).--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 04:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move over Abduction of women then delete. Note that the word raptio seems to be pure Latin and does not appear in the OED. As this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Latin one, this does not belong here as a headword. A perusal of sources such as Google Books indicates that the word is little used in this sense, being more often used to mean rapture. The usage here gives undue weight to a non-English etymology which seems unsupported by the sources provided in the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If that is what happens, vigilance will have to be exercised to ensure that the historical concept, involving groups of women (raptio) is kept distinct from bride kidnapping, which is also the abduction of women, but one by one. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Bride kidnapping is much the same topic and it would make some sense to treat them together. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully disagree. One is about a historical and mythological subject, largely (as we document it in an encyclopedia) treated in art; the other is a current issue of human rights abuse. One deals with large-scale events during ancient wars; one deals with something that occurs daily, somewhere, now. (Rape in war still happens, of course, but does not lead to large-scale marriages any more.) Bride kidnapping is a good article, if not yet a Good Article, and of appropriate length. The two subjects are affiliated, but in no way synonymous. It would be like merging dowry and bride price, or arranged marriage and forced marriage. ... Or Georgia and South Georgia, or Ireland and Northern Ireland.... BrainyBabe (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a WP:DICDEF. The nomination is completely wrong, and should be withdrawn. Fences and windows (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is fine, having references, and the topic notable. Dream Focus 07:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BrainyBabe's and many others' comments above. --NorwegianBlue^talk 12:21, 30 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 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Dana[edit]

One of several articles from now-banned user who promotes clients on Wikipedia for money. See User_talk:Smkovalinsky and User_talk:Plastikspork#Please_reply_as_to_Kegel_Male_Trainer.

Subject of the article is of uncertain notability. He's a serial inventor, but many of them seem to have ended at the patent stage with no products developed. Only possibly notable thing seems to be the "disco shoes" lawsuit. Article claims the resulting lawsuit resulted in "Offensive Collateral Estoppel" precedent, but I can find no evidence that this is the case, although the case is cited in books as an example, but I can't find any claiming it the the origin. I am not a law expert. Hairhorn (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- even if the legal case is notable in legal circles, that does not make Dana himself notable. A Google News Archive search for "Al Dana" turns up a zillion hits from the Middle East so I tried "'Al Dana' + inventor" and came up with nothing reliable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also these other promotional articles: Kegel Male Trainer, Security Footwear and Liz Glazowski as well as User talk:Petrosianii. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kegel Male Trainer. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ given the information about the nature of the editing, I have stricken my !vote. actual substantiative notability is the invention of a lighted shoe, which subsequently became a major product. The sources showing this are rather confused, but it seems he did invent such a shoe, and it was widely used. That would be notability. A negative result of GN will not be reliable, unless you try a great many possible approaches. But I too do not find the legal case notable. INAL, but it seems not to be a major precedent. DGG (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... Just an update to say a quick reading of the suit makes it clear that Offensive Collateral Estoppel did not orginate with this case. I also can't figure out how the case ultimately ended, which would be relevant for notability (is he the inventor, or just a guy with a related patent?) Hairhorn (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a blp without any reliable sources (just a link to a US patent office search page and a link to a scan of a court ruling from when he sued another company over patent infringement). Yet it is filled with extravagant dubious claims (the legal one about precedent, for instance), his love of collecting ferraris, his genius, his generosity, the hotness of his wife, etc.... Bali ultimate (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS and created by a known paid contributor. Plastikspork (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that relevant--see above. DGG (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP with no WP:RS who was a subject in a NN legal case. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources for this BLP. Hipocrite (talk) 20:07, 31 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) 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Award[edit]

Non-notable award founded by non-notable professor with funding from non-notable backer. Orange Mike | Talk 22:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with haste, permastub, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep From their web page "THE PURPOSE OF THE DANA AWARDS is monetary encouragement for work that has not yet been recognized." -- which cerrtainly does not appear promising. However, from their list of winners, it seems that most of the novelists did go on to write published novels found in hundreds of libraries, and one at least is certainly notable, Danielle Trussoni. Oddly, the present article lists only the poets and short story parts of the award, which are harder to check, but spot checking shows some with worlks in multiple anthologies, and therefore probably notable. GSearching is difficult as there are some very notable Dana's, and numerous awards named after them ~~(the John Cotton Dana Award is the highest award in librarianship).~~ So far I have only two relevant News Archive refs, and they are neither of them about winners, but finalists : [1] , [2] I think we'd need to search under each recipient name. DGG (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no assertion that the award has been discussed in secondary sources, or is in any way notable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of the article, first let me apologize for not adding the novelist winners. That was my intention but I was distracted elsewhere. It's a presigious prize among writers, covered in Poets & Writers, Writers Digest etc. and a number of the writers whose careers it helped launch, like Danielle Trussoni, are rather prominent. But it is difficult to track down sources, in part because of the unfortunately common name. If anyone else would give a stab at that over the next few days before we delete the article, I would be extremely grateful. (As with all of these writing awards, well-known in the field but not beyond, it's very helpful to have an encyclopedic list of former winners, which in this case, it took me some effort to find.) 7triton7 (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - Vartanza (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I've been doing some work on the page, seeing as a number of the writers who have won are now notable, and sources do exist, but I would be appreciative of anyone who would help out. Thanks. (I would also hate to put this effort in if the page is eventually deleted anyway, so if you're thinking of voting to delete, please at least give a shot at rescue first) 7triton7 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should certainly Keep this article. Tina Chang, Sam Witt, Jacob Appel and Danielle Trussoni are all unquestionably notable writers/poets. Is there a separate guideline for prizes? B/c these authors' books are in libraries all over the nation. SouthernCritic111 (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment remember, notability is not contagious. The award does not become notable by having been given to notable people. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment point well taken. i had never heard of this award before today, while i do know of several of these authors, but the article seems to claim that this award was instrumental in helping make these writers/poets notable. their website basically says they gave Trussoni her first big break. it strikes me that, if this is true for a group of notable authors, it is enough, but that's just one woman's opinion. however, maybe that's not a workable distinction for others.... it's a gray area, isn't it? SouthernCritic111 (talk) 13:58, 29 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 Withdrawn per Tothwolf's addition of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Relay Chat flood[edit]

Dictionary definition, entirely unsourced since creation ages ago. I can't possibly see a way for this ever to be sourced, even if the original research is cut. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since this AfD was created the article has been well sourced, and it appears informative to me. Taelus (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Its obvious the nominator didn't bother to check for sources before nominating this article for AfD. Numerous sources for this subject are available and I've added 4 historical IRC documents, 3 IETF RFCs, and 21 books. I've also added an {{Expand}} template to the article because it could be significantly expanded from it's current form. Tothwolf (talk) 17:29, 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 20:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usenet flood[edit]

Permanent dicdef, no sources other than other wikis, no hope of expanding beyond dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTDIC, and lack of sources. Taelus (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: neologism used by a single source, also WP:NAD, unreferenced, no assertion of WP:N, etc. etc.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 04:33, 26 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. Already at Wiktionary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ananym[edit]

Dicdef and list, no hope of expansion. Either delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary, per nominator. Vicenarian (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary is fine with me, if the highly useful and noteworthy ananym list is preserved. On the other hand, it's silly to say there is no hope of expansion. More accurate to say "the person objecting lacks whatever is necessary to think of how to expand it".Kaz (talk) 01:28, 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. Jamie^☆S93 16:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oblion[edit]

Fictional planet, possibly Star Trek related. More suitable to a trekkie wiki, as no notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find no mention of this term anywhere.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strongly suspect this is fan fiction, as neither Memory Alpha nor Google seems to have heard of the planet or various other things mentioned in the article. Either way, can't see how it's notable enough for Wikipedia. BryanG (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Patent nonsense. No context so does even establish itself as fan fiction. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to post info about your fan fiction. Edward321 (talk) 13:48, 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 speedy delete. A quick Google search showed any claims about "chart topping" to be blatant misinformation. TN X Man 21:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Freshman Rejects[edit]

Non-notable band / hoax. Claims to have had a #3 hit, but since I can find neither the "hit" Death Of A High School Gizmo not the band on Google, I very much doubt this assertion is true. Passportguy (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as blatant vandalism/hoax. Some quotes from the entry:

"They arranged to bring Cd's around of their favourite High School bands and share. They soon realized, however, there was no such thing as a Highschool band and were both devastated. They both went into a stage of manic depression afterwards realizing that they hadn't been listening to High School Bands on their CD players. They soon realized that their CD players had in fact been unplugged for seven years. Ben even contemplated suicide and George realized at this point something had to be done about the situation. So he offered that they start their own band, Ben was enthusiastic about the idea. George was worried whether they were able to write decent lyrics." Wperdue (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petkovic nenad[edit]

Very likely hoax. http://www.bcredstar.com/prvi_tim.php does not list him as player for the Red Star Belgrade basketball team Passportguy (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely hoax. Kiwikibble (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a poor hoax/fantasy. I predict snow. Fences and windows (talk) 22:48, 29 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 20:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric W. Schwartz[edit]

Very few sources, no notability outside of Sabrina Online. Either delete or merge to the comic's article, as he seems to have absolutely no notability beyond the comic, which itself seems marginally notable (outside the furry community at least). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has notability outside of his work on Sabrina Online; repeatedly won the Bit.Movie computer graphics/multimedia competition (background info) that ran from 1988 to 1996. Covered by two published magazines in the Amiga community (one available online, which I've added to the article). GreenReaper (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question TPH, I suppose you mean that he is not notable except for Sabrina online; not notable outside of Sabrina online would be what one would say for a fictional character in the comic, & had me pretty puzzled. DGG (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I meant. I found nothing about him that didn't also mention Sabrina, and even then it was very thin sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he won awards and has been in magazines, he is notable. Would a famous musician not be notable, if you couldn't find a single interview about them which didn't mention their music? Dream Focus 03:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stick it in that Sabrina Online article as an "about the author" section. There's only two and a half sentences here that don't involve that furry webcomic and we don't need an extra article for two and a half sentences. Thank you furry much. Blackbirdz (talk) 14:18, 26 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 Deleted as a hoax, with the power of AfD (as in, G4 if it reappears in the future) Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Meyer (Wrestler)[edit]

Likely hoax. No indication Meyer is a WWE wrestler or that he wrestled Triple H, if that is indeed what is article is arguing. Listed rather than CSD so more knowledge WWE folks can comment. Greedyhalibut (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Misinformation. Even if this was real, WP:CRYSTALBALL we can not speculate that he will be fighting anywhere.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I inquired at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WrestleMania 25 already happened, and he definitely didn't become the new World Heavyweight Champion. Anyway, Triple H was the WWE Champion not the World Heavyweight Champ. Hoax. Nikki♥311 02:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If even he does exist, all information in his "article" is false. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:09, 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 Faux pas. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of faux pas[edit]

Article has been split, apparently into the listed articles, but what remains is not really an article, nor is it a disambiguation page. Powers ^T 20:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a useful dab page as none of the lists really is of faux pas. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The lone editor who did the "split" in November 2006 virtually deleted this page on his own. This is of no more interest or usefulness than a blanked page. Mandsford (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ really of no use as someone looking for a list of faux pas has come to the wrong place. Tavix | Talk 04:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Redirect to Faux pas per WP:MAD. My rationale remains the same. Tavix | Talk 15:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doesn't the history need to be kept if this was split apart and the content merged into other articles? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. You might want to log in and sign the comment once more; I hate it when that happens to me. Mandsford (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Faux pas. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of 70.29's observation. This is what the page looked like [3] before User:Boston essentially erased it, and this was after the erased content had survived deletion. Whatever we might dislike about that page (and there were plenty of problems with it) I can't endorse that type of action. Mandsford (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't endorse a valid split? Powers ^T 14:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means a deletion of this article. Tavix | Talk 15:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Faux pas.--Jusjih (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None or all of the above: Bring back to pre-User:Boston version, copy and paste to Faux pas, and redirect. The old version of "List of" had more info than the Faux pas article itself. The list as it stands is just a recreation of the "see also" section of the faux pas article.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 04:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Faux pas. Don't reinvent the wheel. What happened in December 2006 was that there was consensus that this version[4] was bloated, and it was separated into several "Etiquette of..." articles. See Talk:List of faux pas#Ready.2C Steady.2C Go. Fences and windows (talk) 22:56, 29 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 20:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boston-NeuroTalks[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable Yahoo group talk anouncement service used by supposedly "more than 700 people" , author of page User:Tren huang is likely one of the moderators listed in the article. Passportguy (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I have done several searches for sources and have been unable to find anything to establish this service's notability. Cunard (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Non-notable web content. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's indeed listed as a neuroscience group in Yahoo:

http://in.dir.groups.yahoo.com/dir/Science/Biology/Neuroscience

Other larger groups in the same category are less academia-oriented general forums.

In addition, it's listed or discussed in well-know websites or professional labs such as follows:

http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/martinos/userInfo/operations/mailingLists.php

http://network.nature.com/groups/DecisionsDopamineReward/forum/topics/2588

http://www.musicianbrain.com/neuroscience.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tren huang (talk • contribs) 22:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bu.edu/neuropsychology/memberpages/ms.html

Finally, the service is sometimes referred to "neurotalks" or "boston neurotalks" instead of "boston-neurotalks". That's probably why search engines cannot find all relevant webpages.

Tren huang (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.

Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

None of those sources is substantial either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "more than 700 (cognitive) neuroscientists " - I'm tempted to ask how many non-thinking ones use it as well, but that mightn't be fair. However, I do consider this a limited interest website/forum/whatever. (I would consider 700 cognitive neuroscientists to be a rather high number even for Greater Boston, unless they tend to congregate there for some reason. I couldn't see there being that many in most large cities. Even if this is right, I do not see it increases the notability.) Peridon (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_________

I'd like to add to this discussion. Boston-NeuroTalks is a very significant contribution to the Neuroscience community and has members not only in the Boston Area but also around the world. It is important that readers realize that Boston is one of the most active neuroscience communities around the world and that as such Boston-NeuroTalks is a unique service used by world leading academics. I must admit that I am confused why the suitability of this entry is being challenged.

 Aaron Seitz, Ph.D.
 Assistant Professor
 Department of Psychology
 University of California, Riverside

aseitz (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC) — Aseitz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ______________[reply]

QUIT TOP POSTING. Jeez. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's being considered because it doesn't appear to be more than a limited interest group - and vast as it is, Wikipedia can't cover everything. If you can show that it is more than that, I for one will reconsider my present opinion. At the moment, there are no independent reliable references to show notability, and it appears to be an announcement service, which is inherently non-notable. Over to you... Peridon (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be Speedy Deleted per this being a limited interest group. Wikipedia can't cover everything. Also, there are no sources. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_________

Wow, no wonder academics are beginning to look for other services. Isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to be a broad all encompassing database? I am shocked to see this particular page to be attacked so quickly. It is correct, there is nothing controversial and it documents something that it notable world-wide. What wisdom do you have to challenge this? What is the risk of the page being added to the database? What is the risk of omission of something that is important that you just didn't know or care about? Please think about this before acting in such a unilateral manner about something for which you have no knowledge!

my last word,

-Aaron aseitz (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC) — Aseitz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to be a broad all encompassing database?" No, it's to hold things that are already notable; i.e., that are already talked about significantly in reliable third party sources. I have no idea why notability is so hard to grasp for new editors. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You see, we don't have to know about it for it to be notable or significant, but i see this nowhere on any website but it's own. That's not significance or notability. This has none, and does not belong in our encyclopedia. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly fails WP:WEB and that really is the only thing that needs to be said. If someone can show that it clearly meets WP:WEB and the sources have been added to the article please notify me so I can re-evaluate. Drawn Some (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be shocked if pages not suitable for inclusion WEREN'T 'attacked' quickly. This isn't an attack. It's a discussion. (Well, it's supposed to be. I'm seeing not a lot from certain quarters other than 'It's how we want it and beggar you lot'.) If you can improve the current position of the article, please do so. We've told you what's wrong with it. There are 5 to 7 days left for changes to be made. "What wisdom do you have to challenge this?" We have the wisdom of being Wikipedia editors - and people with wide-ranging knowledge of many fields. We are the ones who look after this place. We are the ones who take part in the discussions - both of articles like this, and of the basic rules of Wikipedia itself. Before you accuse us of ignorance, have a look at the range of articles we have edited or discussed. By 'we' I mean those taking part here in this discussion. I think you'll find a pretty wide variety of stuff. Peridon (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's not matter of attacking. We do not attack pages , we decide in a reasonable and objective way whether they are suitable here. On the one hand, we should not get all defensive when newcomers do not understand the standards that we use, but on the other we do expect them to take some effort to understand the purposes of the project. Wikipedia is not "a broad encompassing database", but a comprehensive encyclopedia. There's a difference. an encyclopedia treats of things likely to be important enough to be of some degree of long-term reference interest. A comprehensive world wide encyclopedia like ours covers what conventional encyclopedias would, if they had no limits of space, thousands of world-wide contributors, and a concern with all areas of human activity, including the contemporary. A directory of local disciplinary announcement services is not what one looks for in an encyclopedia, but in a web directory. It is possible for one to be so important that it is of general interest, but it has to be shown by actual evidence from 3rd party reliable sources. Even though Boston is a very prominent place in the academic world, almost all talks given there are of local interest only, and only for a short while. DGG (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neuroscience is notable, even Neuroscience in Boston is probably notable. But a list of talks is simply a list of talks. Not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Functionality =/= Notability. E.g. Yahoo is simply a list of other webpages.

Delete No secondary source discusses subject; not notable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are the references listed in the page NOT counted as secondary sources? Tren Huang (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is some university pages that establish its existence, and verify that some people are using it. Verifiability is one issue, notability is another. Hairhorn (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has no secondary sources. The sources are: (1) uni site showing there is a mailing list; (2) a site (related to subject?) with a link to a mailing list; (3) someone's home page with a link; (4) a totally unrelated site that says "Inspired by the Boston-NeuroTalks site". These references do not even discuss the subject, and certainly do not say the subject is notable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (1) MGH Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging is one of the most notable brain imaging centers in the world. It's not a random non-notable organization. (2) A website/service in Italy is set up due to the inspiration from Boston-NeuroTalks, proving the world-wide notability of Boston-NeuroTalks. Tren huang (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC). — Tren huang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep References in the entry and 1,960,000 Google outputs do show unusual notability. — 208.54.87.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not just a list of talks. Firstly, it is extremely popular among graduate students and neuroscientists in Boston and outside of it. Secondly, it is a unique tool that dramatically increases the effectiveness of finding and meeting new researchers in the same field and thus it is notable. Mikhail Panko (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — Mikhail Panko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Boston-NeuroTalks is a notable forum for dissemination of knowledge of neuroscience affecting many hundreds of people throughout the world aseitz (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — Aseitz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Boston-NeuroTalks provides a much needed service for the neuroscience community of Boston (and it is huge - many large hospitals and universities with prominent medical schools, each with vibrant neuroscience communities). Most researchers and students would be missing out on vast amounts of opportunities afforded by the institutions in the city without this centralized service, which as mentioned is well known outside of Boston and has inspired similar services too.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.129.176 (talk) — 71.174.129.176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Appears to be popular amongst certain people but not of general interest but, more importantly, a few funny things come to my attention:

The number of SPAs in this discussion is very impressive.
I enjoyed the threat of how academics are "looking for different services". On the one hand, academics shouldn't be coming to Wikipedia as the font of all knowledge on topics such as neuroscience - that's what books and professional journals are for. On the other, academics should be interested in helping contribute to Wikipedia, and helping us give as much information on these topics as we can. SPAs! Join us now and help us improve! Don't just sit there complaining. There's so much more to do.
Most intriguingly, searching on Google for "Boston NeuroTalks" gives 1,970,000 results. Whip out the hyphen and we're down to 32,500 results. And take out "Boston"? We get 109,000 results. So I ask how a more specific query (the first) yields more results than a less specific one (the others). Seems Google's out of the picture in this discussion, lads and ladies.

Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 19:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is out of hand. If it's "more than a list of talks" then someone has to re-write the article, because "list of talks" is exactly how I read it. Hairhorn (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the "keep" votes are well intentioned, Wikipedia wants more than individual editors who assert a topic is notable. I pointed above that the links on the article point to very flimsy pages which do not discuss the topic – they give no indication that the topic is notable. My opinion, and your opinion, on this article are totally irrelevant. The only issue concerns whether there is any evidence that it is notable. Johnuniq (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V, WP:RS. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure it's useful to neuroscientists in the Boston area, but is a list of neuroscience talks notable? No, and certainly not in the absence of any reliable sources that refer to it. Fences and windows (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find a reliable source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above: notability, small interest group. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 12:10, 31 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 Userfy at user request. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of numbered highways in Monroe, Washington[edit]

This is a list of three things for a city of 13,795 according to Wikipedia. Rschen7754 (T C) 20:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete this article. I'll go cancel the DYK and peer review. Maybe we could move this into my userspace? –CG 20:17, 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 speedily deleted (G4) by Graeme Bartlett. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of grassroots organizations[edit]

Previously deleted list entry. Criteria for inclusion are unclear. Any list will be either woefully incomplete or woefully long. Possible Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material. Hairhorn (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G4 This isn't even half assed attempt, more like 1/10th assed. WP:PUTEFFORT, WP:SYNTH. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no salvageable content. — Jake Wartenberg 20:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, preferably as db-spam. There's no usable content, only promotion of the links. - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete If this is an improvement over previously deleted material, I would hate to see the prior version. I like the concept of "tenth-assed", although an uptight person with a lisp would be more properly described as "tenth-athed". Mandsford (talk) 01:57, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in English labeled the worst ever[edit]

Tagged as synthesis since October 2007, and recentism since January 08 with no attempts to fix. I see no way of making this a useful list, given that we've got sources from a Dave Barry reader poll to VH1 and MTV polls of various qualities. Last AFDs were from 2006 with a lot of WP:USEFULs and WP:ILIKEITs, and were mainly closed as speedy keeps due to their being so close together. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. How did this get kept 5 times?! Not really NPOV, either. — Jake Wartenberg 20:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why would it be a "synthesis"? The tag says "unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources" - but the article content and its title ("List of songs in English labeled the worst ever") match what the sources say, namely that such-and-such song is the worst ever. "Recentism"? The polls range from 1977 or so to present day. GregorB (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it the synthesis tag. At the time the list was a collection of "most annoying", "Most Depressing", "worst number one record", "Worst Rock and Roll Song of All Time", "worst pop recording", etc. So the list title and concept was difficult to pin down and was a synthesis of various different lists. The tag may no longer be appropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 09:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point: the article does spell it out, but is unclear whether "most annoying" can be equated to "worst". GregorB (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one of the worst lists I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Drawn Some (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can we list this page at Wikipedia:List of pages in Wikipedia labeled the worst ever? There's lots of original research. Alexius08 (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As was said before, this is not a list of songs that were the worst ever, which indeed is hardly something we could decide, but a list of songs that were so labelled by notable people or groups. I'm not sure that every one of them is worth including, but some are national polls, or polls of very famous shows. The concept is possible for an article. DGG (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If people didn't care about this shit, magazines wouldn't keep publishing lists of worst songs ever. If a song has earned a dubious achievement that can be traced to a verifiable source, it's a valid topic. While I can appreciate the humor of "worst list ever", WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ILIKEIT don't go far for a delete or a keep. The question is whether one would consult an online encyclopedia on the subject, and I think it's fair to say that they would do so. Mandsford (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have a "List of Films Considered the Worst" so why can't we have this one. True, it needs a lot of cleaning up. And Mandsford, please watch your language. Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 08:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? I shouldn't have used the word "valid"? Mandsford (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the word "shit". Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 15:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well! Please watch your language. Just because you've seen other people use that word, it does not mean that you have to do so. There was a time that I would have typed such a vulgarity, but that was more than half a day ago. Mandsford (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists tend to have a lower notability criteria than articles as we don't have clear guidelines so discussions often do come down to I Like It or I Don't Like It. The guidelines on list content are WP:SALAT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and Wikipedia:Lists#Listed_items. The guidelines are not that helpful. We have to consider the list itself and make our own judgments. The criteria for inclusion on this list is difficult to pin down and has shifted over the years. A Google for worst ever songs comes up with a bunch of songs not on this list. Back in 2006 I spent some time tidying up this list and making it workable. I gave up. I think the basic premise is unworkable. SilkTork *^YES! 09:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nom. I also tried to repair this list when it succeeded one of its 2006 AfDs. We made a lot of improvements, that's for sure, but in the end this list doesn't really work. As SilkTork says, the whole premise is wrong. "... Considered the Worst" means you're bound to end up with an arbitrary bunch of stuff (a "synthesis" if you like) that verges towards failures of WP:NOT#OR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and (ultimately, because the links to the cited websites are arguably the most useful part of the article!) WP:NOTLINK.

I don't think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good reason for keeping this either (and List of films considered the worst in particular has its own issues right now; it seems to consist of a lot of mini-essays and hence WP:NOT#OR/WP:NPOV failures, plus reproductions of iMDb/Rotten Tomatoes/etc. statistics which may be stretching "fair use" a bit - this "Songs" article had a lot of these faults back in 2006).

List of U.S. and Canadian box office bombs is a better list article IMO, but I think that's because the selection criteria are quantifiably measurable and fairly stable. Films are not songs either, of course - but it's the stability of the inclusion criteria that make or break these lists. And the current criteria used by this "Songs" article, laden as they are with qualifiers and caveats that tend to broaden the scope to include all kinds of stuff, rather than narrow them down to something specific, are (a) unsatisfactory but (b) probably as good as they will ever get.

