Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 13

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Adriana Rebold

Adriana Rebold (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Adriana Rebold" – news · books · scholar · images)

Speedy was declined, but I still fail to see any claim to notability. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I couldn't find anything either - no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  Chzz  ►  08:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Wikpedia is not the place to post your resume. Edward321 (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no hits on Google News, no reliable sources via Google Web search. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - credit lists indicate she is a working graphics designer but there are no articles written about her in reliable sources nor is there any indication of significant awards for her work. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. Some suggestions for merging but no consensus for a target. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Negative calorie food

Negative calorie food (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Negative calorie food" – news · books · scholar · images)

The page has been in this poorly sourced state for years, and I can't see it getting better. Currently it has one unreliable reference. I have looked for sources, and all I can find is crappy diet websites and fluff pieces in lifestyle magazines. It had been redirected to celery, but was just reverted, so I think it's time to decide properly if this is worth keeping. Fences&Windows 23:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, nomination withdrawn and support merge. Thank you to VsevolodKrolikov for finding at least a couple of sources - I know AfD isn't clean up, but damn did this article need it. I still don't think we should have an article at this title, but there's material here than can be merged, as Vicarious says. The merge discussion can continue on the article talk page. Fences&Windows 22:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 23:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I de-proded this article because I felt that one of the sources was good enough [1] that the deletion wasn't uncontroversial per WP:PROD. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted. -Atmoz (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep How difficult it is to get sources for an article does not determine whether or not it should be deleted, only it notability. Since the concept has received significant media attention (even if it's only "crappy diet websites and fluff pieces in lifestyle magazines"), it deserves an article. If there is controversy over whether or not negative calorie foods really work, that just means there should be a "controversy" section not that the article should be deleted. Redirecting the page to celery does not work because that is only one of several foods the topic refers to.--Marcus Brute (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Food energy or Thermic effect of food. I do agree with Marcus Brute that there is enough out there where mention of it belongs in Wikipedia, however, I do not believe every concept (or false concept, in this case) needs to have its own article. The article at its longest reads: "A negative calorie food is a food claimed to require more calories to be digested than it provides. Some sources say X, Y, and Z require more calories to be digested than they provide.[2] Other sources say the process of eating any food uses at most 30% of the calories ingested.[3]" What else is there beyond that? To me, that belongs in a subsection of one of the aforementioned articles where the information would be better served by an appropriate context. Location (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete holy shit, someone added back this absurd list of so called negative calorie foods. ill say it again: fruit would not be craved by animals if it provided fewer calories than were used to process it. thats the reason plants produce fruit. this is common sense biochemistry. if someone has not yet found a reference to dispute this common sense observation, then the article is not needed. i know its a widely discussed meme, but a line or 2 in an article on food or calories about this urban myth should suffice.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note - article updated I have now edited the article and put in the best references I can find without access to subscription journals. Yes, the idea appears not to be true, but I think it's a notable enough one to have a short article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep a google book search throws up these references in a variety of different health and diet books. (Probably best to ignore the Weekly World News hits) Now I'm not saying either way whether the concept of negative foods is correct or not, but there's certainly enough information on the subject, and the controversy, to make a decent article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not a good search, you're also returning hits for "negative calorie balance", and picking up a load of unreliable dieting books. Please pick out some good sources, or focus the search better. Fences&Windows 14:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The search gives enough results to show that idea of negative calorie food has some popularity. Obviously, the diet books are going to be unreliable because they support the myth. There's room for an article on this, as there has to have been two sets of research done - one that promotes the idea, one that refutes it. There's books that support the idea. There's enough info out there, and the google book search is part of it :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The current text appears to be a reasonably written and adequately referenced document refuting a frequently encountered hoax. The concept is notable; the content brief but adequate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be reasonably sourced. The content is a little lacking but should be pretty straightforward to research and update. --Tckma (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as de-bunking a well-known urban legend, or if you prefer, fringe theory. The stub is well-sourced and more could be added with a bit for work. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Well known urban myth. Dream Focus 19:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect I agree that it's a real topic (if incorrect) but that doesn't automatically mean it deserves it's own article. Per the length policy, if it's less than 1k (of readable prose) it's encouraged to be merged into another article. Currently this article is coming at about .67k. For those that say it's only that small now but will grow, I contend the only direction for this to grow is a bad one (with the addition of an inaccurate unsourced list of items yet again). Yes, lets keep the content we have right now, but merge it into another article. (I'm open to ideas about which article, possible candidates include celery, Food energy or Thermic effect of food. Vicarious (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Pilot (Breaking Bad Episode)

Pilot (Breaking Bad Episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Pilot (Breaking Bad Episode)" – news · books · scholar · images)

Already outlined on Breaking Bad, not notable enough to have separate article detailing episodes. Also very poorly written Scythre^Talk_Contribs 22:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: There's absolutely nothing here (and the article title is wrong anyway, it should be Breaking Bad (pilot)).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I looked for evidence of the emmy, but it would appear that emmy nominees were involved with the episode; I could not find any evidence that this episode itself had won anything infact, the only thing of note was a press release. I see no significant coverage  Chzz  ►  04:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (A7) by Tiptoety. →javért ^chat 00:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Todd Ross

Todd Ross (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Todd Ross" – news · books · scholar · images)

Biographical, have a look at the page to see the reason. Blatant vandalism. Scythre^Talk_Contribs 22:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that, with no coverage in reliable secondary sources, this article cannot be salvaged from its current state as a pure plot summary. I will happily userfy this on request if someone wishes to merge some of this plot summary to an appropriate place or places. ~ mazca ^talk 11:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Batman: Reborn

Batman: Reborn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Batman: Reborn" – news · books · scholar · images)

Right now, this article is causing three problems:

1. It is providing plot only dumping ground for multiple Batman related comic book series even though the stories presented in the series are not directly interconnected.
2. What material is currently in the article is a repeat of information in the articles on the individual comic book series.
3. It relies on a premise that is not supported by secondary sources - that the individual stories are all part of one larger, coherent arc or event.

At best, the phrase "Batman: Reborn" relates to:

1. The story that runs through the first 3 issues of Batman and Robin, which is actually uses the phrase as a title. None of the stories from any of the other 7 or 8 listed series use the term in this way.
2. A marketing element that DC Comics has included in the trade dress for the 8 or 9 series following Batman: Battle for the Cowl. This has not been mentioned beyond identifying "We're relaunching the character/title".

Ideally:

• The redundant material from the articles on Batman and Robin, Batman, Red Robin, and Batman: Streets of Gotham can be deleted;
• Any remaining, pertinent information can be merged into those 4 articles as well as Batman and Dick Grayson;
• A note can be added about the trade dress to the Batman: Battle for the Cowl#Preparation and aftermath section;
• The remainder of this article redirected to Batman and Robin (comic book)#"Batman: Reborn" (issues #1–3); and
• A Batman: Reborn (event) redirect be created and point to Batman: Battle for the Cowl#Preparation and aftermath. J Greb (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree but there is one problem Long Shadows takes place after the epilogue and before the Batman and Robin saga Batman: Reborn, so if we do keep the article I suggest we only keep these three storys and merge them into one plot artcle. On either the DC Wiki or Batman Wiki it says in the plot something like as Batman stops Penguin and Two-Face the Circus of Crime emerges we could do something like that but we don't have a good source.--Schmeater (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If, and it's a mighty big "if", we go that route, it is going to need a rock solid citation that they are one protracted story arc. Just "As a reader, this reading order makes sense and I think these belong in the same article" is no where near enough. The DC and Batman wkia are not good sources for making that leap either. - J Greb (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you technically just repeated what I just stated. --Schmeater (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete lacks assertion of notability by secondary sources. Basically one big plot synopsis, and Wikipedia's not meant to be an excuse for you to not buy your comics. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I usually just edit with my IP address but then I learned that users don't trust IP's so I decided to make an account, now I stick with Schmeater, he proves a strong point I mean if we told him to re-edit the anaconda page trust me he would just need some information to do it, you see Batman: Reborn is just a three issue miniseries. If I am correct we already have the plot moving forward in the Batman and Robin section, so if we are going to keep this article we shouldn't have the plot in two places I mean we would just be repeating ourselves if we put down in the Batman and Robin section For more information please see Batman: Reborn and then they see the same information, now an encyclopedia only repeats it's information when it needs to right now it doesn't.--Stinkysoxmon (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, if B&R is around long enough to need the story arcs slivered off and the arcs are strong enough in references and need, then and article on the 3 issue story arc is warranted. General premise is to tray and keep articles together until there is a need and a logical split point. Yes, taking the story arcs out of an article on the a comic book is a logical split. But right now there is 0 need to do it. - J Greb (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Google has 122,000 results for "Batman reborn", but not all of it is about this comic book series. A lot of fan hype about this does exist though. Does anyone know any comic book review sites that count as notable enough to use as a reference? Dream Focus 19:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Fan hype is nice, but it isn't a reliable source for writing an article. Reviews that aren't just "This is the story" (read: plot summary) are good for fleshing out an article, but right now that article would be Batman and Robin. If/when that article gets too big, then splitting the story arc(s) out may be warranted. - J Greb (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You see earlier Schmeater revealed that Batman: Reborn was just a banner and the story only ran through Batman and Robin, all that you are seeing about all those series being in Batman: Reborn is fan hype, which J Greb just stated is assumptions. So we have two points left:

1)Which part's should stay.