So, while I feel there are other problems with the article too (e.g. quite a few online user polls of dubious notability in there), I think this article should go not because of its current content issues (current issues which have been constant for 3 years, mind you!), but because I honestly do not believe there can ever be any better content than this under a "Considered the Worst" rubric. It's probably borderline in terms of the letter of the above WP policies, but when I step back and think about it in an "ignore-all-rules" kind of way (and particularly when I sat down and tried to improve the article - something I heartily recommend to anyone who's undecided!), then I think it quickly becomes clear that the article fails the spirit of those policies. IMO, unfixable inclusion criteria = unfixable, and hence deletable, list article. --DaveG12345 (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What a horrible precedent. If a list like this which is thoroughly unencyclopaedic and cruft-laden (not to say contrived) there is a countless number of non-notable lists we are inviting. Kiwikibble (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the inverse, with a delete precedent there's a countless number of notable list articles we would be inviting to delete, right? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 22:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:KEEPLISTING. It appears that this page just keeps getting listed in Afd with the hopes that eventually it will get deleted. Eauhomme (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous AfD for this article was almost three years ago. --DaveG12345 (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the time of my above vote, Wikipedia was having technical difficulties that kept me from accessing the previous afd's specifically. Changing to neutral. Thanks for pointing that out. Eauhomme (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Indiscriminate but still interesting, and has potential to turn into a quality list as long as each entry is sourced. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 22:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, what criteria for inclusion would we use? I can't think of a logical one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quq. I think that songs listed should be limited to those which have appeared on various subjective internet or magazine polls (for example, VH1's "50 Most Awesomely Bad Songs Ever" and Maxim magazine's "20 Most Annoying Songs Ever!"). Mandsford (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable topic. Needs effort not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the topic is subjective, the inclusion criteria aren't, and this list is the best sourced I've seen for a while. Fences and windows (talk) 23:07, 29 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) 00:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Go Near the Water (Beach Boys song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Don't Go Near the Water (Beach Boys song)

Non notable songs, no sources, no hope of expansion, will likely be contested if redirected. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Beach Boys are a notable band, and spinning their songs off into separate articles makes sense, rather than clogging up the main article, or simply undoing all this work by deleting. Greenman (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Greenman. Also, though, according to WP:N, the general notability guideline is: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." There are at least two sources which deal with this song in sufficient detail, Inside The Music Of Brian Wilson by Phillip Lambert, and Andrew G. Doe & John Tobler's Complete Guide To The Beach Boys. I'm sure that more info can be found in Keith Badman's book and I remember Timothy White's The Nearest Faraway Place covering this era of the band fairly thoroughly. So, the songs are notable, there are plenty of sources available, and the articles are a mixed bag, some are fine the way they are, but others could certainly be expanded. MookieZ (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not every damn song is notable though. Do you really think that we could write more than three sentences about each song? Yeah right. WHY DO PEOPLE THINK SONGS ARE INHERENTLY NOTABLE?!?!?!?!?!! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a response to me, I would say that I do not think that songs are inherently notable. But, songs which pass the notability requirements are, by definition, notable. I would also like to point out that Don't Go Near the Water (Beach Boys song) is longer than 3 sentences, and yes, I think a similar length article could be written about any of these songs. And I would urge you to not get so upset. MookieZ (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Beach Boys are a highly notable band, and there is significant coverage for nearly all of their works, as stated above. A few of these songs charted in some way or another (Don't Go Near the Water as a B-side, Student Demonstration Time in Australia) and are additionally notable for that. Besides, there is certainly a precedent for having articles for every song for very notable bands (The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd, for example); the Beach Boys are as notable a band as these, based on how much coverage they have received. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mostly per MookieZ. Although these songs cannot inherit notability from the Beach Boys, the fact that there are multiple independent sources that deal with these songs does generate notability for them. And that would apply to the bands listed in TheCatalyst31's reply as well. Rlendog (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not going to bother looking up the precise wording of policy and guidelines, because common sense says that any song by the Beach Boys will have had substantial coverage in reliable sources. Can't we concentrate on getting rid of the articles on releases from Youtube and Myspace bands rather than those that have stood the test of time? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common sense hint at keep, the quality of the song sounds like keep, but the coverage from 3rd party sources seals the keep !vote for me. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 02:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All Not seeing any evidence of any due diligence. Nomination asserts that redirection would be contested but this does not seem to have tried nor does the matter seem to have been discussed on the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:10, 29 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. per WP:SNOW. Sandstein 16:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White elephant[edit]

Dicdef and list of trivia. It's original research to say that any of the objects listed actually are white elephants isn't it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "Examples of notable alleged white elephants" list is largely referenced, that and the 'alleged' bit make it somewhat clear that we are not actually saying they are, as synthesis or original research. A similar but far shorter and less referenced article would be Boondoggle (project).Synchronism (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see any way in which deleting this article would make for a better encyclopedia; some of the more spurious entries could be cleared up or cited, sure, but deletion? Shimgray | talk | 22:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Sych's and Shimg's comments. Most of the issues can be addressed on the talk page, as they have been in the past. Seems very extreme to send to AFD as a first step for this user to take with this article. I support a Speedy Keep in this case. - BillCJ (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "White elephant" is a dictionary term, but it also refers to a recognizable and sourceable class of projects that are individually noteworthy, often mainly for their failures. This article describes the phenomenon with a well-sourced list of notable examples. I don't think that the dictionary could handle this information well, and I agree with Synchronism that its deletion would not improve the project. Will Beback talk 01:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A sourced article is a rare find indeed. Essentially, this is a list of projects that have been described by others as a colossal waste of money. Boondoggle, white elephant, whatever one wants to call it there is ample literature on the subject of waste. Mandsford (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speedy keep, if nobody objects. A good example of how to do an article like this. DGG (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The background at least is encyclopedic content. The list is trivia, and should be spun out to a standalone list to avoid overpowering the article. Or deleted for all I care. I see no reason for a speedy keep. Taemyr (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked two of the items in the list and they did have sources which seemed sufficiently reliable. Also, the concept of "white elephant" is something WP should have an article on (some more in a history section would be good). Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if I may... I agree that this article does have encyclopedic content, although the list is questionable.
Keep The article could be improved a lot, but the topic is encyclopedic. Allmost all of the examples are supported by sources which explicitly call them a 'white elephant' so there's no original research. Nick-D (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Will Beback. This article goes well beyond dicdef. JamesMLane t c 04:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is about the concept of the white elephant rather than about the phrase, so is not a dicdef.--Michig (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No real reason to delete on the ground of being a dicdef. It goes beyond that by explaining the historic context of the term, and then provides some examples, a rational approach to an assuredly encyclopedic topic.Synchronism (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list could be split out into a standalone list as it tends to dominate the article, but there is no doubt in my mind that this is an entirely appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article and this one is at least referenced which is more than can be said for many other articles in the wiki. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is not a dicdef, and has references to back up content, passing WP:V. SNOW? --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's large and white and picking up speed as it moves downhill, is it a white elephant or a snowball... I'm not hanging around to find out. Mandsford (talk) 12:29, 26 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 20:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of South African politicians[edit]

Corrected and more complete info at Category:South African politicians already. Prod removed without correcting, or adding info not in category. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-24t18:17z 18:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing from delete to sourcing and split instead, after DGG and Mandsford's edits. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-29t19:46z

Delete. Although lists and categories work together (Wikipedia:CLN), as pointed out by a previous contributer, this list is best replaced by more specific lists such as Members of the 4th Western Cape Provincial Parliament, etc. I can't see this list ever becoming complete (in which case it would be overwhelming) or specific enough to be useful. Greenman (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ While I'm not one of those "a category is the only way" people, this doesn't impart any information than a category could, and after more than four years, it never has been anything more than an indiscriminate list. It's sad that someone went to the trouble of listing "Ken Andrew" as "Andrew, Ken", but couldn't say a few words to tell us who he is. Nobody is going to go to the trouble of trying to write a little descriptor for each name on the list. If all we want to see is list of blue links, we can do the cat-subcat dance for that. Mandsford (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every category of discrete individual people or objects should have a corresponding list, if people are available to work on it. The list always offers the possibility of adding more information--this one certainly does (date and role). That it does not have this presently means it needs improvement, not deletion. In the time it will take to debate this, a good start could be made towards adding them. That's the sort of thing that will improve the encyclopedia. I just did the first 5 to start off with. (incidentally, doing this is a check on whether by any chance some are not actually notable) DGG (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, that doesn't answer the main point. I'd argue that the corresponding categories also need to be broken down into something more useful too. Having people work on less specific lists that won't ever be useful (how would having thousands and thousands of names on this list help?) just dilutes the effort - rather redirect it to more useful, targeted lists. Greenman (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Greenman. Kiwikibble (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Withdrawing my delete !vote, in that DGG is working on some improvements. The article will stay up at least until May 31. Those of you who vote keep because it can be improved, consider following DGG's example. Mandsford (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an obviously notable subject for a list. Those of you who !vote delete, consider following DGG's example, if you are here to help build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on improvements. In response to Bridger, everybody in this discussion is "here to build an encyclopedia", whether they vote to keep or delete an article. Admittedly, this didn't look like much until DGG set out to improve it. Sometimes, you have to tear down an eyesore in order to build something better. Mandsford (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per DGG's reasoning SouthernCritic111 (talk) 01:15, 29 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 20:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brew Tea Bar[edit]

Finishing broken nom for Tagishsimon, as Twinkle hiccuped. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - coincident with my broadband connection keeling over. After judicious use of a paperclip to repair it...Brew Tea Bar...no assertion of notability. It's a new tea bar, less than year old, in Liverpool. The article was added by its owner. So. NN and COI. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's too soon for this one to have an article. Alexius08 (talk) 22:45, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award winners by age at win[edit]

Per WP:listcruft. Greedyhalibut (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft, plus everything important is already in Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award. Age is irrelevant to the award. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. Duplicates already available information, and age at win isn't relevant. — Jake Wartenberg 20:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - As nominator, I do find age relevant, but see no need for it to be a part of a separate article. Could be included in the main article if properly sourced.Greedyhalibut (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial criteria for listing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the way that the information is presented, in the form of a sortable table that would accomodate a wide number of variables, and I would simply have called it "List of Super Bowl MVPs" instead of a title that suggest something limited to one "stat". The numbers for age at time of win, although somewhat interesting, won't work as a standalone article. On the other hand, a wide variety of information would work as a sortable table. Mandsford (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could the nominator please provide a proper rationale? That quoted "policy" is an essay. Fences and windows (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplicates the information already at Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award. The article creator, Birdienest81, can propose adding ages to that page, but I doubt it'll get agreement. Fences and windows (talk) 23:25, 29 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) 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Ng[edit]

Non-notable martial arts teacher. Article is continously being re-created by a user who is likely either a student or this person himself. Passportguy (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why Passportguy has such a vendetta against me or john Ng. However I have tried very hard to give the information clearly. This is my second attempt in creating the page the earlyer one was deleted in less than one hour. John Ng is a very common name (much like john smith) I do not know about the earlier deleted pages. Also if you look at pages Ng Chung-sok and Ng Mui their is no issue with them and their martial art masters...--Ducha mps_comb MFA 17:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As i have explain to you frequently in the past, a person has to be notable to be included here. If you search for this person on google, you will find next to no pertinent hits and even the article does not mention him doing anything notable. I'm sure your teacher is a great guy and a good teacher, however in a nutshell : if he isn't famous, he doesn't belong here. Passportguy (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off he is not my teacher (would it really matter if he was). Secondly the internet does not hold all of the knowledge in the world. Thirdly when someone is notable in foreign academia you will not find it on the internet (unless your a babblefish expert). As well the martial arts are not cover very well unless your a UFC jackass. You still not addressed my concerns with the pages Ng Chung-sok and Ng Mui. Apparently you have no bias against those pages.--Ducha mps_comb MFA 18:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would matter if you are closely connected with this person, see WP:COI. As for the other two : The article on Ng Mui claims that he is "said to have been one of the legendary Five Elders — survivors of the destruction of the Shaolin Temple by the Qing Dynasty" which seems like something notable. As for the other one (Ng Chung-sok- you are correct, I have tagged him for deletion also, as the article does not state that he is notabel either. Passportguy (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from. However it was not my intent to get Ng Chung-sok tagged for deletion, I was trying to see where the line is. *Example if Yoda teaches obi-one kenobi then he teaches Luke Skywalker who is notable? Ng Chung-sok taught Yuan Kay-shan he taught Shum Lung same thing really (unless Shum Lung was on UFC last year or dresses up like Elvis and does the viva Los Vegas in the NYC subway... My point is notability is biased to pop culture kitsch and honorable people of the past are lost to Wikipedia.--Ducha mps_comb MFA 18:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your example none of them is notable just because they were a student or a teacher of someone else. Each of these people will have had to have done something significant by themselves to become notable. To use a real-life example : Stalin is notable, his elemrntary school teacher is not, unless he for some reason has been the subject of extensive scientifc research or is notable for some other reason. Passportguy (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand noteability and blah blah whatever... But just take a look at Naked Cowboy and Star Wars Kid pop culture noteability at its best. Many people in history (or martial art history) have done "something significant" and they are not here I think WP needs to have some things changed. IMHO. --Ducha mps_comb MFA 19:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rd to either Wang Zi-Ping or possibly Snake_in_the_Monkey's_Shadow#Drunken_technique; nn on his own. See also User_talk:Dank/Archive_7#John_Ng. JJL (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is barely a stub of an article about a notably non-notable subject. LargoLarry (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs an expert I did some research on the man, but am not expert in the field of martial arts, and the name John Ng is far too common to make a search at all easy. My thought is that as a Grand Master and teacher, he must certainly have the slew of awards and medals and commendations that will show his notability. Any experts out there that can help? Further, these searches on THIS Google and Google books seem to show he easily passes WP:BIO per "has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them", "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". He also seems to easily pass WP:ATHLETE per "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport" (when young) and "competed at the fully professional level of a sport" (when older), as "sports" as a term is not restricted to baseball, basketball, or football. He even sneaks past WP:CREATIVE per "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors", and "is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique". Heck, as a Master and Teacher of the martal arts, he even slides in under WP:ACADEMIC, as "academic" is not confined to only books and the "hard" sciences. Yup. Needs an expert. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem with this article - and many that get posted - is that they aren't sourced. With nothing substantial on google (those sources you posted above show people with the name Ng - a common name, these people may not be identical with the person in question) - this is very unlikely ever to get sourced. If it does and those source show notablity, I have no objection to the article. In order to keep vanity on here in check, we really need to insist on sources establishing notablity. The off-chance that someone may be notable is not enough to keep an article if that notablity cannot be sufficiently sourced, see WP:V. Passportguy (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The problem with notablity via something "substantial on google", is that many martial artists are not authors and many websites do not keep up with MA tournament awards/accolades. As well if they have contributed to or were talked about in Inside Kung Fu or black belt magazine and many others it will not be found on google. What if john Smith had been published twenty some times in reliable sources periodicals in his field is he then notable? If so, what if a Google search does not find an "online source."--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, but lack of sources is a reason to tag for such and not offer for nomination only because it is not currently sourced or over a concern that it make likely never get sourced. Common sense would seem to indicate that someone who is an established Master and teacher (WP:Verified under his name Wing-Lok Ng, not the "Americanized" John Ng), must have participated in the various competitions required to win that Mastership. Yes, I do agree that the article needs sourcing, but as Wikipedia itself grants that it does not expect to be perfect, tagging the article as I have done, for atention by experts in the field, would seem to most prudent course that allows for eventual improvement of the article and the project itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment having an expert look for Chinese-language sources would be great. Even in English, so many martial arts stories are so hagiographic that it's hard to separate the notable individuals from the skilled (but not--notable) practitioners. Lacking evidence, the burden is on the article's editors to provide positive evidence of notability. I wasn't even able to verify the Snake in the Monkey's Shadow connection; it isn't even at this site [5] which is of unclear reliability. JJL (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If another martial artists becomes famous, by using techniques he learned from a certain master, that makes that master notable. How many of his students became notable martial artists from his training? How many martial artists get to the level he is? He was mentioned in a DVD and various books. Would most information about him be in another language? Is there a way to tag something, to ask for someone who speaks that language to check for resources? Dream Focus 01:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the assessment of WP:CoI, because most likely that one person who single-handedly, singularly and persistently wanted to promote this person is either himself or someone too closely related, for any objective perspective. From day one when he promoted John on the Ng page, it has been primarily linked to a promotional web site. Now you see the two external links are promotions, in contrast to the WP principle of neutrality. There may be an easier way out of this impasse. Why not put up the page on the zh side first, which will attract more viewers and followers from Hong Kong communities. Btw, Ng Mui is in a totally different league, being very famous in Kung Fu history.--Kgwu24 (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Kgwu24 PS. on the suggestion of starting in zh, see Margaret Ng, which caught attention after starting there.--Kgwu24 (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Kgwu24[reply]
Comments: "Article is continously being re-created by a user"... True. Yup. No doubt. Likely in the hopes of finally getting it right, as few first articles ever spring to these pages aleady "perfect". That lack of understanding requirements for sourcing is understandable... but bless him for not becoming discouraged and leaving Wikipedia forever as some do when their articles fall under repeated fire. But to follow with "who is likely either a student or this person himself"...? Wow. Where's the WP:AGF?? There's absolutely no foundation in fact... only a supposition that the author, an editor since January 2008, has a connection with the subject of the article because he's been trying over and over to get it right. Did anyone offer to help? Or was his first contact with Wikipedia editors a CSD tag on his article? Is that a way to say welcome? That he has repeatedly tried to get it right does not show COI... but it does show an admirable trait to keep trying no matter what the odds. Yes, it shows lack of understanding of Wikipedia' requirements, but naivte is not a crime and does not merit any assumption of bad faith... ever.
Do any here remember their own first efforts to write an article. Did it get speedied? Did it get deleted? Did it get sent to AfD and then get deleted? Did you feel any panic or frustration at your inability to communicate to the editors making decisions of the "importance" of that first article? Is it so easy to forget that we were all newcomers here once?
As for the author's being interested in the subject... so what? Interest in a subject is not COI. Who would bother writing an article about something of which he had no interest or care? I think our properly showing the good faith that guideline expects of us, might make Wikipedia just a bit more welcoming to others. Links and sources and format and style are matters properly addressed through WP:CLEANUP... and AFD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And as an aside... I've been here for 16 months, have some 10,000 edits, and never heard of "on the zh side". Care to instruct the author? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK I have to admit I'm a bit confused with the attitudes of some of the editors (and yes WP policies too). I usually just stick to the editing a paragraph on various topics. This is only my second attempt at creating a page from scratch, the other was Bruce lee statue in Hong Kong. Long story short all I wanted to do was make a single one line (footnote at best) about John Ng on the Ng page. However Passportguy kept deleting it saying "he was not notable because he did not have a page." [6] [7] So, I tried to make one, it was tagged AFD (immedeatly by Passportguy for the second time), now the one banner says to keep editing to make it meet WP standards, another says it is up to the creating editor to add references to make notable. I am trying to save the page and add every thing I can find, -and that makes me a bad faith editor? WOW! On a related topic I hate to say this/toot my own horn but here goes. I am an Expert in the area of Chinese Martial Arts, with over 20 years experience, I doubt there are too many of us tooling around up in here on Wickipedia. I am better suited at punching people, not keyboards, however my knowledge could help many articles with my skill set. WP or as I call it "prick-a-pedia" because allot of folks treat each other so poorly without respect and seem so damn passive aggressive I can see why so many people leave. Thank you Schmidt, for restoring my faith. --Ducha mps_comb MFA 07:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If my vote counts.--Duchamps_comb MFA 07:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly your "vote" counts... but Wikipedia does not call it a "vote". However.. and perhaps you did not know, so keep this in mind for the future... inexperienced users are encouraged to construct articles in a special user space called a "sandbox". It is not considered "article space" so what is built and improved therin can be tweaked and made pretty before being "moved" to article space... usually safe from being tagged or deleted (as long as it is not a copyright infringement of something that attacks or defames someone)... and can exist in-situ while you ask input and advice from the many here wiling to lend a hand. You need not put it in "article space" until you have a strong sense that it meets all relevent criteria. Yours would be at User:Duchamps_comb/sandbox. Click that red link, add something to the page, and watch the link turn blue. Worst case scenario here... if the article is deleted as a result of this ongoing AfD, simply let me know and I'll instruct how you might request it be "userfied" (moved) to your sandbox for futher work. There are plenty in aboard who would be willing to help. And in a few days, weeks or months, when it is good and ready, I can also advise/show how it might be returned. The processes are not as daunting as they initialy seems. Treat it like trying to learn a whole new language. The first stuttering words are sometimes difficult, but soon you'll be talking like a native. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've spent several hours investigating this one and have added a couple of references to the article, including John Ng's position as Executive Advisor to the International Chinese Boxing Association. I agree with Michael Schmidt's points above, and feel that some earlier contributors have undermined their comments by jumping to totally unfounded conclusions (eg "who is likely either a student or this person himself", "is either himself or someone too closely related, for any objective perspective"). A number of factors seem to contribute to John Ng's low score on common "quick assessment of notability" strategies:

Search engines: Chinese names get transliterated in various ways, and the surname is sometimes first, sometimes last; his names are too common to search without quotes, and using quotes I found several searches to be necessary, including variants "Wing-Lok", "Wingloc" and "Winglock"
Bias towards Olympic and team sports: an enormous number of Wikipedia articles about sportsmen and women cite as the only claim to notability the fact that the person competed in the Olympics or is a member of a named team in a named league. Many of these pages are stubs with very scant information. Establishing notability in non-Olympic sports is more challenging.
Internet in the 1980s: articles about him did not appear on the internet during his most active years because the internet was very rudimentary in the 1980s. Current articles are about people carrying on the "Wing Lok Ng family style", people taught by "Grandmaster Wing-Lok Ng" - this would account for the low number of articles about the man himself.
There were indications in several internet sources that publication of Martial Arts techniques and other related information on the internet was explicitly forbidden. Other writers mentioned that they would rather spend time training than sitting down and typing into the internet.

I have no bias on this subject and no connection whatsoever with the subject matter, with Martial Arts or with any of the other editors. I hope that my observations may help us all to consider carefully before coming to any conclusion. Best regards, Hebrides (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is probably a silver lining in this series of debates, that our collective awareness has been raised on a potentially interesting topic. Actually the several proposals to merge, or sandbox, or “zh”, all represent reasonable compromises out of this impasse. (The zh phrase refers to an ISO abbreviation used in WP for Chinese language). I gave Margaret Ng as a good example to start in zh. After looking at Duchamp’s series of comments, I’m all the more convinced that he is John Ng – none other. Notice that throughout the thread, he never once came out explicitly to say, “I categorically deny that I’m John Ng.” It would have been easy if he were someone else. In fact, in such case I would even explain how I’m related to Ng (employee, student, admirer, or what not). All he dared say was “so what if I were Ng’s student”. In fact, he got emotionally very defensive and started attacking other messengers or WP policy, with strong words like “prick-a-pedia”, “vendetta”, etc. He also inadvertently displayed his identity by saying that he is that expert for 20+ years. Assuming that Ng is that grand master claimed to be, it should be easy to find ½ dozen admirers to carry this campaign for you. Oh, one more thing, if we look at the external links, the main one on “Dr. Wing-Lok Ng” is clearly a promotional page – certainly not aligned with WP neutrality. Another one, on tripod.com, includes all kinds of commercial ads on kung-fu stuff. The 3rd one, from YouTube, shows Ng’s demo of his kung-fu style. It can be informational or promotional. --Kgwu24 (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Kgwu24[reply]
Thank you for clarifying what "zh" means. But with the greatest of respects, we part ways on making assumptions about who he is based solely upon his interest in the article. To paraphrase your conclusions: "He is interested in the article, he made a newcomer's mistake with a source, he was testy and rude, and he does not say he is not John Ng... so therefore he must be John Ng". Well... I have an interest in the article, I have occasionally made mistakes with sourcing, and I have also not said that I am not John Ng. And I infer something entirely different than do you, from the author's frustration with Wikipedia... his seeing it as a confusing set of rules and regulations that makes it an unfortunately unfriendly environment for newcomers. I again wish to remind that we consider our own first days in these pages... our trying to sort through the piles upon piles of confusing acronyms in a sometimes (unfortunately) hostile envirnment. He has shown the regrettable but understandable tendency of some new editors by getting testy when both he and his contribution was minimalized. Ignorance is definitely an excuse... but one that is itself excused by the adopting of patience and personal temperance. Have any of us seen such repeat since this conversation began talking to him rather than "at" him or "about" him. I see that THAT shows an ability toward civility that should always be encouraged. And returning to an incorrect reference as "evidence" only underscores his lack of understanding, and is no "evidence" that he is himself the retired Chinese Grand Master. And in my different conclusions, I see that fit of pique at the article being deleted is even more convincing that he is indeed NOT Dr. Wing-Lok Ng (John Ng)... as an experienced Master through years or training would have had patience and tolerance practically built into his mindset... and such pique is representative of someone much younger and far less experienced. As for his observation that wiki is full of infighting and incivility? Well... many AfD's have never been as calm and reasoned as this one. His feeling that Passportguy had a "vendetta" was an unfortunate choice of words... but it has not been repeated. His sharing that he sometimes call this place "prick-a-pedia" is an outsider's view of how contentious discussions herein can sometimes be and further underscores how newcomers are sometimes treated. I am still quite willing to WP:AGF and would simply caution him to make better choices of words. I'm sure he would be willing to apolgize. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised and disappointed that Kgwu24 would distract this discussion with such ridiculous and totally unfounded conjecture. May I humbly suggest that we consider the facts in a mature manner, instead of muddying the water with unsubstantiated imaginings. Best regards, Hebrides (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it a bit humorous the way some WP-folk deal with other editors they use WP:AFD, WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:VAND, WP:OR, WP:BIO, digging through a users contributions like an overly zealous proctologist and many others in their arsenal of weapons to submit their opponents to their will (much the same way I would a challenger in the ring). I say don’t be a WP:dick... I admit I have many flaws, I am a ass sometimes, as well I’m a prankster. I really don’t know my ass from a hole in the ground here in wickipedia (there is a hell of a learning curve; and I’m not getting payed as some people on this site). So If I hurt someone feelings by my word choices let me say I’m WP:SORRY from the bottom of my heart (with sugar on top). Now can we act like grown men with a set of brass balls and not panzy-metrosexul WP:MASTODONS? Because I really don’t give a WP:FUCK.

Let me state for the record: I categorically deny that I am John Ng. I categorically deny that I am a student of John Ng. I deny I have ever met John Ng. I deny I am related to John Ng. I deny I have ben hired by John Ng or any of his students. I deny I am affiliated with any of the sources/websites I listed as references. -However over the years I have met a couple of his students and conversed with them at MA events or on kung fu forums (the martial art world is very small at the top). So I know who the man is I know a lot of people/names, big deal... Yes my past acquaintances sparked my originally wanting to merely put a simple footnote on the Ng page. Should I have to feel like a polygraph is necessary to determine my modus operandi? Should every editor have his entire bio on his talk page for others to assume WP:AGF? How about lets stick to the issue at hand is the John Ng page worth keeping? Can someone much more knowledgeable than I help with formatting it to meet WP standards? Has the page with the work myself and gracious others have put into it changed it enough to warrant it being kept, as it has changed dramatically since it was tagged for AFD.

P.S. Let me share some knowledge of the code of ethics kung fu practitioners call WUDE.[8] --Ducha mps_comb MFA 21:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's an assertion of notability, and the sourcing is better now. I verified him owning that martial arts academy. Regarding speculation on the identity of Duchamps_comb, note that "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." Please stop. Fences and windows (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks to Schmidt for bringing out AGF. I'll do, and sign off from this topic. My last name is Wu, the pinyin equivalent of Ng, thus had more than a passing interest. Looking back, I should have passed at the speed of light(:-)--Kgwu24 (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Kgwu24[reply]

Comment: The grounds for deletion now appear to have been dealt with. (The grounds were "Non-notable martial arts teacher. Article is continously being re-created by a user who is likely either a student or this person himself.")

Some measure of notability has been established.
It is incorrect to describe one re-creation of an article as "continuously being re-created".
Tenacity and determination by an editor are not necessarily indicators of ulterior motives, but may simply be a determination to master Wikipedia authoring skills.
And the suspected conflict of interest has turned out to be unfounded.

Do any other concerns remain? Hebrides (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not yet impressed. The ICBA site seems to be basically a school that has re-labeled itself an org. and added a handful of schools to its list. It's a variation of the usual Sokeship Council (which I see also makes an appearance there). Calling itself "World Wide" appears to be just fluffery. Ref. 2 simply lists his name as an instructor with one known student. I can't see Ref. 6 but it appears that he participated in a local event in Lexington, Kentucky. Ref. 9 is a web site of unclear independence. Ref. 4 is a poem? Only Refs. 1,3 look like they could be reliable, independent, verifiable sources. Can someone with access to them better explain whether he is mentioned in a passing (or again in a list), or if he is the subject of these works? Is there a verification that he was indeed the main fight choreographer for Snake in the Monkey's Shadow? JJL (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe article is well-written but the enthusiasm and the care with which it is presented doesn't overcome the question - why? Article is not really different from lots of others that are being recommended for deletion.--AssegaiAli (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wiki fans,

A friend call my attention to this and ask if I can help in Chinese Baidu search, since zh my mother tongue. But aiiya, when I see such show off testorone, and brass balls (I guess he must have at least 3), I would not touch with 10-foot pole!! But there is one curious thing. If you look at the main ref. (#9) and 2nd in External Links, you see that they want to sell you something, DVD’s and all that jazz. What is Wiki policy on sales promotion? Does the page on Bill Gates link to MS sales promotion? Just a dumb question. Btw, I’m female thus plead guilty for no balls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.215.225.254 (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources independent of the subject treat the subject of the BLP in any depth? Then no encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per our standard at BIO, with helpings of RS thrown in as noted by Bali above. Eusebeus (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Dear Wiki fans, I sincerely ask your pardon for last message (27 May) with no sign-in name. My friend told me it’s rude, so I now register with my real name, for 1st time. I am occasional user of Wiki only, so don’t do editoring, also not good in English. But looking at your discussions turn off me. For example, how can call someone Stalin in such discussions. Scary.--Zhang-ZQ (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Zhang-ZiQing[reply]
Question: since this debate seems to hinge on notability, has anyone managed to check out the non-web references cited? Hebrides (talk) 06:23, 31 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 16:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canopus Towers[edit]

A proposed development. Now showing as cancelled on the two external links [9][10] that pass as references. Developer has gone bankrupt [11], leaving numerous developments part built. Given this, IMHO it is highly unlikely this development will ever be built. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being granted planning permission does not confer notability on a building project that now appears to have been cancelled. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Planned but canceled, that's all she wrote. Not enough sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Issa down, project dead. NVO (talk) 06:12, 26 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 Paraphilia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teratophilia[edit]

Microstub, only one source, no hope of expansion. And if anyone asks, I came across this by clicking "random", I swear. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless some source is found which discusses this, rather than just defining it. I believe it's a real thing and might merit an article someday.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Yes, it's a real thing but it would be better incorporated into the parent article Paraphilia until it is strong enough to stand on its own, likely never. Drawn Some (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'merge unless it can be expanded. DGG (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Acrotomophilia would be considered a "subcat" of this and there's a good, well-sourced article for that subject. Mandsford (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/listify. We should include this information but a full article doesn't seem to be needed as of yet. -- Banjeboi 00:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's no evidence that Koren's article was referring to a fetish. I can't even find an abstract, but it is talking about cocaine use in pregnancy, which has been proposed to have teratogenic effects on the fetus. Fences and windows (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Kingsley Amis used the term in a short story in 1980[12] and it has a listing here, but it isn't used much or described in any detail. Btw, Attraction to disability is similar but not the same thing. Fences and windows (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it hasn't managed to get more than one line and a single source in four years - is there any point. Maybe a sub section alongside teratophobia (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny/Evidence/Deleted articles#Teratophobia beneath Teratology (humans and other animals) and/or Paraphilia

Merge DicDef Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 31 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 as not notable. Jamie^☆S93 12:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Becerra[edit]

Doesn't strike me as likely that an 'assistant defensive coordinator' for a university team is notable enough to merit an independent article, but I don't know enough about American football to make that call. Alexrexpvt (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An ADC in the NFL isn't notable, so a college ADC is definetely not notable. And based on the username of the creator wouldn't be surprised if he's Louis Becerra.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 03:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an assistant at a IA school might be notable, but not an assistant at a DIII school. That's kinda like high school. (Heck, some of the powerhouse high school teams might be able to beat a DIII team.) --B (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Louis. Kiwikibble (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. لenna vecia 12:59, 27 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 20:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ace of Spades HQ[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:Notability. Only mentioned in passing in two reliable sources, no substantial coverage as required. The rest of the article consists of material from the site itself and blogs. Borock (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Site won CPAC Blogger Of The Year award, 2009, therefore notable per WP:WEB.ReverendWayne (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This blog seems to be an often-referenced and relatively influential conservative blog, as evidenced by a number of refences in widely-read national newspapers, which I found in a brief google news archive search: [13]. This far exceeds the nominator's argument of non-notability based on there being only two good sources. Also, the blog has been discussed in peer-reviewed journals: [14], [15]. Here is a book verifying that the site has 13000+ visits per day: [16]. A large amount of content, stances, and predictions of the blog are verifiable in reliable sources. Personally, I think the inclusion of this topic and ones like it are interesting and enrich wikipedia. Cazort (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of those seems to be a non trivial mention. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing trivial mentions with small mentions. Whether or not something is trivial has less to do with the length of coverage and more to do with whether it is incidental to the main content of the article, or whether it is tied into the main content of the article. WP:N's example of trivial coverage shows an example cleary irrelevant to the main article: it's little more than a random fact. But when articles are written about the blogosphere, any quotes from or references to bloggers in those articles, however small, are not trivial as they are the main content of the articles. Similarly, when an article is written specifically about a particular issue, and then bloggers are quoted in the context of how they respond to that issue, that isn't trivial coverage either, even if it small. Maybe the coverage still isn't significant enough in your eyes, and I can respect that, but it's hardly trivial. Cazort (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs work but does not meet criteria for deletion and is notable RP459 (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tepid Keep Not a great article by any means, but it's better than it was when it was kept at its last CfD. PhGustaf (talk) 17:44, 26 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. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Jones[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article is Original Research of Jonathan Pontell, unsupported by others. There are 26 References listed in the article (including duplicates) Of those references,

18 are by or about Jonathan Pontell,

4 are dead links

3 Reference a marketing firm Carat

2 don't reference the subject of the article

2 references Roland Martin (who only mentions the name on TV)

1 references Rasmussen

1 references Research2000

Further a search of the Library of the University I work for results in two hits, again one for Jonathan and the other a US News Wire. There is no scholarly debate on the subject of this article.

Googling the term results in 43,000 hits, The top 9 refernece Johnathan, over then next 30 they either reference Wikipedia mirrors, Jonathan, or ask "What it this?" A. Yager (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Original research and failure to maintain neutral POV. I do agree that the term is notable. However, the primary claim of the page -- that GJ exists as a sociologically meaningful measure -- is unquestionably original research. The rest of the page is useless if that claim is challenged. Worse, the GJ spam has now spread into all the generation pages. RollandWaters (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, insufficient sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh I still agree about the sources being flaky and the article needing some major work, but the consensus is clearly against me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Did anyone do a google news archive search? [17] shows a wealth of good sources discussing this term in detail. [18], [19], [20]. Yes, the term was coined by Jonathan Pontell but it appears to have attracted a great deal of attention in mainstream media outlets. This source (not public access): [21] discusses the origin of the term (which goes back to 1972). If you want really iron-clad proof that the term has grown beyond just this one man, do a google news archive search for "Generation Jones" -Pontell: [22]. Over 3/4ths as many hits as the full search. There is absolutely no question of notability for me, based on these sources. Cazort (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Response With all due respec Cazort, so many of the news articles refer the Gen Jones as 'according to Jonathan' or 'Jonathan says ...' for example your Ref No2, If the news report said "Joe Blogs thinks Jonathan is on to something" that would be crediable. Ref No.3 even says it could be a sock puppet article. Ref No. 4 is "According to Jonathan" as is ref No.5. To me these appear to be Media copy. Also see my Response to Peregrine981. A. Yager (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An overwhelming majority of the articles I found do not even mention Pontell, as I showed above. Cazort (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also found that this term is used in some peer-reviewed journals: [23], [24], [25], and many others. Cazort (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Response OK ref 7 is getting close, someone mentions Jones as a possible seperation, but then suggests other methods are more appropriate. Ref 8 similar to 7, in a 20 page atricle Gen Jones appears once as something sometimes inserted, along with baby busters. Ref 9 again in the 3 page article Gen Jones is listed once, "as others argue" (this appears to be the best Reference so far, but does not discuss the merits of the concept).A. Yager (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds that you're making the argument that the concept needs to be accepted as somehow "meritous"...this is not really what notability is about...it's about being noted, recorded. It could be a totally bogus concept, but if it's mentioned in enough detail in reliable sources to write a tightly-sourced article from reliable sources, it is notable. I personally haven't formed an opinion on whether or not this is a useful or meaningful subject--but it seems to have more than enough usage to be solidly notable. Cazort (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There are lots of references in this article that are definitely not original research. Just because an article references the coiner of a term doesn't make it original research. The editor who proposed this deletion must not understand the meaning of original research on Wikipedia because this article doesn't even come close to fitting this category. Definite keep.BaseballCap (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Response But when a news reporter refers to a concept as "according to" and appears to repeat the text of a press release how does that confirm anything. A. Yager (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Clearly is an established term, widely discussed in at least the AMerican media. It at least merits a wiki page discussing the term, whether or not you believe it is "really a generation." Peregrine981 (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Response I could accept the Gen Jones pages getting mergerd with an article on Jonathan Pontell, although such an article does not exists (This Jonathan Pontell is in Televison.)A. Yager (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a good example of how nominations for deletion should NOT be used. Of course, this article should not be deleted. The cites in the article are not "original research", I could only find one by Pontell. In addition to the many non-original research cites in the article, Google is loaded with non-original research for this term.MMBBTT (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Response Only One is attributed to Pontell if you exclude his web site references, but as above, does someone reading a press release make somthing worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. A. Yager (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep I just carefully went through the references and they are absolutely not orignal research. This article should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.212.115 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Response As per my response to MMBBTT above. A. Yager (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The theory is real, like White Privilege or Transubstantiation. I do wish some of the editors would leave their POV at the door, though. As I have argued before, just because Pontell coins it and the media parrots it, the concept does not displace accepted definitions of Gen X or Baby Boomer.--Knulclunk (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- response As per my response to MMBBTT above.A. Yager (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrawal my keep. The GenJones spam is a huge problem. If the Jones boosters could keep to their own article, it might be different. As mentioned, Pontell's references have infected a dozen articles; always as spam and viciously defended by a couple of users.--Knulclunk (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is nothing short of outrageous to nominate this article for deletion, and worse…with the ridiculous claim that it is Original Research. The editor who proposed this deletion—Ayager-- is either guilty of deliberate bad faith editing, or complete ignorance about the relevant Wikipedia rules. Either way, he/she should be carefully watched to see if this kind of behavior continues.

Apparently, the entirety of Ayager’s “argument” is that if a reliable published source discussing a term happens to mention the name of the person who coined that term, then suddenly that reliable published source is no longer a reliable published source. So when Jonathan Alter wrote a column in Newsweek arguing for the existence of Generation Jones, and Alter happened to mention Pontell’s name once, as the coiner of the term, that mention of Pontell magically transformed Newsweek from a reliable published source into Wikipedia Original Research. Beyond absurd. The same apparently for all the other well-known writers and experts (e.g. Clarence Page, Peter Fenn, David Brooks, etc., etc.) who have written extensively in very credible reliable published sources (e.g. New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Time Magazine, etc., etc.) about, and supportive of, Generation Jones. Many of these articles contain detailed analysis by the writers about why they feel strongly about the existence and importance of Generation Jones. But if any of them happen to mention Pontell’s name, Ayager would have us believe they are no longer reliable published sources.

Fellow editors: please do not be taken in by Ayager’s complete misrepresentation here, and take a look at the actual references in the article and you will see that Ayager’s nomination for deletion is unequivocally without merit.TreadingWater (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Response So when an article states that "according to Jonathan Pontell" and even includes the same text of a Bio as unrelated article is that informed discussion of a concept. I though for a moment that the peer reviewed article by Cazort might give substance, but I was disappointed. I would welcome specifc references to articles that discuss the concept not just read from a press release.A. Yager (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (obvi): This nomination, as well as the two previous, is total nonsense. The article has for some time needed serious clean-up, but a look at the article when it was first and second nominated shows that even if the term is closely associated with Pontell, there's no way to read WP:V or WP:N to say that the article should be deleted. I always want to AGF, but the persistence of these objections makes me wonder if there's something more to this. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Response Yes, there is more to this. You can read the GJ:talk page for more history and develop your own opinion, but I personally believe there has been significant sock puppeting and un-necessary attacks on good faith efforts on the part of anybody not on the GJ bandwagon. There have been other, non-wikipedia instances of apparent sock puppeting. I posted some examples to Arthur Rubin's talk page where they are still present.RollandWaters (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I JUST DID READ THOSE PAGES, MR. WATERS, AND THE MAIN THING WHICH STRIKES ME IS THAT YOU SEEM TO HAVE AN AMAZING ANTI-GENERATION JONES OBSSESSION. IT'S CLEAR YOU HAVE VERY STRONG PERSONAL FEELINGS AGAINST THIS CONCEPT AND NAME, BUT THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR YOU TO VENT THOSE FEELINGS. I ASSUME YOU ARE ONE OF THE MAIN EDITORS WHO HAS BEEN REFERRED TO AS TRYING TO PUSH YOUR PERSONAL AGENDA AHEAD OF OBJECTIVE EDITING WITH THESE GENERATION JONES PAGES. EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT THAT SOME EDITORS HAVE BEEN TOO AGGRESSIVE OR SOCK PUPPETS, THAT IS NOT GROUNDS FOR DELETION OF AN ARTICLE. I UNDERSTAND YOU STRONGLY WISH GENERATION JONES HADN'T DEVELOPED THE FOLLOWING IT HAS, BUT IT HAS, AND YOUR PASSIONATE ATTEMPT TO TRY SOMEHOW TO HAVE THIS PAGE DELETED IS MISGUIDED AND NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF WIKIPEDIA USERS. PERHAPS YOU SHOULD ASK YOURSELF WHY THE CONSENSUS OF EDITORS HERE IS SO AGAINST YOUR OPINION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.1 (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Yes, you're right...this nomination (and the previous ones) is total nonsense. And you are also right in noticing what I, and several other editors, have pointed out before: there is something more to this, there are a few editors who have strong personal agendas against the increasing popularity of Generation Jones, and they repeatedly use innapropriate tactics like this to try slow its spread and try to undermine it. It's obvious to any editor who is familiar with Wikipedia rules that this article isn't even remotely an article that should be deleted, yet this is the third time it's been tried. Each time, the nomination is based on ridiculous reasons, each time, the overwhelming consensus is to "keep". Yet these few editors keep trying with a variety of innapropriate tags and other tricks. I think it's genuinely sad for Wikipedia readers that there are editors who put their own personal agendas ahead of trying to help create objectively accurate articles. This isn't intended as a personal attack on any particlular editor, and I'm making a point of not even naming any specific editor; it is rather a response of agreement to your observation that it seems like "there's something more to this" nomintion.TreadingWater (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Addendum My concern is that no one is using the term is a 'positive' or 'negative' way only as a sideline to their own point and a lot of it appears to be 'copy' that is 'Accodring to Jonathan'. Quote from Wikipedia:No_original_research

In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see these sections of Verifiability for exceptions.

A. Yager (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to address the additional comments by the editor who proposed the deletion of this article, but I want to be careful to not give the impression that I am personally attacking him, which I'm not. My comments here are about his edits, not him as a person. His edits yesterday basically tried to make the case that the references in this article are original research because they mention the person (Pontell) who coined the term "Generation Jones". This is completely untrue and was overwhelmingly rejected by editors who virtually all voted to "keep" rather than "delete" the article. Since that approach failed, now his edits are trying to give the impression that the references in the article are all primarily reporters parroting a press release. I'm guessing this approach is tried with the hope/asumption that many editors won't take the time to actually look at the references. I encourage any editor who wants to weigh in on this nomination to please read the actual references. If you do, you'll see that virtually none of the references have any mention of a press release nor in any way are connected to any press release. The truth is, as anyone who does even a bit of research on this will quickly discover, that many reliable published sources discuss Generation Jones, and that many credible prominent commentators, experts and journalists argue for the existence of Generation Jones using their own analysis without referring to Pontell's analysis at all. This nomination for deletion is completely baseless.TreadingWater (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Response Could you please give cite specific examples of an author other than Pontell arguing for the existence of Generation Jones? Virtually all of what I come up with on a Google search is either a reference back to the page, a quote, or what looks suspiciously like SEO-generated content. RollandWaters (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Response Sure, I’d be happy to give some specific examples. Google has hundreds of articles by writers other than Pontell who argue strongly for Generation Jones. But I don’t need to go to Google, I can just use examples which are already references in this Wikipedia GenJones article being nominated for deletion. Here’s just a few examples from that Wiki article, there are tons more in many prominent newspapers and magazines. Can you honestly say these references are not reliable published sources, but instead fit the definition of Wikipedia Original Research?

In this long article in England’s “Sunday Times”, prominent journalist Cosmo Landesman gives a very detailed analysis of Generation Jones. Experts are quoted supporting the GenJones construct; Pontell is never mentioned:^[1]

In this article, widely-respected MSNBC commentator Peter Fenn strongly makes the case, in “The Hill”, that Generation Jones was very important in the 2008 US election. While he briefly mentions Pontell in one sentence, the rest of the article is entirely Fenn’s own analysis of Generation Jones and its importance:^[2]

In this article in London’s’s prestigious newspaper “The Times”, journalist David Rowan declares that Generation Jones is the “one freshly identified demographic with a future”. While Rowan briefly mentions Pontell, he offers his own analysis and quotes a top UK pollster—Andrew Hawkins--who emphasizes the importance of Generation Jones in the UK election:^[3]

Here’s an audio file, accompanied by brief text, of the head of the top polling firm Mason-Dixon—Brad Coker--sharing his detailed analysis of why he believes that Generation Jones was the decisive vote in the 2004 US election, based on a large amount of Mason-Dixon polling data. It’s titled “Pollster says Generation Jones tipped election for Bush”:^[4]

Here’s commentator David Paulsen’s detailed analysis about Generation Jones in “The Huffington Post”. Pontell is mentioned briefly in one sentence; otherwise, it’s all Paulsen’s original analysis about Generation Jones and its key role:^[5]

Note that none of the above references are in any way connected to any press release, as AYager alleges.TreadingWater (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Response to Response Link by link, since your links, while present in the markup, are broken:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article396396.ece : no research; a person's commentary on being identified as GJ.

http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/10/23/why-the-%E2%80%98generation-jones%E2%80%99-vote-may-be-crucial-in-election-2008/ : commentary assuming the existence of GJ

http://www.davidrowan.com/2005/05/times-op-ed-guide-to-electionspeak.html : commentary, again assumes existence of GJ

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2004/12/09_genjones2/ : commentary based on notes.

I certainly agree these are not connected to press releases; these kinds of links are why I believe the term is notable. However, notability is not sufficient; it has to be not a soap box, not original research, not a lot of things. You have yet to show that there is independent research proving that this demographic is real. Until then, original research and failure to maintain neutral POV. RollandWaters (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WITH All RESPECT, MR. WATERS, YOU SEEM TO HAVE NO IDEA WHAT GROUNDS JUSTIFY DELETION OF AN ARTICLE. WHY DON'T YOU READ THE RELEVANT WIKIPEDIA PAGES, PLEASE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.1 (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator must not understand what WP:Original research means. Try re-reading it carefully. If someone coins a term and multiple reliable and independent sources then talk about it, it cannot be "original research" in the negative sense of the term in Wikipedia. In the previous deletion debate, I said "see CNN [26] for an example of the substantial coverage of this 53,000,000 strong (U.S.) demographic group. See also Telegraph.co.uk [27] and Timesonline.co.uk [28] which said the term's "electoral influence" gives it "staying power" to demonstrate its coverage in other English speaking countries. Clearly Pontell's coinage is not as commonly used as generation X (29,600 cites[29])or Baby Boomer (55,500 cites[30]) but the term has enough use in the mainstream news media, with in depth discussion rather than passing mention, to justify an article." If several sources mention Pontell, that in no way argues for deleting this article as original research. It is also not very compelling when the nominator claims that Timesonline, Telegraph and CNN "merely reprint press releases." That would make them not reliable sources. To the contrary, they are thought of as reliable sources, since they have named authors of pieces and an editorial board, and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Ayager should study WP:RS. Edison (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Edison, the disagreement is not that GJ is not notable. Both AYager and I agree that it is notable. The disagreement is for the claims in the article, which are original research as they have not been verified by any other researchers. No amount of reporting changes whether or not the research is original. Yet the page reports the research as fact, and the pro-GJ editors have removed all indication, in this article and other articles, that there is any other notion of either the baby boomers or GenX. If the page was to maintain a true neutral POV, on the research as research, then I would fully support it. What we have now is a continual breach of WP:NOTOPINION and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Upon close inspection of a number of editors we probably also have WP:PROMOTION. And of course, even on this page, with the lack of AFG towards myself and AYager, we now have WP:BATTLE, as has been the case for a very long time on the GJ Talk page. I'm certainly open to alternatives, perhaps what AYager suggested, perhaps a Pontell / GJ combination page? RollandWaters (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I AGREE WITH ALL THE OTHERS THAT SAY THIS IS TOTAL NONSENSE AND RIDICULOUS. AT MY OFFICE, WE HAVE A WHOLE FOLDER FILLED WITH ARTICLES ABOUT GENERATION JONES (WHICH WE USE FOR TARGETING MARKETING PURPOSES), AND GENERATION JONES IS PART OF THE VOCABULARY FOR SEVERAL OTHER MARKETING COMPANIES THAT I KNOW. I DON'T THINK I'VE EVEN READ ANYTHING BY PONTELL ABOUT THIS. THE NOMINATOR OF THIS DELETION AND THE ONE EDITOR WHO AGREES (ROLAND WATERS) APPARENTLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE ACTUAL GROUNDS ARE FOR DELETION OF A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.1 (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Wow, No Surprise Here An unsigned diatribe against an editor who is willing to use his real name in his contributions to Wikipedia. And of course, the response has exactly zero foot notes. If anybody wants one single page on another site that's had issues with POV on Generation Jones, I suggest: http://www.thesavvyboomer.com/the_savvy_boomer/2007/09/sarah-g-and-gen.html RollandWaters (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still Waiting for any of the hundreds of references How about we stop debating about press releases and news sources, just start providing a list of relevant and descriptive articles, or just delete it. A. Yager (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two editors who keep pushing for deletion have presented very weak arguments. Roland's huge focus on whether there is sock puppetry and battling and promotion has nothing to do whether this article should be deleted. A.Yager's 'still waiting for references' comment is difficult to comprehend since there already are more than enough references here to augment keeping this article in Wikipedia.Benny winston (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one isn't even close...of course there should be an article about Generation Jones in this encyclopedia. The references I reviewed in the existing article are obviously more than enough to justify inclusion. This isn't at all close to Original Research. Not to gang up on the two editors who argue for deletion, but I have to concur with the other editors here: it does seem like neither of you understands the proper rules for deletion. None of the arguments either of you have made feel valid to me. Whether there is a Generation Jones or not is another question, but there definitely should be an article about it in this encyclopedia.SallyRide (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator doesn't understand the idea of original research, and neither does RollandWaters. Generation Jones is an idea that's caught on in reliable sources. Trying to suppress it by deleting this page won't work, it would be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Argue against the concept and rant against Pontell all you like elsewhere, but don't bring that agenda here. This argument to delete is plain old WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If there is criticism of the idea of Generation Jones in reliable sources (and "Savvy Boomer" isn't that), then include them in the article. Fences and windows (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The baby boomers were born from 1945-1963, not generation jones..... South Bay (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom? If there are sources that argue against Generation Jones, present them and include them in the article! Fences and windows (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to whom? I agree with Fences and Windows...South Bay has not presented an appropriate basis for deletion. It doesn't matter that he happens to hold an alternative view of what the generation boundaries are, that is no basis for deletion of this article. I wish editors would read the rules for deletion before making their edits.Benny winston (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP I've carefully read through the Generation Jones article, its Talk Page, and all the comments on this deletion discussion page. It is crystal clear that: 1) this article should NOT be deleted 2) there are a few editors who have some kind of personal agenda against this concept who continually try innapropriate edits to achieve their personal agendas. I wish Wikipedia could find a way to effectively deal with rogue editors who act in ways like this which hurt Wikipedia.Benny winston (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be provided. TreadingWater and others have maintained that this generation is established, but have been unable or unwilling to provide sources other than the creator of the name. None have yet appeared in the article. I think we've given the article creators enough time to find references; we must assume, in good faith, that there aren't any. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments above. I provide a vast number of sources, some with extensive coverage, and an overwhelming majority not making any reference to the originator of the term, Jonathan Pontell. The deletion discussion is to focus on what sources are out there, not on what ones have been integrated into the article yet. I usually refrain from adding sources to articles up for deletion because I don't want to waste time and have my work deleted. Cazort (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage of this concept in reliable sources for an article on this topic to exist. The article probably needs major editing to emphasize that this is (mainly?) a theory of Jonathan Pontell but there is enough coverage for a viable article here. Davewild (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line: despite the back and forth on this page, it is most relevant to note that the overwhelming consensus is to not delete this article…I count 13 votes to “keep”.