2)Why was this article made.--Stinkysoxmon (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Now the part that should stay is already in Batman and Robin, this article was made because of all the fanhype going on. So if we combine those two we get this article was made because of FanHype and the only proper part is Batman and Robin's part. So we are already covering Batman: Reborn in Batman and Robin so why keep it in here.--Schmeater (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment While "Batman Reborn" probably doesn't refer to a story arc with a beginning, middle and end, it is a large scale event taking place in the fictional continuity. I think it's necessary to have an article with this title to inform on the effects on the comics: the series that have been cancelled, the series that have been initiated, and the effects on the characters. The event has seen the shifting of aliases and the introduction of new villains, new versions of the Batcave and Batmobile, new public attitude towards Batman, and an asylum-less Gotham amongst other significant changes. I think this information, as well as a basic summary of the event would be helpful. ArtistScientist (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be cite in secondary sources to support that? Aside from fan spec and forum chatter?

The best I can see, and it isn't a secondary source, is "DC Comics put a trade dress banner on various issues for X months after the last issue of Batman: Battle for the Cowl shipped. These issues included: <add bullt point list of just the titles and issue numbers>". Which pretty much is what should be in the Aftermath section of BftC. - J Greb (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to Batman: Battle for the Cowl#Preparation and aftermath, this seems to have emerged from a confusion between the Batman and Robin storyline (which is not especially notable in itself) and the trade dress (which merely marks those titles launched or relaunched following Battle for the Cowl). There has been no evidence provided that shows DC have some broader plan for this and nothing to show that it even exists as described in the article (which suggests it is a storyline which crosses over with all the other Batman Family titles). See discussion at Talk:Batman: Reborn. So in summary, it doesn't exist as described and refocusing it on one of the other actual existing definitions would lead to an article lacking notability. So it should be merged to Battle for the Cowl, which already deals with all this information. (Emperor (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

In case you guy's havn't noticed if this were an actual story arc IGN would have a page about it. --Schmeater (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, little more than a plot-only description. See WP:NOT#PLOT. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Preparation for flow cytometry

Preparation for flow cytometry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Preparation for flow cytometry" – news · books · scholar · images)

I don't really know what to say about this article except that it's an utterly explicit violation of WP:NOTHOW that doesn't even seem to follow the sole source cited. That there are those, including the article's author, who disagree with the policy can be seen by reading Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Say yes to how-to guides; but it's policy nonetheless. Deor (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a well-written article, but it is very much a how-to article, which is against policy. Sorry. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So what if I were to spend some time transforming the article into a more objective, more encyclopedic, and less how-to-ish entry? Would that work? Aelindor (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it does not belong in an encylopaedia. What you should do with this, since you clearly spent a lot of time and effort on it, is look for a home for it in Wikibooks. -Kieran (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Violates WP:NOTHOW and an appropriate article on flow cytometry already exists, so I don't see how this could be cleaned up without duplicating information in the existing article. Amazinglarry (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant policy violation. Abductive (reasoning) 03:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per current policy, not appropriate  Chzz  ►  04:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. -Kieran (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

David Slijper

David Slijper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "David Slijper" – news · books · scholar · images)

There is no claim of notability for this photographer. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - the only non-trivial mention is a single paragraph in the New York Times, which has insufficient depth to show notability. Kevin (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Kevin  Chzz  ►  04:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - In addition to the NY Times, I found [4], and [5] which hint at possible notability. But without anything more substantial, this isn't enough to establish notability. - Whpq (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, 14 year old soccer player, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Bidemi j Afolabi

Bidemi j Afolabi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Bidemi j Afolabi" – news · books · scholar · images)

Autobiographical, non-notable footballer Scythre^Talk_Contribs 21:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tom Moody (artist)

Tom Moody (artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Tom Moody (artist)" – news · books · scholar · images)

I have added the deletion tag because I believe the artist is non notable and that the article has a strong ring of promotion. V. Joe (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed nomination page. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @920  ·  21:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It might be self-promotional, and perhaps a bad article (I haven't looked yet) - but I can tell you I'm pretty sure he's a notable enough NY new media guy. I'll find more info if possible. More soon. Deadchildstar (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep - his own website here [6] has 100% verifiable links/pdfs to coverage in Art in America, New York Times, interviewed (by Cory Arcangel) on Rhizome_(art) (one of the top new media art organizations, affiliated with the New Museum in nyc), various local newsprint press across the US. Can probably find more if I hunt around. The article creator isn't him, as that user name belongs to another new media artist - likely a friend/colleage. I'm in Canada, and I've heard of Tom Moody (I read his blog), but I'm a new media person. Deadchildstar (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, 25 Ghits. Does not have enough third party coverage, and the article is awash with redlinks. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Deadchildstar, & that link. Digital artists are hard to assess, but he seems notable. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, I love his blog, but I tried my hand at a neutral re-write of the article with inline citations. Let me know what you think. Deadchildstar (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Digital artist, video artist, seems viable, the article needs work...Modernist (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Deadchildstar. The press clippings at Tom Moody's website (archived link from WebCite) prove that he passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Justin Kimball

Justin Kimball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Justin Kimball" – news · books · scholar · images)

I declined to speedy this article because it contains a weak claim of notability - that he wrote a charted song. It seems that he was one of four writers on the song. Might squeak by WP:COMPOSER, but I really don't think so. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 19:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: This article should not be deleted. All the information here is valid, and no matter how many persons there may be contributing to a song the people are not here to judge who put more effort in to the song. Afterall, none of us were there during the "compsing/writing" process. Other than just the composing issue that was mentioned, this person has a strong presence in Minnesota, and other various states. His band that he fronts has over 1 million plays on a music site. Doesn't that make them relevant? This person also works with top notch people in the industry and is signed to SONY/ATV and Jodi Marr. So, in closing I don't think that this page should be up for deletion. Anyone, who has this much verifiable information and has a "niche" and a world wide contribution with verifiable resources should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewHall2 (talk • contribs) — MatthewHall2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Unsourced blp. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @904  ·  20:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete unless sources can be found. A few cursory Google searches turn up nothing more than Myspace. Hairhorn (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Hairhorn  Chzz  ►  04:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Irish language. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Irish counties by percentage of people with Irish language ability

List of Irish counties by percentage of people with Irish language ability (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of Irish counties by percentage of people with Irish language ability" – news · books · scholar · images)

If this article is determined not to be listcruft, it would probably be better to merge the information within into Irish language. Tckma (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nominator I agree, this does appear to be purely an unneeded list and it shouldn't remain in its current state. It should be easy to merge to another article, (if significant enough). But if not, it is a clear delete.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge in shorter form to Irish language. I recognize that this is a work in progress, since the map has no labels or key, and the table doesn't actually "rank" anything (County Carlow is #1, we just don't know what it's #1 in). This information can probably be conveyed in the language article without a map of Ireland. Mandsford (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @904  ·  20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Irish Language, which already has a better image map of the distribution of Irish speakers Little Professor (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @921  ·  21:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @921  ·  21:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Irish language, preferably in prose form. The map is far too large - it doesn't fit on my laptop screen. Cnilep (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Gemma Townsend

Gemma Townsend (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Gemma Townsend" – news · books · scholar · images)

non notable local political candidate WuhWuzDat 20:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - the only purpose of this article is as an election notice but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political billboard, and for that reason WP:POLITICIAN expressly provides that being an unelected candidate for political office does not confer notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - subject is a candidate for national, not local, office, but the same applies. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. No reliable 3rd party sources. Not a nationally elected politician and unlikely to achieve this in the near future. Valenciano (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• 'Delete, an election promo, come back when she meets WP:POLITICIAN or the GNG --Saalstin (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG  Chzz  ►  04:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to 07 zgłoś się. The content remains available under the redirect for those who would like to merge. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sławomir Borewicz

Sławomir Borewicz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Sławomir Borewicz" – news · books · scholar · images)

This is a character that doesn't establish any kind of notability. Even if sources do exist, they would better serve the article on the television show. TTN (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to 07 zgłoś się. --EEMIV (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - no assertion of notability. Eusebeus (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per my arguments at Talk:Sławomir Borewicz. pl:Sławomir Borewicz shows that the article can be expanded; in Poland this fictional policeman is as famous as for example Dexter Morgan in modern US. Let's avoid time and place bias. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: In its current state pl:Sławomir Borewicz would also be merged to the main article due to the lack of reliable secondary sources and out of universe content. G.A.S^talk 05:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to the main article, 07 zgłoś się until a split is necessary and reliable secondary sources have been added. There is no reason to have a separate article at this time. G.A.S^talk 05:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to the show for now. Both articles are ridiculously short. I would say delete, but there are some News and Books sources (in Polish). Abductive (reasoning) 19:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to 07 zgłoś się as the best option. I have no prejudice to undoing the redirect when an editor wishes to create a sourced, start-class article about this topic. Cunard (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Eirik Solheim

Eirik Solheim (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Eirik Solheim" – news · books · scholar · images)

Contested prod. Article about a Norwegian professor in medicine. Frim what I can find this person fails WP:PROF. In my search I have not bin able too find reliable secondary sources. Also coi problems. Rettetast (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Top GS cites are 402, 131,80,40... h index = 11. There seem to be plenty of secondary sources. Publication list needs to be removed from article. Keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

I should note that Eirik Solheim is fairly common name in Norway and include profiled Norwegian journalist. A lot of the google hits also relates too Erik Solheim, te current Minister of the Environment o Norway. Rettetast (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this important information. I will leave it to Norwegians to separate the candidates. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Qwfp (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Quite clearly a notable authority in his field. Using Web of Science to eliminate false hits from google Scholar, and to cover the complete time period, , 93 papers are listed. The highest cites are 246, 217, 121, 93 which even in medical science where citation counts are high is very notable work. The most cited paper is apparently an important randomized trial "Autologous chondrocyte implantation compared with microfracture in the knee - A randomized trial " ; The h-index is 23 , higher than with GS because much of his work is before GS started. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked Web of Science myself and the papers with 217 and 121 cites are by Einar Solheim, as are quite a few of the other highly-cited ones, while at least one of the others is by Eivind Solheim. (WoS only uses initials of forenames). All 3 of these E Solheims work in medicine at the University of Bergen. The highest cites by our orthopedic surgeon appear to be 246, 93, 47, 43, on which he's respectively the 6th, 2nd, sole, 8th author. (Going through enough by hand to work out an h-index is too time-consuming for me i'm afraid) Qwfp (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a link to Web of Science with only "correct" orthopedic surgeon Eirik Solheim included. The h-index is 16. The highest cites are 246, 93, 47, 43 and 36.