The only couple of editors who the nominator has been able to get support from are the editors who were already long-time anti-Generation Jones advocates who have repeatedly been accused by other editors of putting their personal biases against GenJones ahead of Wikipedia accuracy.

Virtually all the other editors have not been involved in editing this article before, reviewed this nomination with objective eyes, and concluded the article should be kept. The same thing has happened when this article was nominated for deletion before—virtually every editor voted to “keep”.

It is difficult to know how to address the couple anti-GenJones editors. I will try here, with the intention of addressing their edits, not them as people. In other words, my comments here are criticism of the content of their edits, not personal attacks against them.

The primary claim of these two editors—Arthur Rubin and Rolland Waters—and the nominator—Ayager—is that there are no other references/sources for Generation Jones besides those from the term’s coiner—Pontell. They claim this despite the many valid third party references in the article. They claim this despite editor after editor pointing out the many third party valid references in the article.

These references in the article include articles and videos of many prominent journalists supporting Generation Jones, like Clarence Page, Jonathan Alter, Peter Fenn, David Brooks, and Karen Tumulty in reliable sources like Newsweek, The New York Times, Time Magazine, CNN, MSNBC, The Chicago Tribune, etc., etc.

These references in the article include serious research done on Generation Jones: Big polling firm Mason-Dixon’s major study of GenJones voters which was covered by many top media outlets. Pollster Scott Rasmussen’s study of over 20,000 voters which made important conclusions about GenJones voters. The large media company Carat’s huge research study (reportedly costing over 100,000 UK pounds) about GenJones consumers which was covered by over 20 large newspapers. The qualitative research (focus groups) done by the large UK newspaper The Independent on UK GenJones voters.

Despite these and many other references, the anti-GenJones editors say there are no references. It’s like someone saying it’s snowing outside when really it’s 80 degrees and sunny. Why do they do this when anyone can easily just look at the article’s references and see the truth? Perhaps these edits are made with the hope that an administrator will be lazy and not bother to check to see if there really are valid third party references in the article. Perhaps these edits are made with the hope of goading editors into making angry personal attacks. Perhaps these edits are made to vindictively force other editors to have to waste time defending the truth. I don’t know the motivation of these edits, but they are difficult to comprehend.

Thankfully, edits like these have failed over and over, and the consensus approach of Wikipedia continues to succeed, which gives hope to all of us who care about Wikipedia.TreadingWater (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to stay respectful here and try to keep our comments short and to the point. I think the sources, arguments people have made speak for themselves. Cazort (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I like the article, and I think we should keep it. I don't have a reason, just that I'm an inclusionist. TheSavage Norwegian 21:35, 31 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. A lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means that the subject does not meet the inclusion guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe zychik[edit]

The article is full of weasel words ("well known", "He is famed") and reads like an advertisement, but a Google search makes him appear notable. Mm40 (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. "Joe Zychik" throws up ~1000 hits on google, but mostly free article mirrors and suchlike, I can't see any reliable sources. Three hits in google news archive but I wouldn't call it significant coverage.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, why the heck wasn't this speedied? Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tag this for speedy deletion because I wasn't sure about the notability of the subject. I wanted feedback from some more-informed members. Mm40 (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google news, book, and scholar searches are much more telling than a general Google search. There is a definite lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to be notable. As nom said, phrasing is suspect, and Google doesn't bear the truth of these claims. JuJube (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He is mentioned in two news sources, one from 1989 and one from 2001,[31] but that doesn't add up to notability. Fences and windows (talk) 00:06, 30 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) 00:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Norwegians[edit]

Really, what is the point of this? It's just a random collection of persons who happen to Norwegian, or of Norwegian descent (!). The only criteria for inclusion are (1) being Norwegian and (2) being "notable", which could mean any person with a Wikipedia article! What can the list possibly be used for; other than to brag and show off "our" (I'm Norwegian) accomplishments? Punkmorten (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the many (170+) lists in the Category:Lists of people by nationality. Are you going to nominate all the others too? Lugnuts (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, just this one, because it's useless beyond repair. Punkmorten (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason for deletion here - it is in parallel with well over a hundred established articles, which is far beyond "otherstuffexists" clearly. Collect (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough discriminating information here to make this more than a recital of blue-links. I agree that the list should not include persons who were born and raised elsewhere. It's possible that an editor has added persons "of Norwegian descent", but those can easily be taken off (Walter Mondale would be a perfect example of someone not to include on a "list of Norwegians"). From what I can tell, the intent is to confine the list to persons who have lived in Norway. Mandsford (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ but after making sure the content of the classification is retained and reflected in categories. This is what categories are for. Maintaining lists independent of the categories duplicates data and leads to incomplete and out-of-date lists. I think lists are only appropriate when there is some sort of content beyond what can be communicated in a category, as in a taxonomy list of a biological family or genus. Cazort (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 170 This should be covered by a category, not a list.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe, since we can't do both, we should have a list and not a category. Wait a second, I think we can do both. I understand that some people prefer to look for articles by going through categories, and I think that's great. Others, myself included, don't really find that form of navigation to be very efficient or helpful. Generally, the most insulting description that one can give to a list is that it doesn't provide any more information than a category would. In this case, the list goes beyond the accomplishment of telling us that the persons listed are "Norwegian". Mandsford (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think in order for keeping a list to be justified, there needs to be a compelling reason that people would want to view the information in the form in which it is presented, and there needs to be information that could not be covered in categories. While this list is divided neatly into sub-headings that contains useful and relevant information (i.e. Literature, Music, etc.), this is all easily handled by sub-categories, i.e. Category::Norwegian_painters, Category::Norwegian_writers, etc. Cazort (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:CLN - categories should not just replace lists (although I'm not arguing that this list is particularly useful, just commenting that "use a category" is not a reason for deletion). Greenman (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm changing my recommendation to no opinion. Cazort (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and rapid Keep Of course it should be a category. It can also be a list. A list can indicate more than a category can, and thids one fdoes it very well. The only real advantage of categories is that they are made automatically--that's a real advantage, but it doesn't negate other ways of doing things. I do not see why someone can say that this particular one is "useless beyond repair", for no list is beyond repair. though it is possible for a list to be so useless as not worth repairing--which does not the least apply here. I don't see that it needs much repair, even. And I certainly do not know how someone can say "we can't do both" when policy is very clear to the exact contrary. DGG (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Category seems to be the best place for this list, otherwise every country in the world would need a similar list! Knobbly (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, anyone who clicks on Category:Lists of people by nationality or Category:Norwegian people will find this list. Some of us like to cut right to the chase. Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and if every country in the world had a similar list where would that leave us? Would adding the the handful that don't have such lists destroy Wikipedia as we know it? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I would consider making such lists a very high priority. Much more than remaking some other sorts of problem articles we've been dealing with involving countries and diplomatic missions, which though valuable have a more limited interest than articles about people. DGG (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Keep Lists like this are part of what makes Wikipedia useful and worthwhile. The point is that someone might use this list to find the names of famous Norwegians. It's a discrete and perfectly logical category for a list, and reflects considerable effort. - Vartanza (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What is this obsession with deleting perfectly good list articles?! Fences and windows (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current name of the list is admittedly a bit awkward sounding ("List of Norwegians", where readers may anticipate seeing 4,666,666 names), but its aim & purpose would of course be to list "all sufficiently notable Norwegians (and only them)" – and as such it happens to be a useful compilation. Also, as has been noted above, there are apparently 170+ similar lists for most other terrestial nations, and it would be moderately presumptuous if we went to the UN and demanded that these other 170 nations ought to have their lists of national noteworthies forcefully deleted. Slavatrudu (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internship in India[edit]

The article is based around the idea that a neologism "internship in india" has become popular - no evidence is presented to support this contention (and we generally don't do articles about neologisms anyway. Even if the article was about internship *in* india, it would be a content folk of internship. Cameron Scott (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the plot thickens - it seems the term "intership in india" is one used in promotional activites by a company called educare and multiple versions of this article have been created and deleted over the last couple of weeks. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If at all anything of value exists in this page it can go in as part of Internship. Neither the article nor a Google search (or my past internships in India and the US) suggest any reason this is worthy of Wikipedia entry. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, I find evidence that internships in India are becoming increasingly popular: [32] and maybe some day someone will create a sub-page of the internship page, focusing on India, and I would not object to this. But I see no evidence that this is a topic or term in itself. The current page is also highly unencyclopedic, and totally unsourced. I see no content worth keeping! Cazort (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first to me it seemed like yet another kid decided to use Wikipedia to write out his/her course project. Speedy any more such articles from the same user. --Deepak D'Souza 18:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP First, on a professional and social note, let me compliment and thank you for being at and working to keep this great 'Wikipedia'. But at the same time, let me also try and contribute to this wonderful community endeavour through few of my following observations (with no pun / offense intended) that arise from - a) your message of 'sock' to me, b) the deletion tag of the article Internship in India and the comments I read herein.

a) I'm not a sock. A friend of mine who happened to upload a few articles got blocked and sought me to look into the policy and see if I could make amends to the same. See my edits, and I have done deletions to many personal references that were used to and tried to add some more text of reference. The right way would be (in my opinion) to focus on the subject and the matter – as here in case is Internship in India. If there was an kiddish stuff being loaded by a new user, as was in the case of ib40, warn him, tell him not to create new pages. It was done. And I didn't see any pages created thereafter. And he has commented OK to follow. I wonder you people seem to focus more on user contributors first effort with lot pf biased and and manufactured mindset toned over a period of time with your on-line editorial experiences in wiki. Some observations seem like as if you people are tending to work FBI way. Watch, Expose, Shoot. b) To me, {{Internship in India}} seems a topic of as much importance and relevance and notiability as as is the case of Crime in India, Education in India, etc. Instead of spending as much discussion resources on deletions, sock identifications, I suggest some users, editors classified experts may be sought to contribute more data to it. The suggestion to move it as sub-section to Interns article is not appropriate. If you go into building the topic Internship, you need to classify it further – internship in different sectors – a) development, technical, arts, etc etc, b) paid and unpaid, c) trends and statistics, etc, Internship as a single article cannot do justice. If you have articles like Infotainment Television, Prarthana Constructions Pvt Ltd etc lying there for nothing for so long waiting for contributions, and not deleted because no one touched them to develop and enhance. However, Internship in India that certainly makes a lot of sense to retain and need let it be developed to the wikipedia standards has been proposed for deletion just because there is being attempt to improve it in response to initial tags.. If someone puts up an article, let it grow, All new users are not researchers but at times just searchers. And they create something as they felt it should be theor for reference. At the same time, I do not dispute your observations, that initially only one organisation specific citations or references were placed. But then if that is corrected to let it grow and build. But if this articles go, my house doesn't go up in flames. I have an opinion that I think is valid. I contributed, and would like to do more. And I believe I'm certainly little more cerebral than YellowMonkey after looking at the contributions and subject areas of interest.Norwe (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would have been more usefull if you explained why this article meets Wikipedia's guidlines on Notability and No Original Research instead of accusing us of being the FBI. --Deepak D'Souza 04:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock: User:Norwe has been confirmed to be a sock of the article creator User:ib40 and User:E6nvikas, and has been indef. blocked. The accounts created several COI articles to spam about the company Educare India (which offers internships in India) and its officer Baljinder. Abecedare (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there may be something of note to write on the topic at some point in the future if someone can find reliable sources that provide a broad overview of the topic, as it stands the article is unsourced and disputable OR - written IMO to provide a hook to spam about Educare India. It is part of a set of articles including International Internship in India , International internship programme in EduCARE India , Educare India, EduCARE India, Baljinder, , i.e.india (Internship in EduCARE India) , Ruraldevse etc that have been created, using several sock accounts, to spam about the company and its director. Abecedare (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sock notwithstanding, the article is a)unreferenced and b)a neologism not used by any English-speaking persons (i.e., relevant or notable to the en-Wikipedia).--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 04:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there were anything relevant it could be moved to intern, though it appears yet another sock User:Norwest2 is already is ahead of us there. Priyanath ^talk 05:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete where are the references ?? Wikireader41 (talk) 02:06, 27 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) 15:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulltick[edit]

Does not appear to satisfy WP:COMPANY. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to failings of WP:COMPANY. Dalejenkins |[33] 11:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure why it's being claimed not to satisfy WP:COMPANY, perhaps the lack of included references covering the company itself. So I added two, one from BusinessWeek and one from hedgeweek, which satisfy the guidelines:

"However, sufficient independent sources usually exist for such companies that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source)."

Bulltick is an international company with offices in many large cities, well over 100 employees, and is a member of various stock exchanges and is a registered securities dealer in multiple countries. The focus is on Latin America, and it's not a consumer-oriented company, so it's not a household name, but well-known in the financial world as can be seen by how frequently employees are quoted in the news, and certainly notable. Drawn Some (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand either why it is claimed not to satisfy WP:COMPANY, there is no advertising, it has plenty of secondary sources, it has plain language, and it's a company that is widely recognized in several countries around the world. Communicationsbcm (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)— Communicationsbcm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - fails to show any evidence of notability, lacks significant independent coverage component. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Representatives of this company do seem to be quoted in the financial news media on a regular basis. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 09:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had added the necessary references, I'll put them here as well. I am puzzled why someone would still say it doesn't meet WP:CORP when the references to determine that it does are now in the article.
company overview from BusinessWeek
hedgeweek article

Drawn Some (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- response - because those do not add up to the requisite substantial coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Note Communicationsbcm has been blocked because his account has been used strictly for promotinal purposes--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 16:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not find any of the arguments made above compelling in any way and I am hesitant to recommend one way or another. We need to address the question of sources in more depth, because I think we are talking past each other. A google news archive search turns up 249 hits: [34]. However, many of these are press-releases and other sources that are not independent of the company. I think we need to engage these sources in more depth before making hasty decisions.

For example, this source: [35] appears to have detailed coverage. However...is hedgeweek a reliable and independent source? I don't know. I see a number of quotes in reliable sources, of people in this company, especially their analysts, but I think that's not quite good enough. Thoughts? Cazort (talk) 17:36, 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. Consensus is that notability is not established and also that, in this form, this is a personal memorial page inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Sandstein 05:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick M. Novack[edit]

Delete. The author has put a lot of effort into this biography, which is a tribute page to his father. Novack's service as a veteran and a police officer does not demonstrate the notability required for an article in Wikipedia (WP:BIO). Community service and political activity are admirable but not notable. WWGB (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, as the author, I disagree. Several reasons: 1.) The article has been up for less than 2 and a half hours, it's 4:00 in the morning, and I'm not finished with it yet. 2.) While I am the son of the subject of the article, I am making a determined effort to remove any POV issues and watch out for COI problems. I would be happy to address any specifics. 3.) I take exception to someone not from this area (The Twin Cities Metro Area) saying that an individual is not "notable". With all due respect to WWGB, personally I feel that any individual that goes into combat, wins the country's third and fourth highest honor for heroism under fire and is wounded in the process - comes home to become a police officer and is again commended and decorated for heroism - works for 25 years in his community training it's youth at several levels to become leaders and better people - works with the government to track down and capture terrorists and terrorist resources after 9/11 - and has members of the United States Congress at the funeral could be considered "notable". Perhaps not "world renowned"...but certainly "notable". According to Outstanding Young Men of America this person was "Notable" in 1982, and it was so published. I appreciate the effort to make this a better article, and I fully intend on adding more detail where necessary. For example, when I get clear copies of the letter from Representative Ramstad and the Certificate he sent along with the flag I'll post them. Rather than recommend deletion as a "tribute", please advise to make it more encyclopedic.Rapier1 (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the policies spelled out by WWGB, I have to say that Patrick Novack is "notable" based on the following:

Any biography

The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Using that set of criteria, Patrick Novack is "notable" not simply for military service, but for having been nominated for, and recieved, Silver and Bronze Star - the nation's third and fourth highest awards for heroism in combat, multiple times.Rapier1 (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the criteria stated above. Seems to pass as notable in my view. Paul75 (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the article wants to stick around, it has to make a better case than "locally well known". Hairhorn (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that wording has been removed entirely. Rapier1 (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's not just the wording that's the issue... Hairhorn (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hairhorn is correct, "locally well-known" doesn't cut it. Wikipedia has specific criteria for inclusion at WP:BIO and there is not significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I don't believe that his military medals qualify under WP:BIO but I will wait until others weigh in on this specific issue before giving an opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend withdrawing Nomination on the basis of author's remarks, and fairly detailed coverage between the article discussing his death: [36] and the obituary: [37], and this article: [38]. We have to keep in mind too that for people like this, there are often many sources available that may not be available on the internet--and because of the possibility of this, it strikes me as entirely inappropriate to nominate an article for deletion so quickly, especially when there are already some sources that are easy to find and much of the information in place is verifiable. If this article stands for several months and there are still concerns about notability and sourcing, I would not object to re-opening a discussion to delete it. Based on what I see, I would argue to Keep the article even as-is. But I think more importantly, the nominator jumped the gun here. Deleting an article that has just been created, when the author is still working on it, hardly seems constructive except in the most blatant cases of abuse or spam. Cazort (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unlikely that additional sources to establish notability are going to materialize. If they exist, let them be shown now. It's not like I didn't look before commenting. Drawn Some (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User space exists so that editors can work on articles that may fail inclusion criteria without being bothered. Anything put in article space is fair game, IMHO. Vicenarian (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete the article on the grounds that it should be worked on in userspace before establishing notability, then the proper way to nominate it for deletion is to recommend moving it to userspace in the nomination. I also think that posting some talk on the author's page explaining what is going on is warranted (more than just the template as was done in this case). This is more respectful to the author of the article and is ultimately more constructive. I would support userifying this article before deleting it. And I still maintain that this nomination was inappropriate and should be withdrawn, whether or not the topic is notable. Cazort (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really necessary to say "move to user space" in a nomination, because any deleted article can be userfied after deletion by a willing admin. And yes, the creator should be notified, which I think he was? And what makes a nomination "inappropriate"? We nominate and discuss on these pages so that disagreements can be sorted out and a consensus reached. That's just what we're doing here, now. Unless an article is nominated in bad faith or to be disruptive, I see no nomination as "inappropriate." Vicenarian (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see nominating an article such as this for deletion, so quickly, and while the author is still working on it, as highly disruptive and bordering on a bad faith nomination. Such action would be justified when the case for deletion is so clear-cut that there would be an overwhelming consensus to delete, as in when no sources exist to verify any of the content, when there are copyvio issues, or when it's blatant spam. But this case is marginal/controversial enough that such a speedy nomination strikes me as highly disruptive. Cazort (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly understandable and I sympathize with the sentiment. However, this goes to a deep and long-standing disagreement between editors and this isn't really the place to discuss it. (I myself am now guilty of discussing this here, I know.) Merits of deletion of this article only belong here. Vicenarian (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Neutral. I'm pretty sure these military medals are not cause for inclusion per WP:BIO. Unless notability beyond "locally well known" can be established, I'd like to note that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Vicenarian (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just want to clarify your opinion (Also keeping in mind that "notability" does not necessarily equal "fame", according to Wikipedia policy) - and I understand that Wikipedia is not a memorial. According to the stated "notability" policy, someone is "notable" for geting naked for a photoshoot and being Playmate of the Month, but you do not consider a person "notable" for being awarded multiple awards for heroism and bravery in combat over the course of several years. Have I stated that accurately? Rapier1 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. All I am saying is that despite the medals the subject earned, the article does not appear to fall within the criteria as stated in WP:BIO. I make no comment regarding the comparative merits of including a solider versus a Playmate. This is not the forum to do so. Thank you. Vicenarian (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point isn't simply that he was a "soldier", my point is that Wiki policy specifically states that a person is "notable" is they have "received a notable award or honor", and that if being a Playmate of the Month qualifies (as is specifically stated), then being awarded multiple awards for heroism and bravery in combat should qualify as well. After all, is not "received a notable award or honor" a stated criterion? They don't hand out those pretty ribbons for perfect attendance. Rapier1 (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point - I think it would help the case for keeping this article if the medals received can be established as "notable awards" in line with WP:BIO. I am uncertain as to exactly what awards are meant to fall into that category, but I think we're talking such notable awards as the Nobel, Pulitzer, PEN/Faulkner, Congressional Medal of Honor, etc etc. This point, however, is definitely debatable. Now as to the Playmate argument, that is spurious, because every article is considered on its own merits, and the place to discuss the WP:BIO criteria for inclusion is on that page's talk page. And please, don't take any of this personally. This is just a discussion of the merits of including this article in Wikipedia based on current agreed inclusion guidelines, not over whether the subject was a great man or not - as I am sure he was. Vicenarian (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for not being more clear, and thank you for clarifying the point. I wasn't trying to disparage the "Playmate of the Month" achievement, nor was I trying to make a spurious or nonsensical argument. I was merely pointing out the fact that this particular achievement has already been specifically singled out in the Wikipedia policies as making one "notable", and this wasn't necessarily the pinnacle of that genre's achievement scale (i.e. Playmate of the Year, All-Time List, etc...). Obviously a Medal of Honor winner is "notable", and I am positing the argument that "notability" should extend down at least as far as those winning the Distinguished Service Cross, and the Silver Star - those being the first, second and third most prestigious awards given by the United States Army. If an argument is to be made for a "cutoff point", if you will, I would place it at the level of the Bronze Star - although if it were awarded multiple times (but only with the combat-V designation) I would have to side on the course of "notable". Simply recieving a commendation for good service would not make one "notable", but when a person is specifically cited for "Heroism" in combat, I feel that counts. Numorous and repeated articles in national forums telling the stories of soldiers that have earned the award in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last few years can be found because it is a rare occurance (See article on Leigh Ann Hester). The same event happening in the 60's should be considered no less "notable", simply because we no longer have access to the media accounts. Thanks for your points! Rapier1 (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very good case. I am not well enough versed on this topic, so I am going to let the others here comment. I'm moving my position to neutral. Vicenarian (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If coverage from the time could be found, it would help your case. Not guaranteeing it will pass even then, but you'll have a stronger leg to stand on. As the article stands write now, the awards aren't even specifically documented we're relying on a family submitted obit. Which unfortunately means, they aren't reliably documented at all. Your best bet would be to try Newspaper Archive and see if they have anything for the subject's military and police careers. As far as a threshold of awards, almost nobody doubts the MOH or equivalent as intrinsically notable. I personally won't vote against anyone documented with one of the Crosses, but even that isn't consensus. There's almost no chance of having it reach the Silver Star level as an autopass. Horrorshowj (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obituary coverage with brief local activity snippets, in local newspapers doesn't establish notability (unless such activity by itself is notable). Also, working in the police dept or contracting with DoD etc don't make one notable. Members of Congress attending the funeral fails the notability test too, connections to prominent people is explicitly excluded by WP:Bio invalid criteria . The only fact that could possibly establish notability may be the honors - Silver stars, but even that, I'm not sure that they qualify per WP:BIO -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't about being famous, it's about being documented. Much of the content of this article is verifiable in reliable sources. As far as I'm concerned, actually receiving any sort of military awards, or any achievements, is irrelevant--it's whether we can find sources to document whatever material is on the article, and whether there's much of an article left once we reduce it to. I'm seeing a fair amount of content that is well-sourced. So what if he's not the most important guy? That's not what notability is about. Cazort (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability and verifiability are different. Verifiability is a component of notability. In this particular case, the claims are mostly verifiable, but not notable. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to see the status of the awards clarified - I'm totally at sea with American honours. Possibly one or two more independent references, but I feel a certain notability has been established so far. (Enough for me to be moving punctuation, which I don't bother doing in articles I can't see a future for.) Peridon (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are awards for actions in military service just like every country has, it's not comparable to the British honours system. I don't know if they qualify under WP:BIO or not and that is why I withheld my opinion for the time being. Drawn Some (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the discussion above regarding United States Army commendations, our Medal of Honor is the rough equivalent of the British Victoria Cross, The Medal of Freedom would be it's civilian equivalent and comperable to the George Cross. Since there is no peerage in the States things get a little murky, because all of the British Orders are bypassed when dealing with American order of precedence. The closest equivalent to the American Silver Star would be the British Military Cross. The Bronze Star, as long as it is accompanied by the combat-V (valor) designation would likely be most similar to the British Mentioned in Despatches, if I understand the system properly. It is fourth in the American order of precedence. Hope this helps! Rapier1 (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Much clearer. I'll go for Keep following that. Peridon (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that this person is possibly notable and that the article should be given more time to be developed. I would like to see more information in the article about how the subject came to earn (for want of a better term) his service decorations. Perhaps links to the official citations (if available), like we sometimes do to the London Gazette, might help make the article more encyclopedic. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing that indicates notability in terms of an encyclopedia. the highest military award is third level, under the medal of honor and the DSC's, and we do not and should not normally consider that notable by itself. DGG (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There exist several entries for "notable people" under the Silver Star listing that were awarded no higher than the Silver Star while in military Uniform, and did nothing else of note in their careers, so I will dispute this fact. Especially given the fact that later in his career he was awarded the highest honor a Jaycee can earn, and the highest award given to a Minneapolis Officer. Rapier1 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people on that list are notable for reasons other than their Silver Stars, and if there are some for whom the decoration is the only claim of notability, I would be voting to delete them too. "Other stuff exists" is an argument that is generally to be avoided in AFD discussions. I don't believe that internal awards in organisations like the Jaycees or the police department meet the criteria for notable awards. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how the the burden of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" has been met here. Reference 2 [39] doesn't mention Novack, and the melissadata.com and gravelocator.com refences [40][41] [42] are just directory listings which do nothing to establish notability (the first of these doesn't mention Novack's name, either). The zoominfo reference confirms that he ran in a local election, but that doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria for inclusion. I agree with DGG that the we don't normally accept 3rd level military awards as establishing notability. Novack sounds like a genuinely good and honourable person who died way too soon, but that doesn't make him notable enough to meet Wikipedia's criteria. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sources you cited here do not do anything to establish notability. I think the other sources do, although I understand that different editors have different standards and I think that's ok. Cazort (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no direct linkage, but the melissadata referance lists to the contact information of the organization itself, which can confirm the data in the article. There is no requirement for the information to be listed online. Rapier1 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not really just an issue of the sourcing - even if the sourcing were perfect, I don't think the fact that he worked with the Coon Rapids Snowflake Association or the fact that his family created a memorial scholarship fund in his name do anything to confirm notability, as far as inclusion in Wikipedia is concerned. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DGG confirms what I suspected regarding these medals being insufficient as awards as discussed above in my comments. Drawn Some (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm returning my position to delete after reading the discussion regarding the medals being insufficient to sustain notability own their own. Without that, the burden of significant coverage in secondary sources has not be met, per WP:BIO. See my other comments above. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am with the others here that this may have been a wonderful person but he doesn't fit with the flow of Wikipedia's process. There is also a significant financial COI with the foundation listed at the end of the article as it pertains to the author. Redtree2468 (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No financial COI exists. I am the founder and President of the non-profit scholarship foundation, but the Foundation has no paid salaries, including myself. Rapier1 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review WP:COI, it is best to be up-front with a conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. Drawn Some (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, there is no COI. I stated clearly that the Foundation was founded by the son of the subject, I explained that the money goes to scholarships, and I stated who is getting the scholarship, and I sourced the State information so anybody that wants to can verify it with a phone call. I (who happen to be said son) am not paid to do it...in fact it costs me time and money every year. Where is the conflict of interest? There seems to be a bit of a bias here for online sources. I believe the Wiki policies clearly state that they are "by no means necessary". I gave the information, if anybody cares so much, pick up the bloody phone Rapier1 (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain calm, review the policy, a conflict of interest doesn't have to be financial. Being related to someone means you have a conflict of interest, it doesn't mean you're evil. What you have to say is still valid. Drawn Some (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stay cool. WP:COI suggests dealing with apparent conflicts of interest by openly declaring your interest on the talk page - saying that you, this particular editor, are the subject's son and president of a foundation in his name, but that you will endeavor to make all edits from a neutral standpoint. That will go a long way towards others having confidence in your edits. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 01:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my growing frustration, but I did clearly state these facts at the beginning of this page, where I was under the impression discussion was supposed to occur to keep this article out of the trash. I would be happy to repeat this in the "disscussiion" section of the article if this would satisfy. In the meantime, let me repeat a point about Redtree's comment made there about the Foundation being a one-time event: 'You are mistaken sir. The Foundation awarded a scholarship after it's designation as well. Not a one-time shot. We recieved no valid requests last year (don't ask why, but the only requests came from foreign countries - I guess kids think community service is hard), and there has not been an award this year because the school year is not over yet.' Rapier1 (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nationally the Silver Star is either 7th or 11th, but definitely not 3rd.[43]. Depends on if y the 4 flavors of Distinguished Service Medal are considered the same award or not. Better url for #4. [44] Brief mention [45] Few more returns [46] [47]. None of those seem particularly notable. He was accomplished, and seems like a great guy, but I don't think the article passes WP:GNG.Horrorshowj (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The "Distinguished Service" medals are all differant flavors of the same thing at the same level. Wikipedia's own article on the Silver Star confirms that it is overall the thirds highest ranking, and the third for valor in combat. Rapier1 (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I believe that the Silver Star is third in the US honours and awards system. The external link that is cited above by Horrorshow actually does state that it is the third highest US award for 'combat valour'. It does not state that it is 7th or 11th. Please look at this link to confirm this [48]. Likewise, as Rapier1 states, the wikipedia article also states that it is third highest. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the WP article states that it is third highest within service , MOH is above the services. There are 3 separate crosses (DSC, NC, AFC), Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Transportation Distinguished Service Medal, and 4 varieties of the Distinguished Service Medal above the Silver star. It is the 4th or 5th highest within any individual branch, however, nationally it is behind the higher ranking awards of other services. I'm uncertain of what number it is, in total, because I don't know if being awarded as DSM from two branches would be displayed as two separate medals or a star/leaf for a second award in the current branch. Nitpicky, but Rapier's claim that it is the third highest nationally is wrong.Horrorshowj (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a side argument, and if Horrorshowj really wants to debate it we should move it over to the main Silver Star page, but I will state this here in an attempt to end it before it escalates: According to 'Chapter 3, Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards)25 February 1995', the Distinguished Service Cross is awarded 'to a person who while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguished himself or herself by extraordinary heroism not justifying the award of a Medal of Honor; while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing or foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing Armed Force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The act or acts of heroism must have been so notable and have involved risk of life so extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his or her comrades.". The Distinguished Service Medal is equivalent in precedence, but is awarded for activities that do not entail valor. 'b. The Distinguished Service Medal is awarded to any person who while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Army, has distinguished himself or herself by exceptionally meritorious service to the Government in a duty of great responsibility. The performance must be such as to merit recognition for service which is clearly exceptional. Exceptional performance of normal duty will not alone justify an award of this decoration. c. For service not related to actual war, the term "duty of great responsibility" applies to a narrower range of positions than in time of war and requires evidence of conspicuously significant achievement. However, justification of the award may accrue by virtue of exceptionally meritorious service in a succession of high positions of great importance. d. Awards may be made to persons other than members of the Armed Forces of the United States for wartime services only, and then only under exceptional circumstances with the express approval of the President in each case.' The two are considered equivalent on the order of precedence, but the DSM is NOT an award for valor in combat. 'The Silver Star is awarded to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Army, is cited for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for the Distinguished Service Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction." Horrorshowj's confusion is based upon the fact that each branch of the service has it's own version of the same award for the DSC and DSM. For example: The Army Distinguished Service Cross and the Navy Cross are the same commendation, simply given in different branches of the service (Much like an O-3 in the Army is called a 'Captain', but that title isn't used until 'O-6' in the Navy - but an 'O-6" in the Army is called a 'Colonel', not all branches call the same thing by the same name). The Silver Star is third in the order of precedence. If this needs to be debated further (it shouldn't, simply walk up to the next person you see in uniform and ask them) then please move the argument over to Silver Star Rapier1 (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit convoluted, but the premise is sound: the Silver Star is the 3rd highest award for valor given by the military. You can consider the MOH as the first, and each of the branchs' service crossed as the 2nd (they are all equal). The distinguished service medals do rate higher in precedence, but are not awarded for valor (e.g. combat). bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the assumption that the military awards will not be determined notable enough for inclusion. Even if the awards do fit under the BIO guideline, undue weight is given to other aspects of his life which do not merit encyclopedic coverage when the focus would be his military service.Cptnono (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like he was a fine person, but the article reads like a memorial, which Wikipedia is not. The Silver Star is not the nation's highest medal, and 100,000 to 150,000 have been awarded since 1932, per the Silver Star article. The Pentagon does not even keep a list, apparently. The article appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:NOT. Not every biography which has referenced facts belongs in Wikipedia; it is more than a compendium of every referenced fact or biography. Edison (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I understand where much of the confusion has been coming from, and I've redesigned the page to help remedy this. 'A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.' or have recieved a 'notable award or honor'. This is the case here when he was awarded "Outstanding Young Men of America" in 1982, which is 'reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject'. Some of the confusion is due to the fact that he was awarded this status for doing other things that could arguably be considered 'notable', such as his military commendations, police commendations, and community service. Any one of these things would arguably be grounds for not including the article on the basis of notability - thus necessitating the expanded listing explaining them. The other information is included to round out the picture of his life and can be included since he is no longer a living person. I have modified the article to express this more clearly and now Recommend withdrawing Nomination based on the fact that as Cazort said above, 'Notability isn't about being famous, it's about being documented. Much of the content of this article is verifiable in reliable sources'. When taken as a whole there is more than enough information in this article to establish notability. Rapier1 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This will come as no shock, but I disagree that this honour is notable, per Wikipedia's definition. It's a bit like the Silver Star, in that there are simply too many recipients to say that it alone establishes notability. For example, in 1986, 37,000 men were on the list, and in 1980, there were 18,000. (I didn't find numbers for '82, but I'm still looking.) Also, I found nothing in an all-dates search for "Outstanding Young Men of America" Novack, which isn't to say that I doubt that he was listed by OYMA, just that it wasn't covered, which attests to its lack of notability. I also found this from the 1986 article above: "Each of the 37 000 few, then, got a certificate in the mail, and a paperweight, too. They also got an order form so they could buy the book. So did their proud parents. Some thought it had something to do with the U.S. Jaycees. It once did, when the Jaycees' Ten Outstanding Young Americans were featured in the front of the book. But with 36,990 others getting in on the act, well, "that's one of the reasons why we left the relationship," said Jaycees' public relations manager Bob Shelton." Shelton is all but saying that OYMA is not a notable honour. My vote is still to delete the article; I certainly see no reason to withdraw the nomination, as the OYMA reference was there when WWGB nominated it. --Dawn Bard (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a basic problem with the argument "Notability isn't about being famous, it's about being documented." Wrong. Verifiability is about being documented, and it is a component of being notable. I may have run a dozen half-marathons. It's verifiable, through third party pages, videos on the local TV station etc etc. But that doesn't make me notable. Notability doesn't necessarily mean being famous though, but there are certain requirements of being distinguishable from the crowd to make one notable and for the purpose of Wikipedia, those are documented per the Wikipedia policies. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am going to summarize the arguments for deletion (as I see them) for clarity. Despite the subject's wonderful deeds, he still does not meet the criteria for WP:BIO and this article should be deleted. I would again note that Wikipedia is not a memorial and though I commend the author for his great work at recounting his father's legacy, Wikipedia is not the place for such an account. Now, as to the arguments:

The subject's good deeds are not enough to confer automatic notability, no matter how great.
The "award" criterion is really meant to be reserved for very high-level awards that are themselves highly noteworthy, and so far, the awards listed do not seem to be high-level enough, per the above discussion, to confer automatic notability.
The subject does not inherit notability from his association with other notables. A letter regarding his death from a member of Congress does confer automatic notability.
Now, to the key for establishing notability - the only references that meet the criterion of receiving recognition in "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" are, first, an article in a local paper about the subject's tragic death. Having died in a car crash and being the subject of an article about said incident does not confer notability, as there are many car accidents that result in death and plenty of articles written in local papers about the victims. I recognize the tragedy, but again assert that this is not enough to confer notability. Second, an article in a local paper about the firebombing. Again, terrible, but being the victim of a crime does not confer notability, as there are many crimes that occur and many articles written about their victims.

I would like to reiterate once again that NONE of this is meant to be a personal attack on the author or in any way disparaging of the subject. The only intention here is to determine whether or not a biography on this subject belongs in Wikipedia based on the current interpretation of WP:BIO. Thank you. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 16:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this exactly the kind of guy I would want as a neighbor and a friend. I wish more Americans were like him - committed to his country and willing to put it all on the line. However, when reviewing our policies regarding "notability" - I'm just not seeing it. The sources all appear to be local or maybe regional, and that's not what we're about. I recommend to this article's author that he carry his father's name into history through his children and grandchildren, and through the foundation established in his name. Rklawton (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although the subject appears to have been a good man during his life, I do not believe the article satisfies WP:BIO or WP:RS and is in violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I do, however, commend his son for his efforts in establishing this article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mr. Novack sounds like a stellar citizen. However, neither the award of the Silver Star nor the selection as one of the "Outstanding Young Men of America" are sufficient for notability. The U.S. government does not even keep a database of all of the Silver Star recipients. With respect to U.S. military awards - the practice on Wikipedia has been that recipients of the Medal of Honor and recipients of the Navy Cross/Army Distinguished Service Cross/Air Force Cross (the top two medals) are notable due to these awards. The article reads like a eulogy/tribute to a well-respected father. — ERcheck (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Individual seems notable enough, but the article needs a great deal of work to make it seem like a biography and not a tribute. This does not, in my opinion, degrade it enough to warrant deletion, just a lot of editing. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral As ERcheck says, the Silver Star itself does not warrant notability per wiki guidelines. If this person does meet notability guides, it'll have to come from other means. From what I see, I'd say it's borderline right now. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - To the author, It is obvious that the article will be deleted because it does not currently meet the notability criteria. What I suggest is that before it is deleted, you paste the article in a "sandbox" or "workshop" (I would be more then happy to create one for you if you ask me in my "talk" page). There you can take your time and do some more work on it and what I mean by working in it is providing reliable verifiable sources which you can cite as proof of the subject's notability. By this I mean sources such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, government recognition's and so on. Once you have your article ready ask an established editor to look it over before resubmitting it. That is my suggestion. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done already, but thank you very much for the suggestion. I'll be contacting some of the people here for their advice before it's re-submitted. Rapier1 (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Much of the information here is quoted in Outstanding Young Men of America MCMLXXXII Library of Congress Card Catalog No. 65-3612, page 978. While the notability of this achievement is a matter of debate, it's publication verifying the achievements is a "reliable independent source", is it not? Somewhere in this discussion the suggestion was made to clean up the referances and not have that particular referance sourced multiple times. In an effort to do that I tried to put it all under "OMYA Listing", but this also made a lot of the article look unsourced.
Also, a problem I'm running in to with the military awards is that while their existance is known, the reason they were awarded is classified. I'm informed that this is not uncommon in the special forces in a time of war (for the longest time, the United States government wouldn't even confirm that it's troops were going into Cambodia and Laos, much less who they were and what they were doing), and it makes it devilishly difficult to get information about it. Dad had the originals, they were destroyed in the fire, and he got the replacements. The medals exist, I made the shadowbox for them myself, but getting the details about them is virtually impossible. Suggestions? Rapier1 (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read this article it certainly questions whether OYMA is a "reliable independent source". Those young men published in the book are invited to buy a copy of the book; they in turn nominate other young men to be published the following year. The primary motivation of the editors seems to be selling books! There is no criteria for selection other than the nomination of past buyers and the whim of the editors. Sorry, that book just does not cut it. 220.253.188.32 (talk) 06:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an argument to support notability, I'll cede that OMYA does not confer with it notability. What it was was a question regarding sourcing. OMYA may not confer notability, but unless your argument is that the facts in the book are false, then I don't see the argument against using the book as a source of verification of particular facts. Rapier1 (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion? Yeah: Stop. Other editors have made incredible efforts to be respectful and polite but you keep on arguing to keep a page that is in violation of several guidelines. There are a dozen ways you can have your father mentioned here. There are also plenty of ways to spread the word on your foundation. There are even more ways to remember your father that do not include trying to win an argument on Wikipedia.Cptnono (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, it's been made fairly clear that this article will be deleted. While I and a few others may have tried to make a case for it's inclusion, it's obvious that it would still require extensive work to make it sound more encyclopedic, and the consensus here is for deletion. As my response to Tony the Marine shows, I'm already anticipating this. My question specifically inquired about finding information regarding military awards (yes, as the Personal Representative of the estate I've simply asked DoD, and they aren't talking). I'm asking for help, not snarky 'advice'. If that is all you have to offer, please keep it to yourself. Rapier1 (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was serious and wasn't supposed to be snarky. It did come across a little harsh, though. I was a little frustrated after reading some of your previous attempts to debate the guidelines. I would recommend ditching the idea of having military service be the base of the article since it looks like verifiability is hard to come by. Have you considered creating an article about the foundation instead? If it is a national scale: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Non-commercial organizations Cptnono (talk) 19:26, 31 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. Concerns adequately addressed by rewrite. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moab man[edit]

I can't find reliable sources, all references given are 404s Pontificalibus (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough and lack of coverage --Jamie Shaw (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article seems to be a joke. Bad English was used, for instance "bee" for "be", yet the editor seems to have a good understanding of how to use WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article was not meant to be a joke. The editor who created the article is active on the Swedish Wikipedia. Here's the same article there. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article may be terrible but I would hardly assume the topic is a joke. I find some references, [49], [50]. But it hasn't been picked up by any mainstream media. I would say Weak Delete but perhaps with a redirect to a sentence somewhere? I'm not sure where. I say don't jump the gun. This seems to be the centerpiece of a fringe-debate about creationism...it's just too fringe to have attracted more than tangential coverage in reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: potentially notable, but page author has only presented one side of what seems to be a misinterpreted and exaggerated find. J. Spencer (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that one of the source citations given in the article doesn't contain a URL in the first place, I observe that the nominator has not expended the proper amount of effort in looking at the sources that were already cited in the article at the time of nomination. J. Spencer points to a fairly extensive source above. That source itself also cites the very same source as aforementioned, as a matter of fact. The presentation of all points of view, that J. Spencer talks of, can, for starters, be performed by presenting Ottinger's own point of view on these finds, as is reported in this PSCF article. This WWW page points to more sources, one of which, Burdick, even describes the results of the application of the Kjeldahl method to the bones. There seems to be enough source material for an article to be had, here. Uncle G (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very well citing sources to cover all points of view, but none of the sources given here or in the article constitute reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty of discussion of these skeletons in peer-reviewed literature; I'm thinking specifically of Coulam and Schroedl (1995). "The Keystone Azurite Mine in Southeastern Utah" Utah Archaeology 8(1):1-12. Although the article was in poor shape at the time of its creation (and deletion nomination), the topic itself is noteworthy. I haven't found any 404s, and the best sources for this article appear to be offline. It will take me some time to properly expand the article (because I'll have to mail away for the best reference), but the content is encyclopedic. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep if good coverage in offline sources could be found. Is this something that most geologists would know anything about? Cazort (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm not a geologist, I cannot answer your question. However, offline sources from peer-reviewed scientific sources have been found for this article. One just needs to pay for the publications, something I'm willing to do, if the article is kept (I don't want to pay money for an article which is deleted anyway). This article, on another "Creationist fossil" (even held at the same museum) was salvaged in a similar manner at AFD, when I sent away for the original publication.

The original "Moab man" AFD nomination was based on this version of the article, which was poorly-spelled and contained mostly Creationist stuff, with three references from Creationist web sites. That has been cleaned up. It still contains the Creationist claim, but also has refutation of those claims from geologists who examined the "fossils" (which weren't fossilized, BTW). It will also contain some peer-reviewed papers, if the article is kept. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It might have started out as Creationist propaganda, but it seems notable and there's now a balanced discussion. This page gives a good overview:[51] and refers to other sources we could use. Fences and windows (talk) 00:23, 30 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.

Comment: I am sorry if my english is bad, but i am from Sweden, and haven't yet completed my time in school, so i'm hope you can forgive me for it. When i wrote the article about the Moab man, it was not mean to be a joke, i do not write lies on wikipedia ( unless things which is categorised "creationistic things" is lies ). And when i wrote the article, i wanted to do it good for all of us. I wanted to write it so it could be a good article for both creationists and people who belive something else. I wrote that radiocarbon date of the bones gave a young age, but that's the same case as in carbon dating of dinosaur bones. I also wrote arguments which talks for the theory that it is indian bones from a young era. I want to be humble, and i try to be so!/Thanks, Conty, 10 june.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise (Not For Me)[edit]

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Album track only, never released as a single. No chart performance, no awards. Article is mainly composed of OR. Paul75 (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced perma stub on non-notable song. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:57, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thief of Hearts (song)[edit]

Fails notabilty per WP:SONGS. Album track only, never released as a single, no chart performance, no awards. Article is unreferenced, messy and incomprehensible. Paul75 (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced perma stub on non-notable song. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 18:23, 28 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The black and white tour[edit]

Delete. Future event, unreferenced to reliable sources, largely promotional in content. WWGB (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and per the lack of reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline and with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:38, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 05:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kar Sevaks[edit]

Non notable slang word Wikid ^as© 07:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable usage in India as referenced by these news articles: Times of India, The Hindu, New York Times, BBC -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add to Wiktionary - Dictionary definition, not encyclopaedia article. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable term.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move: to Wikidictionary as per Shirt58. It is an expression if at all notable. Wikid ^as© 13:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion To my knowledge , the term Kar sevak is almost totally associated with the Ram Janmabhoomi movmement. Unless there is any other context in which this term is used, i think we should consider merging this article with the article on Ram Janmabhomi movement. Anyway this article is too short. --Deepak D'Souza 18:14, 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, with conditions - barely meets GNG, and article is sourced well enough. Because there's an underlying fear of COI and self-promotion, it should be watched and deleted without prejudice at a later date if the COI continues to add material outside of reliable sources (myspace, imdb, etc), citing this rationale. For now, I suggest keeping the article as it is now and leaving it at that. Consider this a warning that further fears of self-promotion will take this article back to AfD, where this will likely be deleted because of the drama it has caused and the thin ice the article is already standing on. --Xavexgoem (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Wisne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Slight amounts of importance are asserted, yet most of the sources are from imdb. The article has one source from LA times, while source 8 and 9 are the same page, and both are only a passing mention. Source 11 is the only real source from the Tribune. The second source is simply his bio from a football website. Opinions? — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

!Voting[edit]

Delete - A single secondary source in sports section is questionable to support Notability. His acting career has not achieved enough momentum to support Notability. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though Andy Wisne may not pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:ENTERTAINER, he passes WP:GNG. Several sources attest to Wisne's notability. Here is an abstract from Chicago Sun-Times; a look at the opening two paragraphs of this article, as well as its title, shows that Wisne is the main subject of this article. The same can be said of this article from the Chicago Tribune; a look at the title of this article (Wisne tackles the lively arts ; An ex-Notre Dame nose guard swaps lots of injuries--and more than 100 pounds--for a promising acting career) proves that Andy Wisne is the main subject of this article. This article from South Bend Tribune is a third source that proves Wisne's notability. Finally, this feature article from the Los Angeles Times is the icing on top of the three other news articles that confirm his notability. Although this article is autobiographical, it passes WP:NOTE and should be kept. WP:TONE issues can be solved through normal editing. Cunard (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If being a football player doesn't make him notable he certainly didn't achieve notability after 2002 because all three news mentions from 2003 to present are absolutely trivial. Drawn Some (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the subject of an award winning article doesn't confer notability on the subject - but it might entitle the subject to a mention in the writer's article, if he has one. Performing in a pilot (but presumably not in the series if there was one) and auditioning for things are not particularly notable. Pursuing a movie career - so do many others. Few manage to catch up with it. Having been a football player (of whatever set of rules) - no, not without more info. While I wish the man well in his chosen career, I don't feel he meets with Wikipedia's definition of notability yet. Note - not Webster's definition. Peridon (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of the article has a username which is the same as or very close to the name of the subject of the article. Either this means it is a self-written article (and probably spam or vanity), or the creator is posing as the subject of the article. Neither are well advised actions at Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The author has admitted to being the subject of the article and has been pointed to the perils of writing your own article. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being diagnosed with bipolar disorder is notable for the person concerned (and their family and friends), but not as a qualification for Wikipedia. Cow bone (or bone from human sources) is not uncommonly used in xerograft procedures. Having concussion end your career is only notable if there was a notable career in the first place. Having near-fatal car accidents is not a qualification either. Sorry, but there's not much left. Especially when the majority of the first few pages of Google hits are MySpace and so on. Peridon (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If nothing else, the acticle lacks neutrality. Perhaps it can be saved, but I suspect only by starting over. Eeekster (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just looked in IMDb http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2650971/ and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2650971/bio and remain unimpressed. Peridon (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through tediously and fixed the formatting. If anyone disagrees with my edits, and, take note, they were simply made to make this AFD easier to read for others, feel free to revert me, I shall not edit war nor argue.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, thank you for this. Eeekster (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Peridon (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to WP:ATHLETE, athletes are inherently notable if they've played in the highest professional level, which this person has not. According to WP:BIO, people are notable if they have been the subjects of multiple nontrivial independent articles, but in this case, that's a real gray area, as there are just a few articles, and they are of the heartwarming human interest style that might be written about any non-notable person- even I have been the subject of an article of this sort, and I don't think it would qualify as 'nontrivial'. His acting career does not reach the level of notability, and the article is so promotional in tone that it will require a complete rewrite in order to meet WP:NPOV. As an athlete, his main accomplishment appears to be that his career was ended by an injury, and as an actor, his main accomplishment appears to be a supporting role in a movie so obscure we don't have an article in it, and television roles like "bar patron" and "party guy," neither of which are strong arguments for notability. If I'm wrong and he really is notable, then presumably someone other than himself will inevitably be inspired to write about him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G4) and salt – Enough is enough. Blatant recreation of deleted material; nothing has been addressed from the mess that was the first AFD. To prevent further drama and disruption, also request creation protection (salting). Someone can go to DRV if this person does achieve any sort of notability and have this article recreated again. MuZemike 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet notability guidelines for either an athlete or an actor. Puff piece. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the article again after a valiant rewriting effort, but I'm afraid I still think the individual does not meet the notability guidelines. My vote of delete remains the same. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - pure spam by subject of the article with a conflict of interest. Fiddling a bit with one's own BLP is not unheard of -- but this is outrageous. The creator ought to be banned. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard has improved the article and stubified it. I would say it's a weak keep now. I'd like to see more than 3 cites to show how he's notable in one category or another. Bearian (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER. Third-party coverage is a typical person-overcomes-injury/bad luck/hardship/whatever human interest story that does not make the subject notable. If his acting career is as "promising" (that word and "up and coming" just screams non-notable) as the article says it is, then perhaps he will be notable per WP:ENTERTAINER in the feature, but right now, he's not. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Eusebeus (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The depth of coverage in the Los Angeles Times article and the Southbend Tribune article proves that Wisne passes WP:BIO. These pieces aren't about Wisne's injury; instead, they are about his life as a whole, briefly touching upon his college years before concentrating on what he has done in the entertainment industry. I don't deny that he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER, but he passes WP:BIO, which means that an article can — and should be — written about him. That's why I have rewritten the article in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion. I would be thankful if you would all reevaluate your votes. Cunard (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in this article establishes notability, despite an apparent rewrite. Fails all the various biography criteria, and has the other problems mentioned above. Verbal chat 08:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does Andrew Wisne not meet WP:GNG? My comment above clearly outlines why he is notable because he is covered by multiple, independent reliable sources. I think I rebutted most of the comments by the preceding voters. Could you explain what problems exist with these sources? Cunard (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that there aren't multiple, independent, reports that give significant coverage to this person, hence failing the first hurdle of GNG.Verbal chat 11:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two in-depth articles provided by Cunard satisfy the basic criteria section at WP:BIO. Drawn Some (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Didn't make it far enough in football. Hasn't done enough in the field of acting. Marginal BLPs should go. Law_{type! snype?} 12:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change above to keep per the improvements made to the article, thanks to Cunard. I'll add that this is a much better way to go at an AFD than what has went on the first several days of this discussion – a lot more constructive than combatative. MuZemike 18:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject clearly passes the GNG. Multiple reliable sources are cited each that provides non-trivial (if not exhaustive) coverage of the player. Indeed—and this is by no means necessary for satisfaction of the GNG—the style of the references indicates that the authors of the articles assumed that their readers were already familiar with the subject, implying a degree of contemporaneous notability that suggests there are likely many other sources yet to be identified. Bongo matic 12:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another reference from a reliable source that covers the subject well beyond trivially: Norwood, Robyn (December 1, 2002). "Wisne tackles the lively arts ; An ex-Notre Dame nose guard swaps lots of injuries--and more than 100 pounds--for a promising acting career". Chicago Tribune.