• Keep in view of the clarification provided by the above findings. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by Orangemike by G11. Cheers, I'^mperator 21:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Vampires: invincible

Vampires: invincible (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Vampires: invincible" – news · books · scholar · images)

Non-notable book vanity published by non-notable author. Article created by book's author. Entry is badly written (misspellings, grammar and punctuation and capitalization errors). Entry provides no significant or notable info, would need significant re-write to be considered encyclopedic. Sean Martin (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Hopefully it can be speedied as spam. Hairhorn (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas James Williams

Thomas James Williams (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Thomas James Williams" – news · books · scholar · images)

non notable assistant camera man WuhWuzDat 19:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas James Williams is one of the biggest cinematographers in the northwest currently working, I'm collecting the articles now Modmaciek (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, imdb only gives him 3 cinematography credits, all from 2009. He's mostly done assistant camera work. I don't know whether that makes him notable or not. But the Northwest is not exactly a haven of cinematographers...Hairhorn (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @922  ·  21:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero awards and only one of the three cinematography credits is for a film with a reasonable number of IMDb votes (and a very low rating). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources to indicate notability. His work has been primarily as an assistant cameraman unti very recently, so this isn't surprising. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I could find no sources on Google News Archive to verify the information in the article. Furthermore, the external links at the bottom of this article have very little to do with the subject; instead, they are more relevant to the movies where he has been an assistant camerman. Cunard (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (X! · talk)  · @923  ·  21:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Vampires: Hiding

Vampires: Hiding (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Vampires: Hiding" – news · books · scholar · images)

Entry is for non-notable book vanity published by non-notable author. Entry is uninformative and badly written, provides no significant or useful info. Sean Martin (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 13:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ed Spear

Ed Spear (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Ed Spear" – news · books · scholar · images)

Not notable; an actor with only one role. The one film he's in appears to be notable, but one role does not confer notability, particularly when a search for press coverage on Ed Spear turns up nothing but Facebook, imdb, Blogger, etc. Tagged for notability, but tag removed by IP. Hairhorn (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @923  ·  21:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with the nominator. The one film does not allow Ed to meet WP:ENT, and climbing back up the ladder, he is unable to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps in the future... but not at this time. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Go ahead and delete it asap. I created the page and I agree there is nothing notable yet. infortunatus —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

  Tagged for speedy deletion by author request--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 13:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (16-bit)#Prototype versions. Cirt (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sonic 2 Beta

Sonic 2 Beta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Sonic 2 Beta" – news · books · scholar · images)

This is just a list of levels, which is pure game guide material. The actual content is already covered in Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (16-bit)#Prototype versions, so there is no need for this to exist. TTN (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I am also nominating the the other similar version for the same reasons:

Sonic 2 Alpha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Merge relevant information into the Sonic 2 article, then redirect. I thought these were deleted a while ago. - MK (^t/_c) 21:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge into Sonic 2 article, then redirect. As MK said --YukiMuonMadobeNite (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @923  ·  21:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (G4) Sonic 2 Beta as recreation of deleted material. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Wai's Sonic 2 Beta. MuZemike 23:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That article was about a website, not the prototype, from the summary on the Afd; did it mostly contain the same material? Either way, this page existed as a redirect before the original research was added and before that Afd, so I think it should be reverted to a redirect. - MK (^t/_c) 12:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Sonic 2 Alpha. It's nothing but original research (sorry, I didn't realize there were two up for deletion here). MuZemike 00:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Both, Beta especially as a repost. Abductive (reasoning) 19:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect Both to Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (16-bit)#Prototype versions, no need for deletion. SNS (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete both Recreation of previously deleted article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Wai's Sonic 2 Beta magnius (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

According to that AFD it was for an non-notiable website and this is about an earlly build of the Sonic 2 video game. Do you have any evidence that the website content has anything to do with this beta? If not there is no evidence that this is even related let alone a repost.--70.24.177.138 (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Protected redirect both articles to Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (16-bit)#Prototype versions as plausible search terms. I call for a protected redirect because of the edit wars that have occurred on this page. Cunard (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

North Stand Chat

North Stand Chat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "North Stand Chat" – news · books · scholar · images)

Non-notable fan forum. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @923  ·  21:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Known as one of the most popular and used message boards for fans not only of Brighton & Hove Albion but other clubs. A quick search on the internet also backs this up: [7] RM-Taylor (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep is an incorrect request. Keep would be acceptable. But 18th most used board doesn't necessary make a strong claim of notability. Plus, not only are your claims of notability not in the article, there is no proof that the link you provided is a reliable source. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:WEB - Only coverage I can find just mentions the website in passing. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Cybercobra and WTWAG; there are a few reliable sources that mention it, but they are mentioned in passing. tedder (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable fan forum, no reason to keep. GiantSnowman 13:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete but please move any noteworthy information into the supporters section of the article.Cptnono (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete this is just a fan forum. There are many top forums such as Neoseeker for example that don't have a Wikipedia page and don't need one. Spiderone (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Huth

Ronald Huth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Ronald Huth" – news · books · scholar · images)

Ronald Huth is NOT a professional footballer yet, fails WP:athlete. He does not plays any professional games Matthew_hk tc 19:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per criterion G4 as it has already been deleted via a deletion discussion in the past. – PeeJay 19:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G4 - nothing has changed in this player's career since the last deletion. GiantSnowman 20:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think this will qualify under G4, as the current article is a fair bit different to the deleted versions (one prod, one afd). Camw (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - seeing as he is not eligible for a speedy, I still feel the article should be deleted as the player fails WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't played in a fully-pro league or comp yet) as well as WP:GNG (due to a lack of in depth, untrivial sources about him). GiantSnowman 08:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment He is not played in this year Italian Cup[8]. Matthew_hk tc 20:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep When a footballer signs a contract (after completing his way through the youth divisions) he becomes a professional footballer (he is paid to work as that). The fact that he did not yet played in the first team does not deny that he is professional. Despite not playing for his club he was champion with the reserve team and was one of Paraguay's top players in the 2009 South American Youth Championship (where they came 2nd, a historical achievement for the country's football). Anyway I saved the article in a notepad so that if it is deleted now I could re-create it if and when he becomes relevant. (I'm not a native English speaker so I apologize for any linguistic roughness). Greets. --Fache (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep G4 doesn't apply here & I have already declined that. The deleted article has a 1 sentence unsourced stub and the current article has made a good faith attempt to fix that. The subject of this article passes the GNG and so is notable even if he hasn't yet played a fully pro game. A news search indicates dozens of sources about this player, including several Spanish language sources specifically about him (as opposed to a game he played in.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, recreate if/when he plays a competitive football game. --Angelo (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I doubt he's even the most notable person in his household. Spiderone (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete At present fails WP:ATHLETE until he plays for current club Steve-Ho (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: as usual for these types of article all the !votes are focusing on him (apparently) failing ATHLETE. As such, I would like to remind everyone that failing ATHLETE is not a reason for exlusion; he must also fail the GNG to be excluded which he does not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'd be interested to for you to tell me how he passes WP:GNG, which states someone has to receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Of the three sources on the page, one is a player profile (not significant), one if a piece about him signing for Liverpool (which is not significant either, as WP:NTEMP states that "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article" (my emphasis)), while the third is about him leaving Liverpool on loan, and is published by Liverpool, so it certainly isn't independent, and its significance is up for debate! GiantSnowman 14:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes I am well aware of your belief that any coverage related to his sports accomplishments can't be considered significant. It is pointless for me to try and reply to this, because every article about him playing sports will be deemed insignificant because it is about sports. This basically means that no athlete can ever be notable (pro or amateur) because of course all coverage about them is related to their sporting accomplishments. If we didn't have the ATH "exemption" we'd have almost zero athletes on Wikipedia using this definition of "significant coverage". --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• There just isn't enough independent coverage and it's all centred around one event which isn't even hugely significant. Spiderone (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thaddeus, I'm not someone who thinks that any coverage related to sports is insignificant AT ALL. However, the sources provided for this player are highly insignificant, as I have shown. GiantSnowman 16:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I do not understand why the player's profile is not relevant. The first source [9] is a profile written by a prestigious football webpage (goal.com) about him after being considered one of the best players in the South American Youth Championship. Another source [10] is a Paraguayan web that talks abouth his achievement as reserve champion with Liverpool. I don't understand how that could be irrelevant also. Finally the Liverpool source could be easily changed with an independent one which states his transfer to Vicenza. --Fache (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment He has played professional football games, both for Paraguay U-20 and Liverpool reserves. I mean he received payment for each and every one of those games, which by definition makes him a professional athlete. So please do not insist with the fact that he has not competed professionally yet. In another order of business, I don't know if it is a good argument but he has 11.300 + 28.800 hits in google. --Fache (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Huth being a professional is not in question. However, he has not competed at a "fully professional" level (my emphasis), as WP:ATHLETE dictates. GiantSnowman 16:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not understanding, perhaps I'm a little slow. Is there a degree of professionality? when you play a game and you are paid for that you have competed on a fully professional level. --Fache (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Fully professional" means that every single player competing in a legue or competition is a full-time professional. GiantSnowman 17:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well every single player in the South American Youth Championship are full-time professional (though young) footballers (most of them already have an article in Wikipedia). You can found all of them here. I can't say the same for the reserve teams league as I am not well informed. --Fache (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Even though the players in an international youth tournament may very well be professional past consensus is that appearances at youth level do not confer notability. GiantSnowman 17:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused. The problem at first was that he had not competed professionally (which is an objective standard that has been proved that Huth satisfies). Now the problem is that the games he has played are not notable enough (which is an entirely subjective standard). Needless to say I believe we should try to avoid the subjective standard and use the objective one. --Fache (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:BIO per this Google News Archive search provided by ThaddeusB. Ronald Huth passes WP:GNG/WP:BIO; see these two articles from Diario ABC Color, as well as this article from Goal.com. All three of these articles provide significant coverage of this individual. Whether or not Ronald Huth passes WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant to whether this article should be kept; since he passes WP:BIO, this article should remain on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• A quick look through the Google News Archive simply consists of match reports and other trivial news pieces, which as mentioned before doesn't count as "significant" per WP:NTEMP. GiantSnowman 17:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• What king of coverage would you consider "significant"? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Things more than just "John Doe moved from Wikipedia FC to Wikipedia United" or "John Doe played a game for the reserve team of Wikipedia United." GiantSnowman 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• So which category would the interview & in depth profile linked to by Cunard fall into? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not into any of those. The interview could perhaps be significant enough, but the profile not so. Many reliable websites produce profiles for a horde of non-notable players - admittedly in less detail than Huth's Goal profile - and I wouldn't use them to prove notability for players. GiantSnowman 18:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Certain a stats only or basic info only profile wouldn't confer notability, but I personally think an in depth one should. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Lol, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this! :) GiantSnowman 18:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: The Spanish Wikipedia's article appears to be fairly extensive (albeit unreferenced) and might help in expanding this article if anyone is so interested. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already checked, it is a copyright violation from the Goal.com profile. --Fache (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That is more than likely why "might help in expanding this article" was mentioned. Plug in some keywords from the article and you will find coverage.

Every important fact mentioned in the Goal.com profile has already been added, thats why the Spanish Wikipedia article has no practical use. --Fache (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete but keep an eye out Might meet coverage guidelines but not WP:ATHLETE. This article will be a great base to use when (not a crystal ball but assuming) the player does play at a higher level. Thanks to Pitufin16 for creating it and we'll hopefully see this article again as the player's career progresses.Cptnono (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per G12, copyright violation from http://www.alionthego.com/blogs/7_Questions/page/2 JForget 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Note this article was vandalized, it was initially from a hockey player but was completely replaced by the copyright violation from a tottally unrelated subject. However, it was only redirect to Dede Klein before the change, so it will be reverted to the redirect version --JForget 21:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lloyd Klein

Lloyd Klein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Lloyd Klein" – news · books · scholar · images)

autobio vanity spam WuhWuzDat 19:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

okay honestly everyone needs to slow down i just put this up yesterday and was just told about the problem YESTERDAY. i am working on fixing it RIGHT NOW. so i would appreciate it if you wouldn't delete it while I am in the process of fixing it. THANKS!!!!! Johnarguelles (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)— Johnarguelles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Question, how could you have been told about this AfD yesterday, when it was only posted about 22 minutes ago? WuhWuzDat 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @924  ·  21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - the article looked highly promotional to me. On further investigation, it is copied from a couple of sources (see article talk). As of this note, the article has been listed as a suspected copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Sovereign Citizen Movement. JForget 21:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign Citizens

Sovereign Citizens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Sovereign Citizens" – news · books · scholar · images)

The article, as written, is an utter work of fiction. The "founding fathers" never used this term, and there is absolutely no evidence that such an interpretation was intended other than the type of original research and synthesis embodied in this article. bd2412 T 18:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect The actual term used by Benjamin Franklin and others was Popular sovereignty. This article looks like it is well sourced, but the sources don't actually seem to ever use this term, making it a synthesis violation and original research. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• STRONG Keep MERGE. Many early Constitutional scholars (pre-Civil War), such as Rawle, recognized that the US is a true Republic, where sovereignty is held by the citizens. See: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships23.html

Here is a brief quote from "A View of the Constitution of the United States" by Rawle:

In a republic the sovereignty resides essentially, and entirely in the people. Those only who compose the people, and partake of this sovereignty are citizens, they alone can elect, and are capable of being elected to public offices, and of course they alone can exercise authority within the community: they possess an unqualified right to the enjoyment of property and personal immunity, they are bound to adhere to it in peace, to defend it in war, and to postpone the interests of all other countries to the affection which they ought to bear for their own.

The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."

To use the words "Sovereign" and "citizen" contiguously is NOT synthesis! We could just as well use "Sovereign People" for the article title, but that wouldn't be synthesis, either! Trasel (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• So, do you have a source that specifically refers to this term? As I noted above, we already have an article on Popular sovereignty. Your own observations and opinions are not sufficient basis for an article, as I'm sure you are aware. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. First off, Rawle was not a "founding father" but a later interpreter, who himself never wrote of this concept of "Sovereign Citizens" that has recently been dreamt up. There are two ways to interpret the statement "sovereignty resides essentially, and entirely in the people" - that each individual is in some way an ungovernable "sovereign" (i.e. anarchy), or that the people collectively are the sovereign (i.e. democracy). No source suggests that the founders (or Rawle, or anybody else up to fairly recent times) intended the former. Even Rawle, in referring to citizenship in commonwealths, can not be read to support anarchist notions of the individual citizen being a lone, lawless sovereign. bd2412 T 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that Beeblebrox has missed my point. By that line of reasoning, if our founding fathers had written of "the rights of homosexual people", but never used the two words "homosexual rights" contiguously, then you would call it "synthesis" to have a wiki article titled "Homosexual Rights." Trasel (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be synthesis to pretend that the founding fathers had such a thing in mind, as this article makes believe. bd2412 T 22:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. None of the references look valid. Some link to back to Wikipedia, some link to apparent non-WP:RS sources like radicalacademy.com and freedomcircle.com, and none actually use the term "sovereign citizens". Google Books shows that the expression is popular among antigovernment extremists^[11][12][13], but that's not what the article is about. — Rankiri (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Sovereign Citizen Movement as per Smerdis of Tlön and Metropolitan90's arguments below. — Rankiri (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• MERGE.:I've just reviewed the Popular Sovereignty article. And I saw quotes like this one:

Benjamin Franklin expressed the concept when he wrote, "In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns."

.. which leads me to conclude that it is a much better researched, written and referenced article and essentially renders this more recent wiki page (in question) redundant. So I'm revising my vote. I can now see that it is best that Sovereign Citizens be MERGED with the Popular Sovereignty article, initially via a redirect, and later perhaps importing any portions of it that are apropos and properly referenced. Trasel (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If by "merge" you mean to dump into popular sovereignty the OR synthesis that falsely suggests that the Constitution or its framers express some notion of individuals not being beholden to the law, then there's nothing mergeable. bd2412 T 22:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you failed to read what I wrote, namely: "...and later perhaps importing any portions of it that are apropos and properly referenced.", then I can only take that as a misplaced and possibly antagonistic reproof. Please be civil. Trasel (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well then let me be clear. There is nothing "properly referenced" here, and no reliable source will be found asserting of this interpretation to the framers or founding fathers or however they may be delineated, because it is simply untrue. bd2412 T 23:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This seems to fall somewhere between duplication of popular sovereignty and a derivative of Sovereign Citizen Movement. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sovereign Citizen Movement, which is probably what most people looking for the topic "Sovereign Citizens" are thinking of. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Original research not supported by the sources. Edward321 (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Sovereign Citizen Movement. The current text is an opinionated hoax. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Brigid Maher

Brigid Maher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Brigid Maher" – news · books · scholar · images)

autobio puff/vanity article, only references are to IMDB, or to the subjects own websites WuhWuzDat 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Autobiography, and as such not impartial or reliable; there appears to be a significant amount of exaggeration going on here - it talks the subject being given an award, but it appears this was actually a scholarship; it talks about the films being award-winning but there is no evidence of this. Indeed, there is no evidence of any notability at all. I42 (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Autobio spam... No sign of meeting the notability requirements for academics. I know they're not as fussy in fine arts, but it's puffery to call yourself a "nationally rising professor" when you don't even have a doctorate. Hairhorn (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Another assistant professor whose entry was created too early. Talking points, such as "nationally rising professor", are double-speak for "not notable". I think eventually WP must develop some formalized process for dealing with the raft of assistant prof pages that are created, most of whose subjects are not yet notable. Given the visibility of WP, there is now strong pressure at the asst level to have such pages because their existence reflects favorably on the candidate at the tenure/promotion milestone. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
• Delete as can find no evidence that subject meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:ARTIST from Google News, Books & Scholar. Of her more main works, I could only find a single review of her one feature film Adrift in the Heartland (and I'm not sure how reliable that source is), and no reviews of her longer documentaries Veiled Voices or The King, the Lawyer and the Cheese. --Qwfp (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio: On the article's talk page I noted that the lede para is almost an exact copy of the official profile on the AU web site. The balance of the article looks like it was copied and pasted from another source. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral MichaelQSchmidt's edits have removed my concern over the article being a copy from the AU profile. Well done! --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Srong Keep as any issues with the article's format or content can be dealt with through normal editing. It would seem that the subject, even though seen as failing WP:ACADEMIC or WP:ARTIST, could pass the General Notability Guidelines [14]. If enough independent reliable secondary sources discuss a topic in enough depth to put together a decent article, we'd better have a good reason to not have an article on that topic. In other words, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:BIO explicitly includes and defers to the WP:GNG. In my opinion, the subject has enough significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, so that the article should be kept... cleaned up certainly... but kept. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is coming up a lot lately: the standards for academics are really slipping. The established criteria are fine, but to me it seems like far too many people are slipping under the wire. Hairhorn (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Pardon me, but I am ignoring the secondary inclusion criteria of ACADEMIC and ARTIST and am curently involved in cleaning up and sourcing the article to meet the governing criteria of WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article will be much slimmer when I am finished. There is much to do all by myself. Please revisit it in a few hours. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not maligning your arguments, I just see a lot of clearly non-notable academics slipping under the wire lately. There are more and more entries for assistant profs at low-presitige schools. Hairhorn (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. I look at it this way... no matter the BLP, it either passes WP:GNG or it passes the sub-criteria or it passes both. Failing one does not mean automatic fail of the other. And now I am back to it, as there is a lot of fluff in it that needs trimming.... MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice (struck the "keep" up above) and perhaps userfy the new version to the original author (with our thanks and a caution about COI). I went through the article, cleaned it up, improved the format and style, addressed the hyperbole and fluff, and found some sources... but yes... I can admit defeat. The article is much prettier... and perhaps in the future this individual will receive more coverage... but she does not quite meet WP:GNG, does not (yet) meet WP:BIO... fails WP:ACADEMIC and barely tickles WP:ARTIST. Thanks all for your patience, but this time I was Don Quixote. It was good practice. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