Comment I congratulate Cunard on the re-write. Unfortunately, I still consider that (to quote someone here) the 'promising acting career' is not really even that yet. Time and some success might cause me to change my mind. The parts played so far seem a step higher than extra, but that doesn't confer notability. Playing university football may be more important in the USA than it is here - here universities are for people who want to learn, not for those who want to play games. I still say the d word. Peridon (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see how those two articles (and a real short one) make this person notable. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't—they just make him WP:NOTEable. The GNG is not about notability. Bongo matic 16:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While this isn't unprecidented given the fact we have folks like Roger Ebert and Phil Hendrie who have actively edited their own articles (Hendrie himself told me so via e-mail when I wrote to him via the link on his page), this has almost gone too far. I feel that notability has been established, but at the cost of having this subject ramrodded down our throats like no other autobiography I've ever seen...and I'm writing this from the POV of being a biographer here for a number of famous people. The links are on my user page if anyone's interested. Three of the subjects sre aware of their entries and none of the three have hounded me for updates, additional info, etc. They're simply flattered and humbled to be included. My initial impulse under the circumstances would be to delete and salt the title just because of the trouble this whole affair has caused, but that might be against policy at this point. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability via significant coverage in reliable sources has now been established, regardless of this got here conflict of interest on it's own should not be grounds for deletion. Davewild (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles listed are human sympathy articles, or have you not bothered to read them? They are hardly grounds for notability. If, sometime in the future, someone feels like writing about him for reasons other than his injuries, that would make him notable.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did read them and the motives for them written (so long as they are independent of the subject) are of no consequence. Davewild (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I really don't care which criteria someone can shoehorn him in under, the guy is pretty non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Andrew Wisne[edit]

Because there are a large number of comments from the same user making the discussion difficult to read, I have taken the liberty of moving them to one section, where they can be read and considered by other users without distracting from the rest of the conversation. In order to make the page clear, I've moved the direct responses to those comments as well. Individual !votes are above. Anyone (other than Mr. Wisne) who thinks this isn't a good idea is welcome to revert to the previous version of the discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply I believe the fist paragraph to be a distortion of the truth.- Andrewwisne- May 25, 2009—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

Keep -Andy Wisne meets and passes all WP:GNP standards. This article passes WP:NOTE. Andy Wisne was feaured on the cover of The Los Angeles Times in a powerful and moving story read by millions. He was also part of just as moving if not more so of a two day story that won Writer Jeff Carroll first place by the Society of Professional Journalists. He is also former starting University of Notre Dame football player. His stories were published in many other official and respected Ap sources including the Chicago Tribune, South Bend Tribune, and Irish Sports report among others. Throughout Andy's football career he has been in many notable publications, was featured with his family on an NBC halftime special, and played football in front of millions on networks such as NBC,ABC,CBS, and ESPN. Notability can be stemmed from a decade ago creating momentum into his acting career to the present. The powerful nature of those stories in the highest degree of publications is without a doubt worth nobility and passes all WP:GNG and WP:Note standards TONE can be altered if need be.- Andrewwisne- May 25,2009—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

Comment I ask that an indepndent administrator review this as it has become more of an emotional debate. I wanted to void this but it might be impossible given the nature of the individuals bio. But all information is factual and relayed by reliable sources. Thank you for listening. AndrewwisneMay 25, 2009

Note I have replaced a keep from below to the one above as the issue is addressed above. I have only added one keep for the sake the sentence is more relevant to the issue and nuetral point of view.- Andrewwisne- May 25, 2009—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

Comment I have created this article and there are many reasons for nobility. Notre Dame football player, subject of an award winning piece, overcomming tremendous circumstances from being a football player for notre Dame and being an NFL prospect. It abruptly ended with a concussion. The timeline between the Los Angeles Times cover story to the award winning piece "Out of the Darkness" documenting a unique and notable story of overcomming tremndous obstacles. Being a Notre Dame football player has been enough for many former players to aquire their own page. In response to being no momentum as an actor exempifies the fact of subjectivity. In fact to many on the glass is half full side Andy is an up and commer. Recently meeting casting directrs ( Jane Jenkins - Angels and Demons/ casted the original Rat pack n 1981, and RodgerMusseden / Wedding Singer/ Superman Returns). Andy's story is one that is notable in itself but as written above being a Notre Dame football player is notable. Being featured on the LA Times and having an award winning story written that helps society in a positive manner ( many people will be helped by what the story is about). Notre Dame football player, stories that are a positive influence in society, part of a family legacy of football, documnted overcommer of sever obstacles, and yes an up and commer. It should not be until he gets a movie that a page gets started. I believe the facts out weigh subjectivity or whether some one likes or dislikes the individual or the article. One only has to visit his imdb site to recognize that he chose to be recognized for positve things instead of giving into the negative ones. Andy is well known apart from just being a Notre Dame football player. His name is symbolic for fighting through obstacles. Something this country needs. It seems as though the readers may be looking for reasons why it should not be included instead of reasons why it should. Andy Wisne is notable for multple reasons. Mix those together and you have a high degree of notability. Again just being a Notre Dame football player is Notable. Andy is well known and his nobility is one of a positive nature. This guy needs a break ================ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 06:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IN RESPONSE TO Daedalus969 - ALL SOURCES ARE USED CORRECTLY AND ARE SOURCES OF INTEGRITY. FURTHERMORE ALL GENERAL GUIDELINES WERE MET REGARDING NOTABILITY. BEING A NOTRE DAME FOOTBALL PLAYER IS IN ITSELF NOTABLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 22:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General notability guideline Shortcut: WP:GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. *The article Andy Wisne meets this criteria

1. "Significant coverage"- means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.* The article Andy Wisne meets this criteria

No, it doesn't. I has several trivial mentions, but nothing concrete to establish notability.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply His opinion that the information regarding Andy Wisne in the Major stories in major publications is trivial is offensive and is his opinion . All information is factual and derived from Official and highly respected AP Sources. Someone who is well known and tells a factual story that helps people becomes notable. Especially by a source such as The Los Angeles Times and the degree in which it was written. It was published before Notre Dame played Southern California during Thanksgiving week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

After reading the line "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1]" The depth of coverage is anything but trivia. In a nuetral point of view Significant coverage has been met and then some

No, it is trivial. Period, it mentions you in passing, that is what we call trivial.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply You might not have read it but the dpth of the story and the depth of coverage is anyting but trivial. The story's were about Andy Wisne - not in passing Forgive me if that sees like false judgement. The story's were about me. The Los Angeles Times and Notre Dame football are two integral parts of the American fabric in one way or another. Those are just two singled out areas where the subject at hand at certain times, more or less has been in some manner the focal point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

You've proven nothing false. I read the sources, and I made my judgment, as did all the other delete votes which outnumber keep votes. Do not make assumptions about others.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if it came as an assumption. I believe that if it was read thoroughly most would agree that they were major stories in major publiations that were extremely moving to most. If not moving to one the very nature of the stores apart from the emotional aspect are substantial enough to claim nobility- Andrewwisne May 25, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will find, if you take the time to read, that mostly everyone here disagrees with you. Currently there are four delete votes and two for keep. If you want people to evaluate the article, then as FQ suggested, I suggest you stop responding here and let the AFD run it's course. Further responses will not help you in the least, and will in fact decrease the chances of this article being kept.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2] *Writers Robyn Norwood (LA TIMES) and Jeff Carroll ( South Bend Tribune) are both writers of integrity and reliable.

IMDB is not a reliable source, period.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply IMDB means Internet Movie Data Base. It could be compared to say that of an NFL.com which many people who own a wiki page used as referaces. IMDB keeps official track of an artsits work and records. Obviously that was a subjective opinion on your part. Without getting into an argument about positive and negative mindsets lets go back to neural point of view. IMDB is the official movie databse. Just like many NFL players use NFL.com- I have so many other sources I could use but this should be sufficient. A reason why it wouldn't would be entirely speculative

3. "Sources,"[3] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4] ** Because of the depth and length of the sources from the Los Angeles times featured article on Andy Wisne and South bend Tribune there is a plethera of information written by established writers of integrity. Again the storys were long, in depth, and moving. Including Significant coverage and reliable.

I already covered these in my post.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[5] ** All infomation was derived from sources other than the auther himself. Including the 3 previous points mentioned above the subject at hand is notable for positve influence according to story's written by major publications independent of the wikepedia author. All information is true and correct as referanced.

Again, read point made at three.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Reliable sources- goes without saying

It does, really, as IMDB is not a reliable source, and all mentions are trivial.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply reiterating- IMDB means Internet Movie Data Base. It could be compared to say that of an NFL.com which many people who own a wiki page used as referaces. IMDB keeps official track opf an artists work and records. Obviously that was a subjective opinion on your part. Without getting into an argument about positive and negative mindsets lets go back to neural point of view. IMDB is the official movie databse. Just like many NFL players use NFL.com- I have so many opther sources I could use but this should b sufficien. A reason why it wouldn't would be entirely speculative

reply Many Notre Dame players have aquired their own page for simply being a Notre Dame football player. Furthermore additional information was included after aquiring their page. Andy Wisne has had to fight for everything in his life and it should come to no surprise that he has to battle for something that is obvious to some and less obvious to others. Andy Wisne is noteable for being a Notre Dame football player and being the focus point of two moving and powerful stories. Other information included would be considered notable by millions and is referanced.- 24 May 2009—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

Lastly, I have moved this comment in regards to chronological order, and removed your second, keep vote, as you are not allowed to vote twice. I shall tell you the same on your talk page.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all what section of the newspaper should have no bearing and if it does it is cancelled out by the depth of coverage and the multiple amounts of noteworthy accomplishments. All information in both refeanced stories were true. Both authors are authers of integrity. The article that came out in November 27, 2002 was featured on the cover of the sports section of The Los Angeles times and was a two page full length article that is still talked about to this day. It was also featured in the "arts and entertainments section" of th Chicago Tribune" The article "Out of The Darkness" written by writer Jeff Carroll was a two day two part story that won the writer first place by the society of professional journalist. Meaning a moving and touching story. Is that considered noteworthy? Not only was all information factual but it helped people/society in a postive manner. All referances were used correctly and are surces of integrity. Being a Notre Dame footall player is in itself notable. Being the subject of two moving and powerful true stories, that the subject told the writers, are other reasons. Within the big scope there are many other noteworthy elements. If one has read the storys and researched the subject at hand this arguement becomes totally and utterly irrelevent —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 22:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added this comment in good faith, but do not keep adding keep votes. Such is against the rules. The rule is, one vote per user, and that includes fake accounts, meaning. One vote per user, not per account. As to your points, they are invalid with GNG. I have already addressed them. Good day to you sir, do not try to vote fix again.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply A man that has cow bone implanted in his gum, started for Notre Dame in the trenches, survived two near fatal car accidents and lived to tell about it- These are all just part of the big story/ Trivial?? What kind of people are we dealing with here on Wiki. It kind of hurts to realize respect is hard to come by no matter what hell storm you have been through. As tiring as it is I will continue fighting. Being a Notre Dame football player is noteworthy ( a starter) losing a 100lbs in 5 month after a career ending concussion ( just one of many noteworthy facts you can read about in the story- have you read it?) and having the story come out in the LA Times and in the arts section of the ChicagoTribune is noteworthy. That as just the first phase. I could go on and on. Expression not vanity. Have you read the story's?
reply The very point is that your missing th point. I don't give a rats butt if I'm the subject- thats political language. I am well known, been through hell and back and turned it around in a positive manner- all of which is well documnted. That is Noteworthy- no other way around it- aside from being a starter for the Univesity of Notre Dame football team. It is a tricky argument because the very word Notre Dame creates emotion in one direction or another. It looks to be a simple argument on both sides. What would a man filled with intergrity decide on this page??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

reply Damn write I wrote this. I think this is a matter of likers and haters. Because if we come back to neutral point of view there is absolutely no reason Andy Wisne, myself, is not notable. I have had to fight for everything in my life and I'll be damn if I let someone sepculate for me. I know whats going on and the information has integrity, is reliable, and I think the common folk would say what I have done so far and the story of my life to be noteworthy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

Comment If you are the subject of the article you probably shouldn't be the one writing it. See wp:COI Drew Smith What I've done 23:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pointless comment. Many people write their own stuff. That should have no bearing on this argument—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

No, it is not, and it is rude to say otherwise. The reason the comment has a point is because many people do not write their own stuff, as they will have a clear bias in favor of themselves, and more often then not, write in a POV that favors themselves, such as how you continuously say that you deserve a break. Well here's a news flash. Wikipedia is not here to give out breaks.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply The point is not being the subject of an award winning piece. The language was used, quite honestly, in attempt to stay some what modest in this conversation. I passed those story's on to the writers. They were about me and my life. What they stood for, what they were about moves society in a positive way. Your configuration of the facts I'm laying down is going into a different direction. If we do have polar opposite opinions then we must come back to neutral point of view. If all information is indeed factual and the person at hand did play football at Notre Dame and is well known for a story that moves society in a positive fashion, and overcomming major opstacles while enduring depression then his accomplishments need and must be recognized. For many many people have read them and some moved by them. You don't even have to combine all this together to get to notability buy lets do it here. Let's combine it all. I think we have a conflicting pattern of negative and postive trains of thought. Again nuetral point of view- For they are well documented—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

It's more like relevant news and a man expressing himself. That's not vanity. If you think a man who had cow bone implanted in his gums, being diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and having a career ending concussion is vanity- you need to check yourself. These are sources that are not only reliable but have integrity. Ok- if you consider them small then they are all part of the big pictue within the true story of a man who has overcome obstacles. But none of it is small to me. As I know I'm very blessed—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

reply I concur Mr Cunard. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 06:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea the world was filled with this many angry customers. Well, maybe I did. Anyway the information was combined in a long story within multiple story's. In the "Big Picture" those were elements included about the journey of Andy Wisne thus far. As far as the google thingy I think if you examine it further you will find that is not the truth. Maybe your imagination is getting the best of you? Imdb, a celebrity profile, work on amazon and his ND profile aren't myspace. Usually when you sign a contract you have to read the whole thing- metaphorical language —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 23:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply That is the furthest from the truth. Everything written is true and factual. It is well documented. It is just another form of the truth. Nothing manipulated just written in brief. It is a story of the truth and nothing but the truth. If it is only the truth then neutrality becomes a pointless topic. It is passing information along to one source to another. That is it in a nutshell.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

Comment If you think I'm biased against Notre Dame, you're mistaken. It's an American university (I assume, not having come across it). I'm not American and wouldn't know one from another until I look one up for some reason. Angry? No. Just trying to get an unpalatable message across. The 'give him a break' comment confirms my suspicion that this is either spam or vanity. Probably spam. Someone is in need of a break. Fair enough. However, Wikipedia is NOT here to give breaks. It's to record things considered worthy of record. It is not for the promotion of companies or individuals. Football players wherever they are from do not automatically get pages. Sometimes they slip through the net and get caught later. As to the reliability of IMDb, it relies on submitted information and thus falls into the class of sites regarded as unreliable. (Wikipedia also is regarded in this way.) Blogs and forums are not reliable sources, either. PLEASE SIGN your posts with four ~ things. Peridon (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply You have the right to your own opinion. My imdb is what it is. I'm not really concerned what you think about that. I just want to get all the paper work done so I can focus on getting a movie- Andrewwisne May 29 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 19:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note Note one or more parties are adjusting mine and others comments trying to manipulate what has written. I have moved mine according tonyb who moved a coment up. This may be an attempt at manipulation- Andrewwisne—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

reply - No one is trying to manipulate the outcome of this, and, if you bothered to read the edit summary that an admin left, you would see that. I suggest you strike through the above as it is a baseless labeling, and therefore, a personal attack. Nothing is being manipulated. And if you would stop taking offense at everyone who votes delete, you would see that.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply -Andy Wisne meets and passes all WP:GNP standards. This article passes WP:NOTE. Andy Wisne was feaured on the cover of The Los Angeles Times in a powerful and moving story read by millions. He was also part of just as moving if not more so of a two day story that won Writer Jeff Carroll first place by the Society of Professional Journalists. He is also former starting University of Notre Dame football player. His stories were published in many other official and respected Ap sources including the Chicago Tribune, South Bend Tribune, and Irish Sports report among others. Throughout Andy's football career he has been in many notable publications, was featured with his family on an NBC halftime special, and played football in front of millions on networks such as NBC,ABC,CBS, and ESPN. Notability can be stemmed from a decade ago creating momentum into his acting career to the present. The powerful nature of those stories in the highest degree of publications is without a doubt worth nobility and passes all WP:GNG and WP:Note standards TONE can be altered if need be.- Andrewwisne- May 25,2009—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
STRONG POINT One or more people has erased what I took along time writing an defending and changed it around. That is out of bounds andneeds to be addressed

Sorry that I missed the comments you added while I was reformatting. It's quite difficult to keep up when you're adding comments nearly once every minute, all of which make the page impossible to read. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong PointOne or more writers have manipulated the initial format of this debate. I noticed it after my latest entries. Many of my entries were either missing or a comment from one or more of the writer's participating on this page has been moved. I took the time and thought to defend my position and is frusterating for the lack of integrity I am witnessing. It is completely unethical and dishonest. Andrewwisne— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

Reply - Your strong point is no such thing. It is weak as it cites no evidence, and is a baseless bad-faith accusation, as all of your statements exist quite clearly below.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 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 Article was deleted via CSD. (non-admin closure) - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama substance abuse controversy[edit]

~~There is not enough content here for a separate page. Any discussion of Obama's substance abuse can be done on Barack Obama.~~ Vicenarian (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Page speedily deleted. Vicenarian (talk)[reply]

Delete - Created to make a WP:POINT by a user who nommed George W. Bush substance abuse controversy for deletion via this Afd. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. Is WP:POINT a basis for deletion? What exactly is the difference between this article and George W. Bush substance abuse controversy?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - garbage POV fork/attack page and troll bait. written in bad faith by POV pusher. Special friendly (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above user is more than likely a sock puppet. First edit is to the prod removers talk page, second edit is here. Matty (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't seem to be a controversy here to create an article about. Dayewalker (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The motivations of the article creator are irrelevant. Please make arguments regarding the actual content (or lack there of). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, plus no notability — there's no "controversy" here. PhGustaf (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has been speedy deleted. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:16, 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 Mochi Media. So Why 14:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MochiAds[edit]

I had placed a Prod on the page and it was removed, so here we discuss. The entire page consists of five lines, the first stating that it's an ad app for browser games. Second line on when/where ads can be shown, third - alternative locations. Fourth and fifth lines are links to purchase ads. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The reason I brought this up for AfD and not merge is because this clearly fails WP:PRODUCT on notability and context, but there isn't a company page to merge to. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disclaimer: I created the article. I know it's not an advertisement: I am a user of the company's services as a developer, but I do not work for them. The reference link it merely that; a reference. It would be the act of a very desperate sales team to canvas Wikipedia with such links and expect them to result in a single sale. The other link is to the company's *front page*, which is clearly appropriate. You suggested that it was a non-notable company in your original deletion request. It is important to do cursory searches before making such claims. Here are some respectable third party references to the company: [52], [53], [54]. Wlwwybrn (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Besides the first link given above I found one other somewhat meaningful mention of the company, also in the Guardian--by the same author, and just as brief. (The other two references do not impress me at all, providing, as they do, only passing mention.) So I feel there is not sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability--a point which the nominator should have addressed in the first place, since the article isn't that spammy. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters, Gamasutra, CNET, ~458,000 results in Google for the term "MochiAds". Speak to anybody even barely connected to the online games industry and they will know the company. Look at the advertisers buying stock. Ads are by big companies: Virgin, Orange, the UK government, Universal Pictures, CBS, Microsoft... it is really hard to play down the notability of this one in any believable way. Wlwwybrn (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge/redirect to a new article called Mochi Media The sources provided by Wlwwybrn prove that Mochi Media passes WP:CORP. The Reuters article is a press release, but the Gamasutra and CNET articles provide significant coverage of this company — enough to pass the notability guidelines. MochiAd appears to be only notable in the context of Mochi Media, so this article should be merged instead of deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move/merge. Company is notable, product is nt by itself. Mention product in company article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the company's operations are almost entirely based around MochiAds, can this really be accurate? I would argue that people know of MochiAds more than they know of MochiMedia. MochiMedia is almost always mentioned in terms of MochiAds. Wlwwybrn (talk) 19:53, 27 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. No clear consensus for merge, so this should be discussed on the article's talk page. So Why 14:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How television works[edit]

I'm not sure what to say, but this article just doesn't seem right for some reason. Not a good format? Not a good title? Redundant to other pages? ViperSnake151 Talk 02:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, to Analogue television or rename to Analogue television technology and improve.--Grahame (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge appears to have some credible value, but maybe as part of Television and not a page of its own.-SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate page, such as Analog television. JJL (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral My biggest problem is the title of the page, which if the article is kept should absolutely be changed. Otherwise, I have no opinion on the content. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Will everyone please read WP:NOT. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Deletion is not a substitute for using the article renaming tool that you yourself have. Having "how" in the title does not magically make an article instructional rather than informational. And things that one has the tools to fix onesself are not problems to hand off to administrators and wash one's hands of. Uncle G (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the vaguest deletion nomination I have seen for a loong time, ('his article just doesn't seem right for some reason') and quite an impressive array of evasive words/comments (appears, seems, 'I have no opinion on the content'). Incidentally, a week or two ago, I was in dire need of information on analogue TV (of which I knew very little) and I read most of Wikipedia's technical television articles. My thoughts were that they had grown incrementally in an un-ocordinated manner - i.e. the usual Wikipedia way. The content is there however, absolutely salvageable, but it is in need of an expert with a good overview, with the necessary time to boldly reorganize the info there. Haphazard myopic delete/merge proposals by people with little specialist insight will only make matters worse. The best action at the present is to wait for this expert intervention. Tagging the article may improve the well-being of the tagger but wont help locate any expert. When the right person sees the articles as a passerby, sHe will be frustrated and fix them - the Wikipedia way. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't seem to be a copyvio, and has good information. It is a problem re WP:NOTGUIDE, and it has to be renamed and cleaned, but is worthwhile. I wouldn't merge to Analog television because that would be too messy; this topic (when made a little more encyclopedic) is a useful addition. Johnuniq (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Principles of analogue television". Getting rid of "How to" which appears to be its ownly real problem -- it is clearly not a DIY article. Collect (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Analog television, don't understand why there are separate articles. Drawn Some (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Analog television. There's no reason these should be separate articles. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 14:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD is not the right forum for merge discussions. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could interpret "merge" as "delete but move the information somewhere else". Drawn Some (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's stuff like this that caused people to suggest that we make this "Articles for discussion" ViperSnake151 Talk 15:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should not be brought here unless the nominator thinks they ought to be deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, you are the nominator. Drawn Some (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename but the introduction is wrong, the very first broadcast TV systems didn't work this way, since they used mechanical components and required synchronization. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP, your edit history indicates that you're quite WP sawy, couldn't we incite you into bringing a little order into this article series?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icewedge (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tree-ecology[edit]

No references on the page, Google doesn't turn up any hits for the term either. Even the page says "Although the theory has never been proved" before going on to add "it is widely accepted". SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator said, no references are given and a Google search of the name turns up nothing. Additionally, no pages in the mainspace link to this page, a Google search of "Dr. Ceekay" and "Dr. Samwise" is blank, and the creator's only three edits are to this article (created a month ago). Mm40 (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, incomprehensible and OR. Lesath2 (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Also, the definition provided in the first sentence is basically the definition of ecology, and the article doesn't do a very good job of distinguishing between what this article is supposed to be about and Ecology. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 02:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mm40 (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be nice if the WP:AF could become sufficiently sentient to block jokes like this. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be another joke article.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. Greenman (talk) 21:11, 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. per WP:SNOW, concerns about the scope of the article are better off for the talk page (non-admin closure) NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of films in the public domain[edit]

Listcruft, and further duplicates Category:Public domain films. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand the information given. A list can duplicate a category, and has the advantage of being able to provide addition information (director, featured actors, prizes, for example) This doesn't have such information now, but it can and should be added. The best general rule I think is that if there is a category of discrete objects, there should almost always be a list also. DGG (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed directly above, and additionally, while the article certainly has room for information and citations, I do not think it should be deleted just for that reason. Categories are not really sufficient aggregates of information and objects, as they cannot show additional information that would be very valuable to researchers. For instance, Ronald Reagan stars in many of these films, and that information does not appear on a category page. There is also precedent for film lists and related categories. For instance, there is a category for film serials, Category:Film serials, and there is also a List of film serials, and a List of film serials by studio JEN9841 (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DDG - lists and categories can work hand-in-hand. Lugnuts (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Public domain - where (what jurisdiction) ? I have no objections to List of films in the public domain in the United States, but there is no blanket worldwide PD rule, nor do we have resources to verify it. NVO (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A number of the films in the list fall under {{PD-Japan-Film}} which covers most Japanese films from 1953 and earlier. Tothwolf (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and per comment make sure its lede says "in the nation where it was first copyrighted." Thus obviating any concerns expressed. [55] "(1) This Convention shall apply to all works which, at the moment of its coming into force, have not yet fallen into the public domain in the country of origin through the expiry of the term of protection." is sufficiently clear that this would be sufficient. Collect (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this has the potential to be more that a duplication of a category. Although that's all that this is for now, we have to remember that this list was just created yesterday. Except in cases of an inappropriate topic, I see no point in nominating an article soon after it's posted. I'm hoping that the author will add more information about the various films, many of which became quite famous because they were in the public domain and were frequently on TV. Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per above. The content can easily be verified. List was only created yesterday as Mandsford points out, and I agree with Collect's suggestion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with NVO above that it needs to be clearer about where the films are in the public domain, because at the moment it does seem like they are worldwide, and this may not be the case. It could stand to have verification that the films are in the public domain, too; Around the World in 80 Days (1988 film) for example is listed, but the article says it has a copyright holder. Possibly also it should be stated that a film can be in the public domain, but that doesn't mean that all editions of that film are. Possibly also additional info about the films should be on the page, such as the year released. Шизомби (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Unless policy has changed with nobody telling me, lists and categories still aren't mutually exclusive. The above suggestions regarding the lead or a possible rename could be workable as well. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The guideline that covers this is Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Having both lists and categories is helpful to both readers and editors. Tothwolf (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN guideline: "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping."
Lists, categories, and templates are not to be considered redundant to each other.
--Tothwolf (talk) 19:36, 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. Tone 09:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew taglianetti[edit]

Sophomore college football player. No assertion of notability at the college level (only assertions relate to the high school level). Does not seem to pass WP:ATH. Greedyhalibut (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see that he meets WP:Athlete. Dloh cierekim 19:11, 19 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 01:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I gather he has played in only one college game so far. I'd consider this an A7 speedy, as nothing here indicates any importance. DGG (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable at this point. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 02:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete As vastly non-notable with no references. I'm going to place an A7 speedy deletion tag on it. Mm40 (talk) 02:38, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-Immuno Deficiency Syndrome[edit]

Article concerns a fictional disease; no reliable sources. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~as hoax~~; the link provided on the page takes you to a video game, merging there is an alternative.-SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated above-SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In universe. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog (series). Cunard (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that we should redirect to the one-and-only recipient of that disease. All the information is on the (albeit unreliable) source that I have provided for your reference.--Launchballer (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Launchballer. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 14:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is VERY close to the real disease, Neuro immune dysfunction syndrome and I am concerned that the two not be confused and that the latter can be found. At least consider a redirect to the real disease as opposed to a cartoon character no matter how adorable he may be. Drawn Some (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. No assertion of notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neuro immune dysfunction syndrome. I agree with Drawn Some. Any mention of Sonic NIDS could have 'see also Neuro immune dysfunction syndrome' placed next to it. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jelly Soup.--Launchballer (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough for it's own article. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:16, 30 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deai-kei[edit]

Entry consists of one Japanese word and two uses for it in Japan. Not sure why it should be in English Wikipedia, but it is. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expand if possible; delete if not, or merge into some article about dating/sex/prostitution in Japan. Japan has so many crazy dating phenomena like love hotels, compensated dating, etc that I can't imagine there wouldn't be a place for this somewhere on Wikipedia. Lesath2 (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This Google Books entry and this one indicate that this is a notable topic. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reply to SpacemanSpiff: The article should stay in Wikipedia because a whole chapter in a 2003 Routledge book is devoted to the topic (reffed in article at time of creation) and because of the additional ref located by Cunard. More refs can probably be found. Notable concept. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. It's sourced and is quite likely something that can be better sourced. I'll look for sources this evening. Just because it's a Japanese word and subculture doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the English Wikipedia, notability crosses international boundaries. Kate (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources already present show that the subject of this stub (and oh is this a stub) is of academic interest in English, which means there has to be a lot more available in Japanese. That this has not been added is irrelevant, as per policy it doesn't have been perfect, it just has to have potential. If a subjecthas been noted, it's notable, and so keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:27, 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 notability discussion is inconclusive, but I'm deleting per WP:BLP, which requires that biographies of (presumably) living people cite reliable sources, and this article has none. Sandstein 05:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jagadguru Ramanandacharya swami Ramnareshacharya ji maharaj[edit]

Delete No notable references on Google India or online newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceman7Spiff (talk • contribs) 00:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a bit difficult to keep up with the Swamijis, but a Google news search for "Ramalaya Trust" (mentioned in the article, as something this Swami founded) shows that it was founded by a totally different Swami - IExpress, so that claim of linking with the Prime Minister to prove notability doesn't appear to be right. The blog link looks appears to be self published.-SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Based on sources below from User:Fences and windows, I'm updating my vote. Most of the sources prove that the subject is the head of a sect/group, but I'm not sure if that is notable enough, but enough doubts in my mind to not vote. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is in terrible shape, but the subject appears to be notable. He has been mentioned in two articles from seemingly-reliable sources (but only for quotes, not because of himself). Mm40 (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mentions don't make someone notable. Significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources is needed. Drawn Some (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't read Hindi, but I can tell that the source for the article, http://www.ramanandacharya.blogspot.com/, is a blog. In the absence of a verifiable source, such as a book about notable persons within the Vaishnav tradition of Hinduism, there's no means of confirming whether an article about this individual is appropriate. Mandsford (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal to South Asian editors. It would make it much easier for people to evaluate biographical articles if the titles could simply be the names that people were given at birth, rather than being surrounded by multiple honorifics as seems to be the case here, and with many other articles about South Asian people. We have articles called George Washington, not President General George Washington and Winston Churchill, not Prime Minister Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can), Nobel Prize laureate and honorary citizen of the United States. If this practice was followed it would be much easier for those of us unfamiliar with the article subjects to help with sourcing. I've tried a couple of searches to see if I can find anything for this article subject, but without knowing what is part of his name and what is a title I really can't get anywhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources found, neutral. Phil's right, but I'm pretty sure that Ramnareshacharya is his actual name. "Jagadguru Ramanandacharya" seems to be a post referring to a previous Swami, "swami" is a type of religious master, and "ji maharaj" seems like an honorific. He's mentioned in these Indian newspaper articles:[56][57][58][59][60][61] Fences and windows (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources not providing sufficient notability. It appears that sources only mentions someone with a similar name in passing. Wikid ^as© 22:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. just not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just not notable. Fences and windows (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, unless additional sources are added that establish notability, no objection to this being re-nominated in the near future. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Bea Hope[edit]

fails WP:BIO, unable to find any reliable primary sources which substantiate claims. Article talk notes possible copyvio issue with the 'Professional career' section apparently being coming from her published obituary. – Zedla (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does not fail WP:BIO. Midnight and I have already established, even with only the scant resources available on the internet.

In particular: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject. She meets this criterion

The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them: It is very possible that this person has. That we can find no evidence on the internet doesn't mean that this is not the case. It simply means that it happened before the age of the internet. A judgement cannot be made on this claim without an examination of the appropriate media sources from the time period, which would be 1955-81, and probably before 1955 too, because there is a reason that she was offered a show when the station initially went on the air. They don't just offer television shows to anyone, especially not in that time period when it was such a new medium and it was such a gamble of whether or not it would best radio. In 1955, there were still "radio programs" on the air, in terms of actually dramatic promgramming on the radio

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field- This one is highly probable. I do know that more than a few cookbooks were published by her and that a large number of her recipes have been published. The issue of course, most of these were published between 1955-1981 and times associated with it. I also know that what her "traveling supervisorship" consisted of for the Morrison's franchise was going to every new Morrison's that opened and basically instructing them on the proper way to cook the food. A good portion of the cooking methods of Morrison's are specifically based upon her cooking techniques and she was a major player in the Morrison's company in the 1940's up until the time that she was hired on at WKRG.

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following- I would definitely say that this is the case. We are talking about a show that was on the air 5 days a week, at least 300 days a year, for 26 years, and which aired in a time where there was no cable or sat tv and over a coverage area where there were more than 1,000,000 viewers a day. I think it is implicit that there is some kind of cult following, and probably a larger cult following than the average congressman would have, because a congressional district will only cover the territory of half of the population of the viewership, and will by their very political nature, will be someone who people aren't following but outright opposing. It is only a matter of sourcing the information from the 1950s, 60s and 70s and that will take time because it will have to be searched by hand without the benefit of databases or internet search engines

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment- I would argue that this is implied. It was clearly an innovative concept for 1955. You also must consider it an innovation that media exposure would even be given to an African-American in that time period. I would also say that they are very much prolific. The existence of the show for 26 years means that it has had an influence that we just don't know about because of the number of media figures who would have been in the coverage area, who would have known about this, who may have been influenced without it being known. Not all broadcasting in the nation is national or on cable. In fact, almost none of it was before 1980. It is therefore a little specious to try to apply a modum based on the 2009 situation to a situation that existed in what was a completely different world. I believe that this can be proven to some extent. However, it is going to take the kind of down and dirty research work, that everyone was once acquainted with and which used to be the basis of research, but that often seems anathema to the database and google search generation. --Genovese12345 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:RS. Dalejenkins |[62] 11:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" Reliable sources have been found. Having never been involved in one of these things I don't know how this would effect the process. However, I thought it was important to note.--Genovese12345 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Do not delete. I have added a source

I will also say that if you are going to delete this article you must also delete the article on Dot Moore. It is only fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genovese12345 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin: Please note that this same user account explicitly !votesKeep below, please do not double count this !vote. DreamGuy (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Strong Keep The case for notability is ~~not~~ overwhelming. ~~But~~ the subject is worth including. "WKRG in Mobile, which telecasts "Women's World," Connie Bea Hope has guests who cook on the program." From book Television and the wired city: a study of the implications of a change in ...‎ - Page 220 For example. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The limited preview from GBooks [63] confirms only that Hope hosted a TV cooking show. From her obituary Hope has apparently only received recognition from a local chapter of an organization of which she was a charter member of, an acclaim hard to view as independent, significant, or possibly even relevant. Nothing credible has emerged explaining the importance or significance of Hope's work, a fundamental test for inclusion, particularly in light of WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT. Perhaps it's telling that her name hasn't been listed as a former personality at the WKRG-TV article. – Zedla (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I upgraded to strong keep per getting at the numerous sources that well establish this individual's notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Comment: The show was on television daily for 26 years and WKRG is the official CBS Station for a market of nearly 1,000,000 people and certainly over 750,000 people during the time that the show was on the air as it has a coverage area spanning more than 10 counties within three seperate states. I would also note that the person who was the original author of the article , when looking at their contributions, almost always is involved in editing articles that have something to do with the media so that they included it says something. It should also be noted that from Payton's obituary that she was the aunt of Hank Aaron. That in and of itself does not confer notability but it is an important thing to consider. It should also be noted that Dot Moore is not included in the list of former on-air personalities for WALA even though her show was on the air for just as long. In both cases, the lists only apply to members of the newscasting teams. The WKRG article also omits all of the area congressmen as having been affiliated with the station even though they were on air weekly as part of the Gulf Coast Congressional Report. All that her lack of inclusion in the WKRG list means is that they need to add a section for former on air personalities who were not part of official newscasts, not that you need to delete this article.

If it were possible to produce digitized newspapers from the 50's and 60's you would probably find a lot more material on this. It is also important to note that this website includes articles on local personalities all of the time. Harry Mabry was a local television personality in Birmingham, he gets an article. In Mobile, John Edd Thompson, A cursory review of media markets the same size shows articles on Vince DeMentri. A cursory review of WNBC's article from New York shows that a majority of current and former staff also have their own articles, even though it is also a local station. A cursory review of New Orleans area stations also shows that several local on air personalities there have their own articles as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genovese12345 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 20 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 00:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable local TV host in small market; weak sourcing, no real evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe a bold merge/ redirect to mention her in the station article would suffice? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete had a minor non-network show. I have my doubts also about Mabry & about Thompson. Dementri, in contrast, won multiple emmys and other awards, and is therefore clearly notable. DGG (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since I'll buy CoM's obits, which promise that other coverage could be found and probably will be on CoM's fact-finding mission to Mobile and Montgomery. Genovese's verbose contributions don't help the article or the case at AfD, but if they would ever provide the source for the Newsbank thing, that would be an entirely different matter. Genovese, you could be helpful here. ~~Delete~~--as much as it pains me to vote a. to delete a fellow Alabamian and b. go against the opinion of ChildofM, I do not see the notability here--not in Google Books or Google News. Verifiability, not truth: I cannot verify her notability (for either name). Should sources turn up (when ChildofM comes to visit and plows through the archives here) we can always rewrite the article. I wonder where the information came from in the first place--a very lenghty obit? Drmies (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the keep vote below this one. She was a pioneer. ~~She went from being a black woman whose hands were shown but didn't have a speaking role to hosting her own show.~~ She's included in reliable sources about television history, as noted above. She had a 24 year career in television. It's verifiable, it's worth including, and it should be added to and expanded by someone with access to good sources. The bias towards NYT coverage and its archived new stories is unfortunate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estella Payton was the 'black woman whose hands...' not Hope. There's no credible evidence that either were recognized for noteworthy contributions to racial relations. Hope's great-grandson Chase Anderson Romagnano wrote a opinion piece in 2006 (page 11 of [64]) for the local college paper but there is no other independent reliable coverage to offset the inherent conflict of interest and unreliability. – Zedla (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. These details should be noted in the article as they are signifant. There a numerous sources now for this subject. I think a redirect from Estella's name, until we can get sources together for her article as well, would be helpful. No long needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you have newsbank, you can verify the existence of her and her notability. I don't know why people are disqualify this as a "local figure" when this person had a coverage in a three state area with a population of more than a million people. How is the sourcing weak? If it was the New York Times, no one would be saying it was weak. If there was a way to take newspapers from the 1940's, 50's, 60's and 70's this would not even be an issue. If this article was such a problem then why has it not been deleted for the past three years, which is when the original author put it up. If it was not so notable, then why did the original author, who if you look at his contribution page [[65]], made primarily articles on media, find this worthy enough to create an article on. Why are people so eager to delete this article? What harm does it do to have an article that was clearly notable enough to someone who obviously has an interest in media figures that they created it. And if this article is deleted, then why not nominate Dot Moore for deletion as well? Why single out this article? Anyone who can maintain a TV show for 25 years in a 3 state market and who is important enough to pull celebrity guests, which she had, is notable enough to have an article. If this was a non-notable person, celebrities would not have appeared on the program. I will also say that if you delete this article, it will create a precedent whereby every article concerning "local television personalities" will be subject to deletion. I will also say that one of the editors of this article was an editor for "Wikiproject Alabama" and apparently this person thought the subject matter important enough that it was not proposed for deletion

I will also say that the importance of this article is due to the racial implications of it. It was a pioneering show in the days when television was a novelty, the 1950's and it was also an important show because it was a television show in the south where Caucasian was working as a partner with an African-American in complete peace and harmony, which set an important example during the turbulence of the Civil Rights Era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genovese12345 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please stop bringing Dot Moore (whoever that is) into the discussion. A lot of what you say boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What the motivations of previous editors and contributors were, and what was on their bookshelves, and what was on their resumes, is not relevant here, nor do we even know. I've also been involved with Alabama articles on WP, and I'm just a hick. The relevance of all this, if it is as you claim it is, is obvious--but again, where is the proof? And I don't have access to Newsbank, and it's only one particular source. ChildofM's claim of "NYT bias" is specious--the NYT has all their articles available online, going back to the late 1800s. Of course sources that are available are going to be cited. The archive for my local newspaper, in Montgomery, Alabama, sucks a big one--so I don't cite it often, cause it's a hassle. I don't even know what that article in Newsbank is, since there is no bibliographical information given, so I can't even get it any other way--sloppy article writing, I'm afraid.

Show me the sources, or at the very least give a proper reference so other editors can weigh the evidence. A combative attitude, combined with my inability to find anything since the article gives nothing, ensure that there is little I can do to help the article out, as much as I'd like to, esp. given ChildofM's useful and rather convincing (if only verified) argument above. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An hour's worth of searching, and nothing more. The Encyclopedia of Alabama doesn't have an entry on her, but that's not saying much. I have access to the Mobile Press-Register, through LexisNexis, but only from 2006 on--two hits, and both trivial. One person, who cooked a chicken at a cook-off in Birmingham, remembers watching her show; one caller to the paper made this remark, reprinted in the "Sounding Of" section: "Connie Bea cooked delicious food--*I don't get downtown much, but I always look over at Kress. You could buy anything. When they opened the lunch counter, that was one of the biggest deals in Mobile: Good cooking by Connie Bea Hope." That's it. (The Montgomery Advertiser had nothing.) I am at the end of my tether here. CoM, have I overcome the NYT bias objection? Drmies (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYT Bias I will concede that it is impressive that the NYT has a search engine that goes back to the 1800s. However, we have to remember this. The NYT is a paper that reports on many international and national issues and which has a powerful editorial board. However, the NYT, is still a local paper. The majority of its news coverage is news that pertains to the NYC area. I have searched the NYT archives myself and have found legal notices from every age of the city. Now, it is nice to read antique legal notices, but, because most of these legal notices don't pertain to dead people, they are only of a use to someone who is doing a family history that contains one of the persons involved. If an issue is an issue that is local/state/or regional and none of those things involve New York, it is probably not going to find its way into the Times unless it is something extraordinary, in which case, it would be a national newsstory anyway. It is the NYT, but it is still a paper that people get delivered to their doorstep and buy at kiosks and gas stations, just like any other paper.

Now, Newsbank, is a paid-access database that primarily serves to catalog the archives of many daily newspapers and other periodicals across the country. The Mobile Press-Register, which like most papers cannot afford to maintain its own database, outsources the storage of a digital database to them. The archives of the Mobile Press-Register in newsbank go back to late 1992, starting with 1992 election coverage. Every Press-Register article cited on this article can be found at Newsbank. The Mobile Register also links this archive on their own page. Now, you do have to pay to access this article, but I suspect that more than a few articles on this site are based on content that you have to pay to access. Most academic search engines involve pay content which are usually subsidized by the universities which students access them at. Any book on Gbooks that is not public domain will usually have a timeout limit on what you can access or not (at which point I assume payment is involved to read the rest)

http://www.mobileregister.com/archive.htm

When searching this archive I come to find that all 3 of the articles referenced in the source list are available on a pay to play basis from the Register. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=list&p_topdoc=11. If given the time to go to Mobile and do the research at their newspaper archives (which I assume are on microfilm), I could produce probably over 1,000 articles on the subject. I could probably find similar coverage from Pensacola and from Pascagoula, also served by this market, and for which WKRG is the primary CBS station.

Before I continue I would like to say if my tone has seemed a bit brash and less professional, I do apologize. It's just a function of how I argue things sometimes.

However, I would finally like to say that this deserves to be included based on the "exposure" argument. We are talking about a media market which was around 600,000 in 1950, around 1 million when this show went off the air, and around 1.3 million today, if you add up the counties. It was on the air for 25 years. Without hard statistical data this is only a hard guess, but I think it would be reasonable to assume that between 4-6 million people have (up to 2% of the U.S. population), at some point in their lives, been exposed to the subject matter at hand. Counting various generations of people, people who have moved out of the area, and so forth. Now, compare this to say, the Governor of Wyoming. Now, yes, the Governor of Wyoming is the governor of a U.S. State.

However, there are less people in the state of Wyoming than there are in the Mobile CSA, and the Mobile media market currently has at least twice the number of people as Wyoming, so anything that is a Mobile area topic will have at least as much exposure nationally as a Wyoming state topic. In 1950, the population of Wyoming was 290,000 approximately. In 1960, it was approximately 330,000. Now according to [[66]], the population of Mobile County, only one county in the media market, was around 230,000 in 1950 and was around 315,000 in 1960. In addition, 1960 population totals for other counties in the market pull these totals, all approx: Washington 15,000. Clarke 25,000. Baldwin 50,000. Escambia, FL 173,000.

This is only a sprinkling of counties that are covered by the market and were covered during this time period, and even in 1960, the gestation period of this show, this market had a larger population than the entire state of Wyoming and as such, a regional topic within this area would have more exposure among the national population than any topic pertaining to Wyoming. I would feel confident in saying that more citizens of the United States would have a recollection of the subjec matter at hand, if polled, then they would of any governor of Wyoming between the 1955-1981 period. I think that is an important point to make in defense of this subject's notability. Genovese12345 (talk)

Genovese, please be concise--this is too much too read. I'll come back to it later. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Minor Media Markets I apologize if it is longwinded, but it is really a point that cannot be made by being concise because it is a compound argument/defense. I was adding this section and then it told me edit conflict so I decided to make this into a seperate section. Far from being a "minor media market", Mobile-Pensacola is currently the 61st market in the U.S. out of 210 total markets. Comparatively, New Orleans is # 53 and Biloxi-Gulfport is # 160. WKRG does cover the eastern edge of the Biloxi-Gulfport market and is the default CBS station for the entire Mobile-Pensacola market. WKRG is carried in Biloxi as well. Comparatively, El Paso, Omaha and Honululu are all located in smaller media markets than this one. [[67]] Genovese12345 (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genovese, if you don't give bibliographic information for the articles you found (NewsBank does not write or publish them--it archives them), then I have no way of finding them, I don't care how big or small Mobile is. Since the Press-Register before 2006 is not searchable via LexisNexis or whatever else my university has, there is nothing I can find. You could call that bias, but that's totally beside the point. The "bias" is simply caused by the fact that Mobile (and other Alabama) papers are not easily searchable online, and that's not a bias. CoM, roll that up in some bacon and smoke it. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias. I call 'em like I see 'em. What about the sources in the article? If no one can be bothered to actually read the obituary and see what it says... well... I also found this:

Playground Daily News

Ben's Lake guests were Miss Connie Bea Hope from Mobile who...preparation of poulet a la Bea Hope a tasty concoction chicken... Friday, September 22, 1967 Fort Walton Beach, Florida

Playground Daily News

few left Special guest Mrs Connie Bea Hope from Mobile Ala...Carolyn Chalk of Fort Walton Beach has won third prize...Shop in downtown Fort Walton Beach Coffee To Feature Ceramics...tulips and seed pearls Ring bearer was the bride nephew...

Monday, February 26, 1968 Fort Walton Beach, Florida

It may be called the Northwest Florida News now. Until someone tracks these many citations I think it's best we keep this article. Doc has vacation coming soon I'm sure, and we appreciate his investigating this important subject so that we don't bias our coverage! ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great news!!! I've gotten us access to the stories indicating the clear and well established notability of this tv personality and cooking pioneer. She worked on a long running show when there were only two channels in Mobile, which may be hard to imagine for the jetsetting googlers of Generation X like DGG and Doc. Here you go: [68]. Complete articles just $2.95 a pop. The snippet views are probably enough to confirm notability, but I'm sure y'all will want to buy the whole article to figure out how the New York Times somehow missed this story and misled you again with their grotesque bias and neglect. Shocking! Hopefully we'll learn this time not to trust their big city lies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The link gives me a notice that says "Your search session has expired." Words to take to heart? ;) I'm still waiting on citations (and CoM, that includes title of article, name of publication, date, page, author, etc...--the stuff I usually take care of for you...) Drmies (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cooking show hostess `Connie Bea' Hope dies

Author: KIM LANIER Staff Reporter Date: January 27, 1993 Publication: Mobile Register (AL) Page: 1B Beatrice Walker ``Connie Bea Hope, former hostess of a local television cooking show, died Monday in a local hospital. She was 88. Mrs. Hope, a native of Mobile, was host of WKRG-TV's ``Connie's Cupboard for many years. Mrs. Hope long has been a fixture in the Mobile area culinary scene. She began working at the candy counter at Kress & Co. as a teen-ager. After leaving Mobile during World War II,... Click here for complete article ($2.95)

She's also included in this obituary of her co-host:

Television cook Estella Payton dies at age 95 Author: KIM LANIER Staff Reporter Date: December 16, 1999 Publication: Mobile Register (AL) Page: 01 Television cook Estella Payton dies at age 95 Longtime member of 'Woman's World' cast recalled for her generosity By KIM LANIER Staff Reporter Estella Payton, who for several decades entered the homes of many Mobilians through the cooking segments of WKRG-TV's long-running show, "Woman's World," died Sunday at a local hospital at the age of 95. Mrs. Payton, a longtime resident of Mobile, began her career... Click here for complete article ($2.95)

And they're referred to as the Julia Child and Martha Stewart of Alabama on the mobile.org webiste (per the link I provided you on your talk page). ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new, if we're talking about the 4 hits from the Mobile Register's digital archive (going back to 1993), direct search link is [69]. Genovese has already kindly cited these in the article. Hope's obituary is already a part of the article text, which is a basic indicator of noteworthiness -- there's evidence Hope was successful over the years as a Mobile TV personality, but still no independent recognition of noteworthy contributions which would speak to WP:BIO. Mobile.org is hardly a WP:RS. Success isn't the threshold for inclusion. – Zedla (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet as you state, she's received substantial coverage and recognition in the region as being highly successful and notable. And all this is without any access to the newspaper archives when she was actually on air. I'd say the case for notability is a slam dunk. Her show is even considered part of the culture, all these years after it appeared, and is cited in the "How to speak Mobile" tourism literature. She's also noted in a reliable source as being a "fixture" of the culinary scene. The show has also been cited as recently as 2006 as a symbol of racial progress in a city reknowned for its history in issues of race. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More great news!!! The Guide to the Virginia B. Greer bottom of the page (a writer whose many articles include her interview with Alice Frazer, the last witness to Mobile’s 1897 Yellow Fever epidemic, as well as four books Give Them Their Dignity (1968) recounts the year that Greer spent teaching youth in a local church. The Glory Woods: A Hymn of Healing (1976), chronicles her personal battle with cancer. Emergency: The True Story of a Woman’s Faith and Service as an Emergency Room Volunteer (1977) is also drawn from her personal experiences. Her final book, Mobile, Talk About Town! (1985) discusses some of Mobile’s most memorable social and literary characters.) whose papers from 1942-1997 include Series 7: Audio Cassette Box 13 an audio recording of Greer’s appearance on Woman’s World, WKRG-TV, April 22, 1976. So we have yet another source and another strong indication of notability for this show. I guess we can move into speedy keep mode at this point. Great work everyone! Let's get started on Greer's article.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

are we discussing a postulated article on Greer, or an actual one on CPH? By all means try Greer. If the books were reviewed, you might be able to show something. As for the present subject, I continue to think the evidence does not show notability. DGG (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to encourage CoM to keep looking for sources, so I haven't quite got a vote yet. If someone held a gun to my head I'd probably go delete. For a bit of context: Mrs Hope broadcast to 1m people. There are (goes to check) 300m people in the US, so at any one time there are 300 food broadcasters, say. Then there's the (goes to check some more facts) 800m in Europe. So that's another 800 broadcasters. Are all these people notable? I doubt it, not unless they were the first, or the best, or they burnt down the studio, or made it nationally. I normally go and check the policies, but I'll trust the other editors here to have done that and see if CoM can make her notable. Also, I'm looking forward to people shooting holes in my logic ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Comment. Every governor of Wyoming is included on this site when at most, they had media exposure to an audience that, on a good day, was half the audience that Ms. Hope would have had on any given day. The only difference is that the governor of Wyoming holds an elected office. One could argue that Ms. Hope had more influence in her career in terms of members of the national population affected than any governor of Wyoming. Ms. Hope was in fact one of the first. She went on the air in 1955, and was apparently one of the original members of the station, given that it also went on the air in 1955. She remained on the station until at least 1981, which means that she had 26 years on it. The majority of CBS programming that WKRG aired did not have a quarter-century shelf-life. The Gulf Coast Congressional Report ran for a similar length of time, had a similar audience, was a similar type of program (in terms of local scope) and it has its own article. The only difference between the two really is that GCCC was hosted by a Congressmen. Speaking of Congressmen, Ms. Hope's show was traditionally carried across three congressional districts, which is more than can be said for the media exposure of any governor of Wyoming, given their having a single district. --Genovese12345 (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Comment III Speaking of which, this whole discussion about whether or not she notable based on the audience covered.