2007 Australian network television schedule

2007 Australian network television schedule (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "2007 Australian network television schedule" – news · books · scholar · images)

The prod was contested in December 2008. Encyclopedias are not for television schedules. Joe Chill (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The Aussie TV schedule is from the past, and is not presented here as a substitute for TV Guide. It documents a highly notable aspect of television entertainment in a country. I expect that, as in my country, there was significant coverage of the network TV schedule in multiple reliable and independent sources there, satisfying notability. A schedule provides information not apparent in articles about the individual shows, such as what programming they were on against and what shows provided their lead-in to help deliver an audience. In fact, encyclopedias ARE for network television schedules, as has been shown by previous AFDs which have kept similar articles. Edison (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete: I agree encyclopedias are not for television schedules. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Edison is absolutely right! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep Make that two agreements with Edison. Although some people can see no value in knowing what radio or television show was popular on a particular day of the week in the past, it's as much a part of a nation's culture as anything else. There's no denying that it's encyclopedic-- both of the reference works I've seen that attempted to list all television programs (Tim Marsh wrote one, the other was called Total Television) included, not surprisingly, an appendix where the schedules were listed. Mandsford (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Those would be called directories. Info about notable TV shows could be added to television, television series, or the show article itself. Joe Chill (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Response or exceptions to a definition of directories. WP:NOTDIR, section 4, words 32 through 58, "mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable." Mandsford (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You haven't explained how every TV schedule in every year in every country is historically significant. Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nor do I need to. When WP:N includes the phrase "such as the annual US TV schedules" along with the descriptor "historically significant", my personal opinion doesn't matter. Mandsford (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Edison and my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States network television schedules, see no reason why Australia would be any different. BryanG (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: If television schedules are so important why not create television schedule instead of making a directory of old TV Guides? Even an old TV Guide has no historical significance. What you guys are saying is that old TV Guides from 2008 and below are historically significant without explaining how it is. Whenever anyone posts links, it always shows notability for television and not the individual old TV Guides. Joe Chill (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Husband: I'm going to throw away last years TV Guide.
• Wife: Don't! Copy it onto Wikipedia!
• Husband: Why?
• Wife: The TV Guide is historically significant now that it's a year after.
• Husband: Okay. I'll type this up on Wikipedia.
• Wife: Get my mom's old TV Guides from the attic and type those up also! Joe Chill (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per arguments I and others gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States network television schedules. Zagalejo^^^ 00:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOTDIR . Niteshift36 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. - No progress is no grounds for deletion (non-admin closure) Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Iffat Rahim

Iffat Rahim (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Iffat Rahim" – news · books · scholar · images)

Article doesn't satisfy WP:ENT. No references. No meaningful wikilinks. No meaningful external links. Previously nominated in 2006. No significant progress in 3.5 years. Bazj (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep article seems to be a poster child for WP:NOEFFORT... but that should encourage us to continue encouraging others (even if fruitlessly) to improve it. With respects, that no ones working on it is not usually a valid reason to delete if sources exist that might show notability, such as Newsline, or Daily Times. Notability might be shown by meeting WP:ENT or WP:GNG, or both. Not meeting one does not dismiss the other. I did find that under her married name of Iffat Omar, she is involved in the Pakistani television series Chalte Chalte,[15] but I am myself having trouble finding additional English language sourcing for a Pakistani model/actress. WP:CSB would encourage us to encourage efforts to improve, not toss the article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  I tagged it for {{rescue}}. Hopefully something can be done. If not ... Plastikspork (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just made a specific request at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics for help in sourcing. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep - it is not surprising that an Indian model of the 80s-90s doesn't have much English language coverage available online. Presumably she is written up in various Indian newspapers and such, so I am inclined to keep. Weak keep because the sources online are rather weak: here is a profile from a source of questionable quality; here is an interview form a decent looking source; here is another interview; and an obviously not reliable indepth Geocities profile. Overall, enough to establish she is very likely notable, but not quite enough to absolutely prove it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - She is well Know actress here, worked in many a comedy dramas including some of the famous one such as "family front" etc. I will edit it in a next two to three days.--yousaf465' 04:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - see no deadline also as noted previously systemic bias needs to be avoided. Pahari Sahib 08:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Did the nominator check the last discussion, and check the link provided there? [16] Did you not think that proved she was notable? And more news stories are available, mentioning here. Some should probably be added to the article. Dream Focus 11:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The nominator thinks it's more customary to establish notability in the article, not in AfDs. The nominator is glad you've found some references, notes your "Some should probably be added to the article" and hopes you'll make good on your suggestion. If all the good intentions raised here are acted upon we could be looking at a worthwhile article, and this AfD could turn out to be the best thing that's happened to this article.
  In reply to hints of systemic bias, I have no ethnic-cultural bias, just a bias against Z-list celebrity puff-pieces posing as encyclopedic articles.
  When I tried to add links, none of the movies or videos resulted in a blue link to the movie/video in question. The article's an orphan, except for deletion discussions and attempts to corral keep votes. Even with references added there's still more work required.Bazj (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Conscious (EP)

Conscious (EP) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Conscious (EP)" – news · books · scholar · images)

• Query in my talk page by a user: "this page has been deleted before.".
  • At 05:17, 30 December 2006 this page was deleted after AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conscious (EP): verdict was "Delete and redirect to dredg".
  • At about 06:13, 15 June 2009 I obeyed a request to histmerge Conscious EP to Conscious (EP). Both pages had talk pages, so I moved Talk:Conscious EP to Talk:Conscious (EP)/Archive 1, to keep both talk pages with the new combined article but keep each talk page with its history. (I have now text-merged Talk:Conscious (EP)/Archive 1 into Talk:Conscious (EP).)
• Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - the article was deleted before, no new reasons for its existence have been produced. Vizjim (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No RS, everything on google searches are torrents. ^TheWeak_Willed 17:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No new reasons to keep this article Warrior4321 04:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Five Finger Death Punch. JForget 21:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Spencer (drummer)

Jeremy Spencer (drummer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Jeremy Spencer (drummer)" – news · books · scholar · images)

nn musician. ^TheWeak_Willed 18:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Five Finger Death Punch; not notable enough for a separate article, but a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect per Dylanfromthenorth. Rlendog (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Veiled voices

Veiled voices (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Veiled voices" – news · books · scholar · images)

Non-notable film; article placed by the filmmaker. I42 (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, No assertion of notability whatsoever, heavy COI/Vanity factor. WuhWuzDat 19:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - searches are complicated because the title is a much-used phrase - there are also works called "Veiled Voices of Afghanistan", "Veiled Voices: Women's Autobiographies in Iran", "Veiled Voices: Fanon, Djebar, Cixous, Derrida", "Confessions with Veiled Voices" etc... but I do not believe this meets the standard of Notability (films). JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete without prejudice. A search for the film which included the director's name found me several sources, but none of them quite enough to satisfy WP:GNG. This may change now that the film has distribution. I improved the article and sourced it, but I do not believe it is enough. I do however believe that as this film is distributed, more coverage will become available. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn and no delete !votes. (NAC) -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

1994 Supercopa de España

1994 Supercopa de España (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "1994 Supercopa de España" – news · books · scholar · images)

references displayed on the page are for a 1994 tournament, while the statistics of this page are for a 2006 tournament. I only found hits on random people involved with this tournament, not the tournament itself.keystoneridin! (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow - which statistics are for 2006? Eldumpo (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, as the RSSSF link checks out, the statistics appear to be correct. I'm not sure what the basis is for the nomination given that. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - a notable tournament. The Supercopa de España looks to be the Spanish equivalent of the FA Community Shield i.e. winner of the league vs. winner of the cup. GiantSnowman 09:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - content of the article is clearly about the 1994 competition, and the one reference to 2006 in the first line was a typo, which I have corrected. And a tournament between two of the top teams in one of Europe's strongest football leagues is clearly notable and would have received bucketloads of coverage -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one would suspect the creator copied & pasted the 2006 article across for uniformity, but he must've missed that date when altering it. GiantSnowman 09:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per GiantSnowman and ChrisTheDude. The match is a official competition of the Spanish Football Federation. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Just correct the details and everything should be fine! – PeeJay 12:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominator Withdrawn- Stats were fixed to show that the page was just written with a minor confusion.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. The debate has now moved to a more appropriate place, RFC. In order to keep the debate centralized, I am closing this AfD as No consensus and kindly ask everyone interested to participate at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 30#Per station television schedules. Thank you. Tone 12:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

List of United States network television schedules

List of United States network television schedules (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of United States network television schedules" – news · books · scholar · images)

This is an AfD not just for List of United States network television schedules but also for all the schedules under it. There are about 90 of them, so apologies for not listing them all.