I quote from "subjective importance" "Conversely, some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable." It may be said that she was primarily known inside the local area, however, she had the same kind of broad media exposure within the WKRG area as the governor of Wyoming would have in Wyoming and, even if it is not a New York Times article, she has recieved coverage in publications concerning the national media. That people from the local area continue to reference her name and that a book on local culture would include a reference to her seems to be an argument in favor of the idea that she was a major cultural figure within her area, which as we have already established, was far larger than the state of Wyoming, stretching across at least 3 metropolitan areas, states, congressional districts.... Apparently, she was important enough that she was one of the people remembered during WKRG's 50th anniversary [[70]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genovese12345 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One caveat It is incorrect to just say that she was a "Mobile" personality, thereby limiting her influence to just that particular city, when her station did have a 3 state coverage area and when the Mobile-Pensacola market is recognized as a 2 state market. Not much smaller than New Orleans. Speaking of New Orleans, the following New Orleans media figures have their own articles: Eric Paulsen, Sally-Ann Roberts, Ronnie Virgets, and several others

Working Press of the Nation [[71]] She was included in a list in a book called "Working Press of the Nation" in 1964. The problem is, the page she was listed on is currently unavailable (as Gbooks does with books not in the public domain) [[72]] She also appears in the "Talk Show Directory" under "Bea Hope" in 1981, also a page unaccessible due to public domain issues. [[73]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genovese12345 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any show that was on for that long, and had over a million viewers, is clearly notable. How many other cooking shows brought in a black person to be on them during that period of time? Is this the first to do so? That would be something notable as well. Is this the longest running cooking show ever on American television? And not every newspaper has its archives going back far enough to talk about the person, however one apparently does, and has given them a proper review. Dream Focus 13:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources seem to meet WP:N and I'd say someone hosting the same show for 20+ years to a market of about 1 million people on one of the three big broadcast networks of the time would be notable by definition in any case. Hobit (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the BIO and N issues noted by DGG above. Eusebeus (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:CSB, I wouldn't expect to find an abundant supply of online information about someone that died in 1993 who was active in the culinary community and an ambassador for a television station. First off unless she's involved ina scandal the media coverage is likely limited to that one station, that's how media companies operate, they don't run oodles of stories on the competition. And that she's in the culinary world suggests the majority of material will be found in the food and homemaker sections of magazines and newspapers from the era - we have to be at least reasonable that these exist is quite likely unless someone's suggesting this is a hoax. It would be nice to state ___ was the highest paid cooking celebrity of the South but we go by the sources we have until more complete ones are found. Likely this will also be a trend as baby boomers start infiltrating the Wikipedian ranks and helping fill in the celebrity gaps of everything that preceeded the modern era of celebrity as we know it. I would be more swayed if any of this was highly contested but I'm extending good faith here that the efforts spent so far will alos be translated into finding a few more sources to bolster the confidence in our reporting. -- Banjeboi 18:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Genovese12345's extensive arguments. Granite thump (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin: This account is mentioned in an investigation for possible sockpuppets of banned User:Azviz. If the closing vote is close, please check to see if the checkuser has been run yet and what it found. DreamGuy (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update for closing Admin The results of the checkuser investigation may be found here. The results were "Granite thump (talk · contribs) is Unlikely related". The case has been closed and archived. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Some additional sourcing would be helpful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Locally-known individual does not translate into notability enough for a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Upon reading notability. Some things pop up. Must have independent coverage in reliable sources. I believe that Midnight and I have done a fairly good job of proving that this is the case even with our scant access. The problem is, we are talking about a person whose prime period of activity was between the 50's and the early 80's and we are also talking about a person who died when the internet was in its infancy. We are also talking about a person whose greatest visibility among the living members of the population are also the same categories of the population that are most likely to be internet illiterate and most likely to also not be using the internet at all. Unanimous internet use is really the provision of people born after 1980. If you graduated high school some time before 1994, the internet is only something you learned to use over time and the same with computers. I believe that the claim that the subject is not notable is a clear case of systemic bias and nothing more. There is plenty of media coverage across three states and in various periodicals in the region from the time that the subject was active, however, this was also the time period in which the internet was not in vogue. I will be expounding on this point in a seperate area. --Genovese12345 (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding the period television market We live in an age of digital cable and direct TV. We live in an age where we can turn on the television, pick our choice of 500 channels on any given day, all channels that are broadcast on a national basis, and many of whom, have never achieved the average daily audience that Ms. Hope's show had. I also think it is important to understand because the nature of television has changed from what it was back then. There is already evidence of celebrity guests on the show. The obit notes Jerry Reed, Jim Nabors and a few others. Apparently, an extended list of Micheal Landon's credits shows that he was on the show in the 1970s. If one would contact WKRG and ask for the documentation, or pour through the television listings between Biloxi and Destin, as well as in Hattiesburg, from this time, one would probably be able to come up with an extremely large number of celebrity guests on the show.

Ms. Hope was on the air at a time when there were 3 major networks and when a majority of locales in the country would only have more than one affiliate if they were particularly large, such as New York. At this time, Mobile only had two affiliate stations. The ABC affiliation for the region was based in Pensacola, and served the region from the AL/MS line to the area past Panama City. Still does to a large extent. Biloxi, had no CBS affiliate. Biloxi in this time period did however receieve two stations from equidistant areas, New Orleans and Mobile. Biloxi, incidentally, still does not have its own CBS affiliate. It still has two CBS stations, one from New Orleans, and one from Mobile.

This was a time period when you watched TV by adjusting a metal antenna and when you changed the channel by actually getting up and changing a nob. It wasn't seen as cumbersome to change a knob then, there weren't many stations. It is interesting to note that the remote control and cable started gaining steam around the same time.

If you consider that this was a daily program, in an area where there were only 3 stations available for a long time, and the coverage of it. If you assume that an equal number of audience members would be watching each station at any given time, and if you assume for the sake of argument, that there is a fourth dummy station, as a variable. You can find one thing. Adding up the populations of all counties served by WKRG during this time and averaging them, you come up with an average population of around 1.3 million. Divided by 4 this would be 325,000. (and many cable programs don't even have that kind of a viewership on a national scale today) Now, if you count each day as an individual view, you are talking about 1,625,000 views a week. 81,250,000 views a year. (50 wk). When the number of years comes out, it comes out to more than a billion views. If you assume that the average viewership of the program on a given day might have been higher, then these number easily account to more than 3 billion views. I would call that a very high level of exposure even if it is regionally concentrated. That is a higher level of concentration in the region for its time than many network television shows today.

I believe that scope alone qualifies it as notability. Also, the uniqueness of the topic. If you give me a few months to do the research, I can find you sources that note her associations with the Morrison's company, media from across the region in a five decade period, books in which her work appeared, magazines in which it was noted.

I'd also argue that notability does come simply from the fact that a regionally significant company like Morrison's would have a woman in management at a time when women weren't in management. She was definitely a pioneer, both for women and for television. Her co-host was a pioneer for African-Americans. She is notable and if we were discussing the similarly sized New Orleans market, no one would be questioning it. It is only because of the bias associated with the term "Mobile, Alabama" that this is even questioned, even though New Orleans and Mobile are similar sized media markets. I would argue that it is systemic bias. --Genovese12345 (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I have actually read the comments from the delightfully long-winded Genovese and applaud the diligence with which searches have been carried out. Notability for a few dozen million is just as worthy as notability for a few hundred milion... specially when representing a large portion of the country over a 30+ year span. The article improves Wikipedia by shedding a little light on a historic time in television's early history. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can we please be more succinct in the future? Delete. I didn't find any sources, and of the sources in the article they appear to acknowledge the existence of this individual, but I'm not sure they establish notability. The number of people in the media market doesn't mean that anyone on TV in that market is notable. This individual may well be notable, which is the irony, but I don't see that from the povided references. Please point out the specific place where that is true (and I am wrong) if they are notable. Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Needs additional sourcing. Revisit in a few months for a possible delete if it didn't improve. For now it should be given a chance to improve based on possible offline sources. Hobartimus (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see lots of talk about all kinds of irrelevant things but bottom line she was a local figure and there is not significant in-depth coverage in appropriate independent reliable sources to establish her notability. Show that deep coverage in non-local media or she isn't notable. Yes things were different back then and yes quite a smoke screen has been thrown up discussing television stations and networks and the governor of Wyoming and Michael Landon and blah blah blah. All of that is totally irrelevant. Where I grew up the weatherman played Freddy the Clown on Circus Parade every day for 45 years. Whoop dee doo. Drawn Some (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low cost housing in Pakistan[edit]

Non-sourced essay; appears to be original research mhking (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is has a couple of sources but no citations but it isn't really original research. It should be improved, not deleted, there are plenty of reliable resources to support notability and verify an article in addition to the ones listed. Drawn Some (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - But perhaps renaming the article "Low cost housing projects in Pakistan"?

There certainly is an ongoing process, need, and developement of it, and it's among the most important issues for contries like Pakistan.Nunamiut (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have read about Low cost housing in Pakistan. The two given sources are reliable and verifiable. Rirunmot (talk) 00:26, 24 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, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a notable article...--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - original research/essay, not encyclopedic in style or content; don't think it's salvagable. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I would support an article about any one of the individual companies or a government housing project in particular, but an article about low-cost housing in general is not very encyclopedic. Lesath2 (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was hoping to recommend keeping this as a useful topic, but a careful read of the content shows that it is doesn't say anything other than a company is doing good stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pakistan has had issues with low cost housing. Thrice in its history it has had to resettle literally millions of people in short order. Its a major issue in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.152.22 (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - The topic can be recreated if there's new material, but the current material doesn't suggest enough notability to be a stand-alone topic. Shadowjams (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Not a bad topic, but the article would require a fundamental rewrite to be salvageable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:27, 29 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 Speedied per CSD-G12. Wholly unreferenced BLP also lacked any coverage in reliable sources which would be necessary to rewrite the article. لenna vecia 14:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Moore[edit]

Ariel has no independent notability currently, she is only know for the time that she spent in the girl group Clique Girlz. The page was re-directed to the groups article when it was first created, but was recreated by IP users after she left the group. Fre h ley 00:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything sourced and salvageable back to Clique Girlz. If she manages to get any solo hits or notability, the article can be recreated, but it's far from certain that that will occur. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as WP:VSCA. Having 2 videos on YouTube as a means of cashing in on your past does not make you independently notable. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just noticed that the entire article is copied from the "About Me" section on Ariel's website (http://arielmoore.com/). So the article is currently a copyright violation. Fre h ley 23:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Her page has been edited so that it does not violate copyright laws. I do not know who created it in the first place and copy all of it but that is not how Wikipedia works. There should be no or very little problem with it. She is a upcoming independent artist, there should be no reason why she does not have her own page. - Allison 5-22-09—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.142.246 (talk • contribs) 17:27, May 22, 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, badly fails to meet our WP:MUSIC standards; and of course by "upcoming" you mean "up and coming", a deprecated and invalid argument. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G12 per Frehley. The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:42, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard R. Lavigne[edit]

I had come upon this article at WP:BLP/N and proposed its deletion per WP:ONEEVENT. The prod was later removed with the explanation "multiple crimes". As for the multiple crimes, it seems to resort to the priest having plead guilty to two counts (maybe even of the same crime) at the same trial. One half of the article describes his relation as a suspect in a cloudy murder case, where he was not even indicted, let alone tried before a court. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One eventer Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:32, 25 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 18 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, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he was a central figure in the scandal. DGG (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--"one event" is a bit of an understatement here, it seems to me, since coverage starts at least in 1994 and is ongoing. The number of newspaper articles referenced in the article could easily be tripled. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would like to have a ref for this though "was the only suspect named in the unsolved 1972 murder of 13-year-old Danny Croteau of Springfield, Massachusetts." Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added a ref --- disturbing that this was without references as it makes it seem like a mere attack piece not a bio of a notable molester. Bigdaddy1981 (talk)

Weak delete - He's only notable for the molestation crimes (one event), and the coverage is weak. The murder should not even be mentioned in the article. لenna vecia 14:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree re the murder -- it is sourced now and clearly relevant. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:55, 28 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 both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IceTV Good[edit]

No reliable sources found at all. Soundtrack to a red link show. The notable songs on this album don't make the album inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced unreliable article with questionable notability Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:34, 25 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've added Ice TV (soundtrack) to this AFD since it's closely related, being the soundtrack of the previous year for the same show. Delete both as non-notable. This would not prevent an article being written on the television program IceTV itself.-gadfium 03:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 03:25, 18 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, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, both fail to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Question: in your opinion, could these have been Speedied A9? I had a similar case recently which was denied with the excuse that there were some notable acts on the album. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think speedying under A9 would have been possible, but since they are compilation albums it is a bit of a stretch to equate the TV show with the artist. I rarely do speedy deletions, and I don't believe I've ever used that criteria, so I don't know what usual practice is for such albums.-gadfium 02:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured they didn't fall under A9 as almost all of the artists appear notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the oldie but a goodie WP:NOTINHERITED??? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:06, 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 merge to Brikwars. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legowars[edit]

Limited notability. gordonrox24 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge I agree with nom there is limited notability, so a merge would be okay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with what? The game has nothing to do with Lego.--gordonrox24 (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the place for things made up in the game-room one day. Article fails to assert notability. Badger Drink (talk) 05:13, 20 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, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I looked, the article only had one reference. This is not a good sign. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but take note of Brikwars. Appears related. Notable? Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Brikwars. I meant to comment on this when it was first listed, but got sidetracked and forgot about it. Legowars is a prototype for Brikwars. Links relating to the legal issues the developer encountered should be added to the combined article. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. A merge would be great.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:14, 26 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. No consensus to delete. The issue of what to merge into what can continue on the various talk pages. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme induction and inhibition[edit]

This page appears to be about two un-linked articles and only redirects to one of them, however a few pages link here: Special:WhatLinksHere/Enzyme_induction_and_inhibition Captain n00dle ^T/_C 14:22, 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) 00:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For relevant context, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 24#Enzyme induction and inhibition. Cunard (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose as per the link above: A merger with enzyme inhibitor was previously discussed in 2006 but it seems it has now been redirected without discussion to the featured article on enzyme inhibitor (see history; contains a lot of good content that shouldn't just be deleted). There is no article with a good discussion of enzyme induction, and enzyme inhibitor does not discuss gene expression inhibition. I suggest that we restore this article and let it focus on gene expression inhibition and induction, which is not discussed anywhere else. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Weak as I'm not an expert on the subject matter, but this article is referenced and has incoming links, and it seems that it is covering a different topic from enzyme inhibitor. Robofish (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Drug metabolism#Factors that affect Drug Metabolism. The two concepts of induction and inhibition are distinct, however there seems to be use of them together as a phrase (solely) in the field of pharmacology to describe factors affecting drug metabolising enzymes, see e.g. [74], [75], [76]. To the best of my knowledge, there is no current usage of the phrase "enzyme induction" in molecular biology – whilst it was historically used e.g. in the case of the lactose system of E. coli – it has been replaced by the more general concept of gene expression regulation since Jacob/Monod. Celefin (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest xenobiotic metabolism as a merge target instead of just drug metabolism, since the concept applies to more compounds than just drugs. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably merge xenobiotic metabolism and drug metabolism, but that's another discussion. Celefin (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some overlap certainly and the current xenobiotic metabolism article doesn't cover the wider topic as well as it could, but persistent organic pollutant degradation or pesticide and herbicide metabolism are very important topics that wouldn't easily fit under the heading of "drugs". Tim Vickers (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to enzyme induction (which is currently a redirect) and rewrite to focus only on the usage of this term in xenobiotic metabolism, which remains quite common eg PMID 18991590. "Enzyme inhibition" is very rarely used as a term for the suppression of enzyme gene expression, since this is much too easily confused with activity-based inhibition. See for example this paper on drug auto-inhibition of a P450. Here the term is only used to describe interactions between the drug and this enzyme, but not changes in the expression level of the enzyme. Similarly in PMID 18690879, which is a review that covers both topics and again uses induction to refer to changes in gene expression and inhibition to refer to direct drug-enzyme interactions. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 27 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 00:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychopathia Sexualis (Heinrich Kaan)[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) -- lacks multiple reliable independent sources mentioning the topic in a non-trivial way. Only has one source currently, and that one's quite trivial (half a sentence worth of discussion in the whole article). There's no dispute that this book did exist, but it's not important enough to get anything but extremely passing mention in other references. It's a historical footnote at best to be mentioned in an article about history of sex studies or something, if that, not for a full article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to write a hurried WTF? at this nom, then calmed down long enough to realize it was not the Krafft-Ebing book. Does not deserve its own entry - even the Kraft Ebbing book doesn't get an entry, the page it once had got merged with Richard von Krafft-Ebing. An older version of the Kraft-Ebing page mentioned the Kaan book, and the possible confusion between them. Perhaps that mention can be re-instated, then we can delete the nominated page. Hairhorn (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, oddly enough, the famous book by this title doesn't even have an article at this time, it's just a redirect, so there's absolutely no reason for this unknown book to have an article. DreamGuy (talk) 01:48, 24 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, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. See this Google Books search, this one, and this one. None of these are passing mentions. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to take your word about the second book, and the third one is definitely a passing reference: Kaan is only mentioned once, for inventing the term; all the other references are to the Krafft-Ebbing book. So merge still seems like a good idea to me. Hairhorn (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are ALL passing references. None of them discuss the book for more than a paragraph, and some not even that long. DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I followed some of the leads provided by Cunard. Gbook search returns many references to this 1844 (or was it 1843?) work in recent and not-so-recent books. Definitely notable by any standard. Sure, the article has improvement potential, also on the ref side, but this is no valid reason for deletion Power.corrupts (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think people confuse sources that demonstate that somethign reliably exists and can be used as a cite for a mention in another article and sources that demonstrate enough notability to get a whole Wikipedia article. If these kind of references demonstrate enough notability for a separate article than virtually nothing would fail to get an article. DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is kept it should possibly be Psychopathia Sexualis (Kaan book) per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Standard_disambiguation. Шизомби (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to DreamGuy, the citations below are NOT merely passing mention
- Weber, Philippe (2008). Der Trieb zum erzählen: Sexualpathologie und Homosexualität, 1852-1914. Transcript Verlag. p. 378. ISBN 9783837610192. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Kaan work is discussed as the first of a kind on pp 51-52, (in footnote 40 there is a ref to Kaan's work being subjected to analysis by Foucault (see below), on p 84 Kaan work is compared with Krafft-Ebing's
- Michel Foucault (2003). Abnormal : lectures at the Collège de France, 1974-1975. Verso. p. 374. ISBN 9781859845394. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) (the Foucault text), see pp 233-234 which is not merely passing mention, Kaan's work is identified as "the first text". Kaan is mentioned at some 15 other occasions in that book
- Niklaus Largier (2007). In praise of the whip: a cultural history of arousal. Zone Books. p. 526. ISBN 9781890951658. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) only snippet views, but Kaan's work appears to be discussed over pages 435-437, and there is a verbatim quote on p 437.

Add to this the 350 other Gbook hits, old and new, which would indicate that even the most stringent interpretation of WP:GNG is fulfilled. Certainly, your claim It's a historical footnote at best needs more work on your part. Maybe the later Krafft-Ebing book with the same title was merged once into the Richard von Krafft-Ebing article - I consider this irrelevant for this AfD. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute the book's existence or its being the earliest book with that title. But, as usual, gross number of hits means little. A quick troll through 350 hits shows many, many single mentions (once in a book-length work) and many mentions that are in fact mentions of the Krafft-Ebing book, not of Kaan's book; Kaan often shows up as an aside or a footnote. (This happens in the second hit; it happens even in one of the books you single out above, Der Trieb zum erzählen.) There are also some irrelevant hits: the third hit is a book review from 1845. If someone wanted to rescue the article it may be worth saving, but in its current incarnation I don't think it's worth more than a merge. Hairhorn (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is disputing the book's existence or its being the earliest book with that title. What is being disputed are the reasoning behind the proposed deletion, above all the claim that it fails WP:GNG. The 2008 book that you say I "single out" above, Der Trieb zum erzählen p51, a scholar Tardieu is quoted for questioning (the topic is masturbation, homosexuality, etc) if "these [sexual] vices have other causes than plain spoiled moral or if it is some sort of sexual psychopathy, a term in which he is indebted to Kaan" (my own mediocre translation). Kaan's work is then referred to again in footnote 40 at the following page 52, it's not "passing mention", the footnote is 10 lines long and discusses amongst other Foucault's use of Kaan's book in his discourse analysis. (I also reffed Foucault's book above.) Kaan also pops up in footnote 41, (the footnotes take up about half that page), and the Kaan book is cited three other places in that book (reference sections etc). To me, this is not "trivial passing mention". Add to this Foucault's use of Kaan in his lectures/analysis of masturbation and Oh, all the other 350 Gbook hits which I did not bother to check (many dont even have snippet views). I am absolutely no subject matter expert here, but if a 2008 academic book mentions a work written 150 years earlier because somebody is indebted to Kaan's new term/concept or whatever, then the old work is very likely to meet the notability guidelines (note they are merely guidelines) - the old work is certainly able to meet Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. Surely Heinrich Kaan could also have a page. The ideas of this book could also be laid out there, this would be my proposed outcome of this AfD. Kaan's views have long gone out of fashion, and the same-title later book by Krafft-Ebing may be much more famous (I know neither of them) - but Wikipedias inclusion criteria are no doubt fulfilled in Kaan's case. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought it was odd that you trotted out Der Trieb zum erzählen as an example of a reference to Kaan, when all but one of the uses of "Psychopathia Sexualis" in the book are references to Krafft-Ebing. A reference on one page and in one footnote seems like a paradigm case of "passing mention". Hairhorn (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information Nominee was involved in a related (not so elegantly handled) dispute which was taken to Wikiquette Power.corrupts (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what's that got to do with anything other than trying to poison the well? Wasn't much of a dispute... someone put in bad info, I removed it, they flew off the handle. DreamGuy (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only indicative that you seem to hold Kraff-Ebing's work dear and have some sort of antipathy against Kaan's. I have identified 7-8 fairly recent scholary works that someway or another provides a perspective on Kaan's work, including two doctoral theses, of which one dr. thesis specifically deals with Kaan. Yet, your first action is to notability tag my newly created Kaan page (is this person even notable at all?) - and even state, that you don't think doctoral theses are reliable sources (!) I have to stop now, I have a lot to do in real life. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctoral theses are not reliable sources as far as I know and from any discussion I've seen on them here. They are not published with editorial oversight... any doctoral candidate can claim anything, that doesn't mean anyone agrees with it. The notability tag deserves to be there, and it's not that I have any bias against the guy (don't know him from Adam), it's that I want policies to be followed. But, really, you seem to want to get into a whole conversation other than whether this current article should be deleted. Please stay on topic. DreamGuy (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I took my own advice and created an article on Heinrich Kaan. This page Psychopathia Sexualis (Heinrich Kaan) could now be redirected there. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge - Comparing the two books would seem to make some sense but there does seem to be room enough for both. As an alternative merging to Heinrich Kaan would be acceptable as well. Deletion not needed in any case, improvement is what is called for. Google scholar gets 50+ hits so I find it hard to believe a good book article is impossible here. 160+ years after the publishing I think it's fair to say there is a multitude of reliable sources and scholarly looks at the work that a good article can certainly emerge. Add in the multitude of likely offline sources, given the age of the works involved and this seems like something that an encyclopedia should have. -- Banjeboi 00:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You aren't going to find any book reviews for something published that long ago. WP:BK says We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature. Use common sense, not just mindlessly look for notable third party references. I believe this book has "been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." Dream Focus 01:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the new article on Kaan, which now contains all the info from this article. pablo_hablo. 05:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe both Kaan, and the book, are significant enough to merit individual articles. Geo Swan (talk) 19:31, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cagefest Xtreme[edit]

No "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG) to demonstrate notability. Currently its only claim to fame is being the organization Tommy Speer had his last fight in. --aktsu ^(t / c) 05:53, 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) 00:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Well sourced. Seems quite notable.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When attempting to find additional information about the promotion there is very little coverage of it (other than fight cards and results). The article, created by someone that appears to be affiliated with the promotion, suggests it operates only within the state of Virginia. Therefore, it appears to be a local promotion where there are likely thousands of local promotions around the country. I can't find anything to suggest the promotion is notable in any way. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a company that has existed for two years. It stages contests which some people win. It has had some local news coverage. It is not notable. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial coverage at best. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:16, 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 speedy delete by Dank as noted in comments. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nawid Rezai[edit]

Fails notability Spiderone (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horribly, horriby written, and - more relevant to the deletion discussion - not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotion and not-notable. Greenman (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as a copy of http://www.afghan3000.com/talentedafghans/models/nawidrezai/ (you have to highlight the text to read it). I'll be happy to email it if anyone needs it. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 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.

[1] ttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article396396.ece

[2] ttp://pundits.thehill.com/2008/10/23/why-the-%E2%80%98generation-jones%E2%80%99-vote-may-be-crucial-in-election-2008/

[3] ttp://www.davidrowan.com/2005/05/times-op-ed-guide-to-electionspeak.html

[4] ttp://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2004/12/09_genjones2/

[5] ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-paulsen/attention-genyers-talk-to_b_137937.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]