This is a classic case of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is no use for the schedule of every US TV network since 1946, and the one vaguely valid argument (a way of navigating) falls flat on its face. Who goes "I want to see a list of 1950s television programs. I know! I'll look for a list of 1950s television programs on between 3 and 3:30pm on a certain US network in 1952"? This is of no use as an encyclopaedic article, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of encyclopaedic information. Ironholds (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete how did this survive so long?!?! Jeni ^(talk) 16:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete everything: Who came up with the idea of putting television schedules in an encyclopedia? Joe Chill (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete article only, but keep the schedules in the boxes below and the articles that they link to. -Andrew (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Why keep a bunch of television schedules in an encylopedia? Joe Chill (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The nomination and the above deletion arguments amount to "I Don't Like It!" and fail as reasons to delete the article. WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a directory," but also says ".. mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable." Please go and change WP:NOT, if a consensus there favors your views, rather than just coming here and ignoring it or misrepresenting what it says. The U.S. network TV schedules for every year included in this list has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Books have been written about them, such as "The complete directory of TV prime time network TV shows 1946-present," by Brooks and Marsh, Ballantine Books, 1979, and more recent similar works. The network TV schedules have been the subject each year of articles in major national newspapers and magazines. Thus it satisfies WP:Notability. A master list such as this is a useful and encyclopedic organizing tool which provides access to the individual lists. People study the history of TV, even if some of the delete voters here cannot imagine wanting information about historical programming. It should be noted that network TV schedules have been nominated for deletion in the past and kept or kept due to no consensus for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_US_network_TV_schedule_articles(no consensus, default to Keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule (Keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1985-86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (Keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983-84 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (Keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 United States network television schedule (Keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1982-83 United States network television schedule (Keep). Edison (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly, coverage in directories and TV Guides. Joe Chill (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep These articles are verifiable, and useful. A TV historian could very well be interested in which shows a specific program was competing against in its time slot. Zagalejo^^^ 19:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  A "TV historian"? Are we joking now? Made-up titles and professions aren't the best way to save something. Ironholds (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  Are you being sarcastic? Universities do have departments of television study: [17] Zagalejo^^^ 19:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  And since when have academics relied on Wikipedia? Please see WP:INDISCRIMINATE - the fact that someone, somewhere finds it useful doesn't mean it should be kept. Ironholds (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  As others have said, TV schedules are explicitly listed as possible exceptions to WP:NOT. And if we're not trying to create a useful reference work, the what are we here for? Zagalejo^^^ 02:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  We do not delete articles just because specialists in a field do not rely on them, or we would have no articles on science or history. We look at notability and verifiability. Edison (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Edison makes sense. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What Edison pretty much said is that it has coverage in directories and appears as TV Guides that are in magazines and newspapers. Joe Chill (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  Comment People who write books like "Television's greatest year: 1954" by R.D. Heldenfels (New York:Continuum, 1994), or "http://books.google.com/books?id=1VuZNLqfaWMC&pg=PA1&dq=%22television+history%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false Television, history, and American culture: feminist critical essays," By Mary Beth Haralovich and Lauren Rabinovitz, Duke University Press, 1999, are acting as "television historians." Television history is covered in college courses on mass media and broadcasting. There are several chapters on the history of network programming in "Teaching TV production in a digital world: integrating media literacy"by Robert Kenny, 2004. See also Re-viewing television history: critical issues in television historiography by Helen Wheatley, 2008. See The television history book by Michele Hilmes & Jason Jacobs, 2003, which says "Over the last half a century, the developments in television broadcasting have exerted an immeasurable influence over our social, cultural and economic practices." Gee, Joe, that sounds like more than "directories and TV Guides." Edison (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Geez, Ed, do the schedules themselves have significant coverage? All that you managed to show is that television is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually I was refuting the claim that TV history is not notable. As for the schedule, the shows are not presented randomly; there is considerable strategy in the lineup. Here is coverage of the schedules in particular, in one reliable reference, The Columbia History of American Television, by Gary R. Edgerton, Columbia University Press, 2009, pages 99, 159, 163,165, 168, 174, 175, 177, 178, 189, 190, 192, 193, 201, 244, 305, 311, 326, 327, 356. A physical library will have more references to TV schedules not behind paywall or in snippet view. Commentators at major papers also have discussed each year's prime time schedule at length. Edison (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
      • The first link shows the notability of television. Of course they described it at length in major papers because it is to describe what will be on TV later on. Joe Chill (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I never said that television history was non-notable. Television history is in the televison article. Joe Chill (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Irnholds, above, scoffed at there being actual scholarship of TV history. You are not the only one arguing for deletion. More coverage of TV network schedules in easily found online sources: Teaching TV production in a digital world: integrating media literacy by Robert Kenny, 2004, pages 231, 232. Edison (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
          • TV production for teenagers? That doesn't relate to this at all. I read what Ironholds said, but I thought that you meant toward me because of the star thingies. Joe Chill (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep per above. The only thing actually being nominated is the "list of lists" so I won't say "keep all" TV schedules are an encyclopedic topic, and both Tim Marsh's book and the book "Total Television", which are A to Z guides of programs seen on television throughout history, include similar tables. This strikes me as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT more than anything. Some of us see a value in knowing what people were watching at a particular time in 1952, as part of reconstructing the culture of a particular time and place. Anyway, "This is an AfD not just for (this article) but also for all the schedules under it" will not work. Inconvenient, perhaps, but the time that it would take to nominate all 90 of them is less than the time it took editors to create all 90 of them. Mandsford (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would we need television schedules to tell about the culture of the United States? Wikipedia already has very detailed articles relating to that. Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep largely per Edison. This is an encyclopedic topic, and there is in fact a great deal of thought and strategy that goes into scheduling decisions, something that media historians absolutely care about (it'd be nice to maybe see discussion of that in the articles, but TIND). And as pointed out above, WP:NOTDIRECTORY explicitly mentions this as a possible exception. And on a procedural note, if the intention here is to delete the entire group of lists, you really do need to tag all 90+ articles... BryanG (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't see the historical significance of this. When I think of a list of TV shows not being a directory, I think of a list of current shows and past shows on one channel. Joe Chill (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: No one has explained how every TV schedule in every year in every country is historically significant. Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If television schedules are so important why not create television schedule instead of making a directory of old TV Guides? Even an old TV Guide has no historical significance. What you guys are saying is that old TV Guides from 2008 and below are historically significant without explaining how it is. Whenever anyone posts links, it always shows notability for television and not the individual old TV Guides. Joe Chill (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Husband: I'm going to throw away last years TV Guide.
• Wife: Don't! Copy it onto Wikipedia!
• Husband: Why?
• Wife: The TV Guide is historically significant now that it's a year after.
• Husband: Okay. I'll type this up on Wikipedia.
• Wife: Get my mom's old TV Guides from the attic and type those up also! Joe Chill (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Per Edison. Bit of a deletion spree, eh Ironholds? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep? All that he did was describe why television is notable. I think that it's funny that people think that all old TV Guides in every year in every country is notable if they are from 2008 and below. No one has explained how each old TV Guide is historically significant. Joe Chill (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment the above vote is invalid, the user obviously hasn't read WP:SK. Jeni ^(talk) 01:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - Invalid because I have a differing view? Come on. We don't pick and choose the !votes around here. The vote stands. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Invalid because no on has explained how these individual television schedules are historically significant. All Edison did was go and on about the history of television that has nothing to do with these articles. Joe Chill (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I find your berating of people who have a differing point of view than yours invalid. The !vote stands, it is not invalid and you can go read WP:AGF and WP:DICK until the cows come home. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Whatever you say, bad faith assuming dick. No one still has explained how every television schedule in every year in every country is historically significant. Can you explain it or not? Joe Chill (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Since you seem to believe that people who are active in AFD and want the article deleted are dicks, I guess that you consider many users as dicks. If I was arguing about keeping the article, you most likely wouldn't call me a dick. Joe Chill (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Oh, personal attack, nice. Anywho, Edison did, you just don't like it. Other have, you just don't like it. So, I am not sure what you want. You have berated everyone who has a differing point of view. You are here !vote pushing (which I am pretty sure is against the rules). Now, go bother someone else before I turn you in for personal attacks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
              • What do you think you did by saying that I was assuming bad faith and pointing me to WP:DICK. That is a personal attack. I said the same thing that you did. Personal attack, nice. Also, I'm not vote stacking because I'm not using a sockpuppet to !vote many times, I only !voted once, and I'm not canvassing. Joe Chill (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
                • Saying "bad faith assuming dick" is a personal attack, saying "go read WP:AGF and WP:DICK" is not a personal attack. Powergate92Talk 03:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
                  • Actually, it is. Neutralhomer automatically jumped to conclusions about me that aren't true. Which is that I'm assuming bad faith and that I am a dick. There is nothing different from what we both said. Maybe I should have made them links. Joe Chill (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
                    • Neutralhomer did not say "your assuming bad faith and that you are a dick" he said "go read WP:AGF and WP:DICK" so that is not a personal attack. Powergate92Talk 03:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
                      • So it's not a personal attack in link form? Saying something about me that isn't true ESPECIALLY in AFD is a personal attack. AFD is about the content and not the editor. So you're actually saying that he never said that I was assuming bad faith and that I am acting like a dick even though he pointed me to those links? Funny. Joe Chill (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
                        • Do you know what I have been doing while you have been rambling on and making a mockery of this AfD? Working on encyclopedic concerns, removing schedules from pages that actually fall under WP:NOT#DIR. Why not remove yourself from this discussion and actually try some actual Wikipedia work instead of endlessly berating people and going on and on and on AND ON about what you think are "invalid" !votes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
                          • Why don't you complain to Jeni who also said that your vote was invalid? Also, thanks for another personal attack. And I know that you wouldn't be saying any personal attacks to me if I was arguing for this article to be kept. 04:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
                            • "Bit of a deletion spree, eh Ironholds?" - yes, I have this horrible habit of nominating unencyclopedic content for deletion. I'm still waiting on that apology, by the way. Ironholds (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Which part of the speedy keep criteria does your !vote fall under? Because I certainly can't see one. This is in no way a candidate for speedy keep. Jeni ^(talk) 10:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: People who are only able to explain how television is historically significant and not how a TV Guide from 2008 and below is historically significant shows that old TV Guides aren't historically significant. I think that creating an article about television schedules and deleting these would make more sense. Joe Chill (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm having trouble parsing your comment, but I'd like to point out that many libraries, including Harvard's, do keep old TV Guides. Zagalejo^^^ 02:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • But they aren't historically significant. So what if libraries have copies? Television schedules are hisorically significant as a topic, but not each individual one from every year in every country. Joe Chill (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Edison. Powergate92Talk 02:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep because he posted links that show that TV is notable? Joe Chill (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a cranky geezer, Joe, I'd like to point out you're coming across as the Wikipedia equivalent of the grumpy old man who comes out on his front porch and yells at the neighborhood kids who step on his lawn. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • Comment Network TV schedules satisfy the general notability guideline WP:N by having significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources as described above. Please do not equate the numerous sources as all being "TV Guide." I believe you are truly more intelligent than that. Edison (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I never said that. I said that the sources that you found shows the notability of television. Joe Chill (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison, but moreso Zagalejo. Moreover, as of this edit, the mentioned 90 articles are not even tagged. I find it unlikely that the main hub page (which is tagged) is a highly traffic'd or highly watched page. JPG-GR (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously useful as source/base material for all sorts of research, which is one of the functions of an encyclopedia. Probably should be renamed to substitute something like "broadcast network" for "network." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for the personal attack above. Joe Chill (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Edison, thanks for calling me and everyone else !voting delete on these AFDs stupid. Joe Chill (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Edison did not say that, nor have I seen anything from anyone here that would be considered a personal attack. If anyone were to take that to WP:ANI, I would say the same in defense of the person accused. Granted, we all feel strongly about whether these pages should stay or go, and perhaps some of the comments another person's reasoning might seem as if they're personal. But I chalk this up more to the inevitability that in a long discussion with many edits, there will sometimes be hard feelings. It will all come down to an administrator's interpretation of policy anyway. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Joe Chill, you are knowingly making the untrue claim that I called someone "stupid." Please desist from making untrue and disruptive claims. Edison (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  You said: "I believe you are truly more intelligent than that." Joe Chill (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  Comment I believe that you can distinguish discussion of a schedule, from mere "TV Guide listings," that you oppose, if you take a look at some of the books cited above, or if you search Google News Archive. You have repeatedly dismissed books about TV history, which have significant discussion of the scheduling decisions, as "TV Guide" listings of what will be on Here is an example of significant coverage of the TV schedule one year as such, showing that there is much more than "TV Guide" program descriptions and schedules: [18]. There are countless more articles about the schedules for a year and the decisions behind them, such as [19]. Edison (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Your sources don't show notability for each individual year, but it shows that television schedules is notable as a topic itself. The source above doesn't show historical significance because all that those articles are for is to let people know what shows have been taken off a channel and what new shows are on a channel. Joe Chill (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• "What shows are on a network" sounds like "the schedule." There is also a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Per station television schedulesof the merits of keeping historical network schedules versus the present schedules of individual stations. There is discussion there relevant to this series of AFD nominations of various TV network schedule articles. Edison (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:IINFO. Some of the keep !votes I've seen here are the most bizzare things I've ever come across. DJ 09:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we try. Mandsford (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And I hate to be WP:WAXy, but do we have List of United Kingdom network television schedules, List of French network television schedules, List of Brazillian network television schedules and so on? No. I'm sure if they were to exist, some of the !keep voters here would be the first to want them out. DJ 23:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with any of those articles, as long as they were verifiable. Please don't accuse people of being ugly Americans without some evidence to back it up. Zagalejo^^^ 00:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean Americans aren't ugly? Jeni ^(talk) 00:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you are thinking about the English. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Some tabulated information is encyclopedic. This could the canonical example. --User:DGG.
• Keep per Edison's reasoning and precedent. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOTDIR . Niteshift36 (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:NOTDIR. The deletion rationale: "a classic case of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly WP:NOTDIRECTORY" defies imagination. It is not only grossly misleading but downright counterfactual as this type of information is specifically mentioned and even wiki-linked in WP:NOTDIRECTORY as acceptable. While I would like to assume good faith my olfactory organ informs me that the nomination does not pass the smell test. Available evidence and logical inference suggest that this nomination could be a disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. The present outcome is pretty obvious: heated discussions, mutual accusations of incivility - divisive stuff that turns Wikipedia into a battleground. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  I have no ulterior or pointy motives in nominating this for deletion. Either provide "Available evidence and logical inference" or withdraw your unwarranted and baseless personal attack. Ironholds (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You must admit it IS strange to nominate for deletion a page included by consensus in a policy which you use against it. Well, strange to the verge of nonsense. The fact that you use that policy means you knew it was an example there, so it IS hard to assume good faith in this case. That or... my motto on my user page ;). --Anime Addict AA (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Which might work, except 1) it doesn't explain why he's accusing me of trying to stir up infighting and 2) why he made exactly the same accusation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday). Ironholds (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete despite the WP:ITSUSEFUL argument (though I hope no historian would rely on it) and the policy statement; this is quite literally directory information and should find another home. JJL (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete As the nominator says, a textbook case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Mangoe (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per many previous debates, per Edison. The programs listed are notable, and these lists are an excellent way of presenting encyclopedic and verifiable information about them. It is not like we are writing obsessive articles about the June 1 1964 issue of TV Guide; we are using many RS's to come up with perfectly encylopedic information about these programs. Wikipedia is not paper. Scholars write about and surely would like to know all the details about the first performances of Aeschylus's or Shakespeare's plays, how they were influenced by contemporaries, etc. Just as we should not use the scarcity of clearly encylopedic data about literature of the remote past for deletion arguments, neither should we use the modern superabundance.John Z (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep If this is a directory every other comprehensive list series is also a directory. Almost anything on list of topics is arguably a directory. I guess this series could use better sourcing, but network scheduling is a very common topic in television history. Star Trek being moved to the "graveyard slot" after barely. ABC scheduling notoriously bad show like Supertrain in the 1970s in a desparate attempt to compete for ratings. High profile shows once being scheduled in Saturday prime-time, a time slot that is now . These are only a few examples that came to mind. 67.187.92.105 (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 13:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean you think that there hasn't been a thorough discussion? Twenty-two people voice their opinion and that's not enough? What are you looking for exactly? Mandsford (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I wanted to close this one as delete but then I saw that there are several AfDs open on the same topic at the moment so a solution for all should be found. Therefore, I prefer relisting the debate since some valuable input could still be given. Otherwise, it can be closed as a non-consensus but this is not really a solution as articles will keep getting nominated. --Tone 14:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I hasten to remind everyone that those articles have never been nominated in the first place. There is only one article that can be kept or deleted. There has been no nomination of the 90 different articles about the TV schedule in a particular year, a process that would require a lot of tagging and notifications, and the nominator himself has conceded that he has not been "listing them all". As an administrator, you are acquainted with the procedures for a mass nomination. It isn't accomplished by saying "This is an AfD not just for List of United States network television schedules but also for all the schedules under it." What the nomination is about is nothing more than the navigation list of those annual schedules, and there is no way that it could be more than that under Wikipedia's rules. I think there's enough of a discussion to decide the fate of that particular list. I would add that the discussion strayed somewhat off topic; while it may not yet be uncivil, it is certainly not friendly. There is no need to make this more than it has to be. Mandsford (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Err, no, I said I wasn't tagging all 90. First line of the AfD: "This is an AfD not just for List of United States network television schedules but also for all the schedules under it. There are about 90 of them, so apologies for not listing them all.". Ironholds (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The procedure in WP:BUNDLE is described as follows: "On each of the remaining articles, at the top insert the following: (template described). Replace PageName with the name of the first page to be deleted, not the current page name. In other words, if Some article was the first article you nominated, replace PageName with Some article. As before, please include the word "AfD" in the edit summary and please do not mark the edit as minor. Save the page. Repeat for all articles to be bundled." I've only checked a few of the pages, and I haven't seen a deletion edit on the ones I've looked at so far, but there may be some that were nominated. Mandsford (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The pettifogging legalism of demanding 90 edits to get these things considered is a clear case of why we have WP:IAR. Mangoe (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• What the essay says is that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Following the procedures that everybody else has to follow does not keep anyone from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. It may mean that it is not as convenient to make one's "improvements" as one would like it to be, but no administrator is at liberty to ignore the rules, and certainly no administrator is going to erase 90 articles on the basis of a sentence (the precedent it would set would be terrible). Whether one thinks this type of article should be kept or deleted, a lot of people spent a lot of time creating these 90 articles, so I can't see that tagging the articles is such a big deal. Perhaps the procedures will be changed, but I think it maintains order by having people follow a set of steps to commence a debate. Mandsford (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#The_consensus_so_far shows that 21 editors feel these guides are unencyclopedic, ten think some are acceptable, and five think all such guides are appropriate for Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 21:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Perfect valid list, showing a lot of blue links. You are allowed to have list as a navigational tool, which it is a fine example of. Since television has a massive affect on people, its important to remember what was shown at what times in American history. Also helps us judge the culture of the days. Dream Focus 02:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per Edison. Historical information about television networks' schedules that were broadcast nationally is a little bit different from an indiscriminate list of information, and it certainly is not advertising. A schedule from 40 years ago is not advertising; you can't watch it today. It also refers to something that is narrow enough not to become cumbersome but that is not too esoteric. (If one would claim it was too US-centric, these schedules could only be seen in the US and therefore only affect the US, just as Canadian or British TV schedules would be to its respective nations) This is not to see what's on your local TV station tonight, but to compare how television networks competed against each other. It also shows factors that have played a part in a show's survival or death (as was the case with Star Trek: The Original Series). If one wants to, for instance, trace NBC's problems in the late 1970s and compare them to those of today, the schedule is a good place to look. NBC's Thursday night was pretty much a mess for a few years until The Cosby Show premiered in 1984; before then CBS was dominant, and its show's ratings fell as NBC's rose. The article about The Cosby Show would only mention cast, premise, and how long it was on the air, but it would not describe how other networks scrambled to compete with it, or that CBS's Magnum P.I., the former time slot winner, moved to Wednesdays because of it. (You can tell I'm not a recentist). Nielsen ratings (for the top 30, because full lists are difficult to come by) are indicated via a color indication based on its annual rating. If one wanted to trace how other networks' shows suffered once NBC became dominant, time slots are often the key. It will not tell you what's on your NBC station tonight, nor should it strive to. You can go to TV.com for that. I must agree with Firsfron of Ronchester in the debate on this topic over at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not that it is not non-encyclopedic; he cites numerous examples of how these schedules are used. In fact, there are two published (and not self-published) books documenting in-depth changes to the schedules beyond the fall lineups. I own the first one:
• Shapiro, Mitchell E (1989). "Television Network Prime-Time Programming, 1948-1988". Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. ISBN 0-89950-412-4.

The second one, covering 1985-2007, I have yet to purchase, but hope to soon. I would like these articles to be kept so that they can be modified to cover the mid-season changes without becoming unwieldy. These lists are also not indiscriminate. They do not take into account station variations (I happen to live in a market where the former NBC affiliate pre-empted shows arbitrarily, yet I didn't bother to say so because it is irrelevant to the national schedules), individual airings and pre-emptions (which belong under the articles about the shows themselves). And they only take account of the national broadcast networks (including defunct ones) that air original programming (ABC, CBS, NBC, DuMont, Fox, UPN, the WB, and the CW). No cable, no local stations, not even PBS (and those articles since its formation explain why PBS is excluded: individual stations air their shows whenever they want). They do not measure week by week changes, but changes over the whole season. I and other users have done all that we can to deal with persistent vandalism in the daytime schedules, and I will continue to be vigilant about improving the articles to the best of my knowledge. For those reasons I think the article and the schedules should be kept. Attmay (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as the articles act to improve Wikipedia... and do so far better than the project-accepted WP:Spam for low-quality commercial fast foods.[20], [21], At least these are not making Burger King or MacDonalds rich. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe that amount of reliable sources in those articles proves their historical significance (so WP:NOTDIR is not applicable here) — vvv^t 09:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Tyler Ziegel

Tyler Ziegel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Tyler Ziegel" – news · books · scholar · images)

non-notable person - fails WP:NOT#NEWS. I appreciate that the photograph won an award, fine - so have an article on the photograph. He as an individual is unimportant. Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Many people unfortunately get hurt/killed in Iraq, and we don't have articles on them. Jeni ^(talk) 16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect to Nina Berman. References about Tyler Ziegel are present in most of the sources which can be considered reliable. I agree with the nominator that the subject may not fulfill criteria of inclusion as standalone article, but we may consider WP:NNC. Hitro talk 17:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: While I understand that the article is sourced, I am concerned that it impacts upon the people mentioned in it. I am myself a solider and in the circumstances as those that Sgt Ziegel and his ex-wife went through, I would not want my personal details splashed across the internet like that. Give the people their privacy. Also, the photo itself is up for deletion it seems and the talk page is filled with comments that could be seen as offensive towards the subject. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Sgt. Ziegel isn't the first person to be horribly maimed in Iraq. It's a horrible story, but only made the news because of sensationalism. Plus, this is a living person, and I think we should have some sensitivity about his privacy. Worldruler20 (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Worldruler20. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I feel kind of guilty having to say delete an article about a man who gave so much for his country, partcularly when some rapper whose sole contribution to society has been to chart #199 out of 200 between stints in prison merits an article under our standards, but just applying the standards when I liked them wouldn't really be fair. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Smartpost

Smartpost (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Smartpost" – news · books · scholar · images)

Non-notable as sources are press releases or not third party. Ash (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 19:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I planned to speedy this, but forgot. Promotional stub about non-notable company. --Sander Säde 19:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• I added third party sources (news reports and a blog) to this article's sources. Can you please tell me why this is a non-notable company? It is a unique company and solution in Estonia. What are the criterias for a "non-notable company"? --User:Helge123 13:57, 7 august 2009 (GMT+2)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for the criteria involved.—Ash (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case I would ask, why is there a separate article for DHL Packstation in Germany? Comparing the numbers (one packstation per 34 thousand inhabitants in Germany, one packstation per 40 thousand inhabitants in Estonia) shows that DHL Packstation is equally "non-notable"? -- User:Helge123 12:38, 10 august 2009 (GMT+2)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Sander Säde 10:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So when will the company become notable and when can I rewrite it? It has numerous references in the media, a unique solution in Estonia, proportional in size to its foreign counterparts. What is your criteria for deciding that it's non-notable? --User:Helge123 13:45, 10 august 2009 (GMT+2)

The criteria is explained in WP:ORG. There is no rule to stop you from improving the article while this AFD is open. If you find good quality sources demonstrating that Smartpost, for example, has been recognized in the general press for supplying some unique services then you will have a good rationale to justify notability. As a starting point you could consider the very few relevant sources highlighted in this Google News search.—Ash (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @722  ·  16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like a weak delete. Weak because of WP:CSB issues. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. It appears that the article needs a rewrite; also, some of the delete arguments are WP:PERNOM or WP:JNN. Moreover, after the rewrite, G11 no longer applies. Therefore, despite the numbers, I see a consensus to keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

LELO

LELO (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "LELO" – news · books · scholar · images)

Product line or company with no demonstrated notability beyond its own press release. Investor-targeted promotional language suggests WP:SPAM, perhaps WP:PUMPANDDUMP. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. Definitely borders on WP:CSD G11. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 12:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above SGGH ^ping! 12:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• No boarderline about it, clearly the only purpose here is to be promotional. Would need serious revision as it looks like copy/paste from somewhere. Speedy Delete: G11 --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. First of all, the page was an obvious cut & paste copyvio of the company's homepage; I have reverted the article to the last non-copyvio version - this page is 2 years old. The article is now no longer blatantly promotional. While it remains poorly sourced, check the web page of any company that sells sex toys, this company's products are all over the place. See for example, this Google news search, which includes a Bloomberg story about how Lelo products are going to be sold at Walgreens. Hairhorn (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the Bloomberg story turns out to be a Lelo press release, but there's plenty of other stuff in there, including holiday gift buying guides from the Vilage Voice and MSNBC. Hairhorn (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, as per Jujutacular and Bsayusd --Eva K. ^{is evil} 17:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Their arguments were based on a very different version of the article, I'm not certain they apply anymore. Hairhorn (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Badly needs a rewrite, but this appears to be a notable company. A little bit of poking around the web indicates that the products seem to be rather highly regarded by those who "critique" such things. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @722  ·  16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @740  ·  16:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @741  ·  16:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability. --Alynna (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The news coverage noted by Hairhorn is not trivial, and does bear out some of the claims made by the company themselves that they make the "world’s best pleasure objects". Being the world's best is notable. I feel that there is enough doubt here to keep this article, though it does need work - perhaps restoring some of material recently cut, and including some of the news coverage. SilkTork *^YES! 15:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep; this business makes consumer products and sells them under its own brand, and would appear to have achieved enough genuine notice by disinterested third parties to meet the guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus indicates that the movie is not notable enough for inclusion. I note that Blurpeace's original vote was a "strong delete", but was subsequently edited by Drramsey. Arguments for keeping the article are weak, and include WP:ILIKEIT. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show" – news · books · scholar · images)

This is a contentious article. It has been in AFD at least three times under this name, and several other times under "creative misspellings". In the past, the concerns were over notability, as the movie had not even been released. This current incarnation shows the same concerns: there are no verifiable references from reliable sources. The Ed, Edd n Eddy article already contains a synopsis of this movie, and as WP:NOT, this current article is basically a painfully detailed plot summary. I'd prefer this to be redir'ed to Ed, Edd n Eddy, but given the edit wars, inanity, etc, over this article, I'm going to bring it AFD so that I wider, and generally uninvolved population, can help to build some sort of consensus. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction: This particular article has been CSD'ed three times. The other AFDs are

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's 1st Movie

Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 11:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 11:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: So far it is doggone difficult to find any material in reliable sources about this flick. It does have an IMDb page which reflects releases in 3 countries, including Australia, but no links to any media coverage. Google News does show a bit of recent coverage in Italian papers--can anyone interested can read Italian?[22][23] Searches of Variety and Animation didn't turn up anything. Some of the concerns expressed in former discussions (such as WP:CRYSTAL) don't seem to apply anymore, but notability of the film, separate from the series, does still seem to be an issue. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Both are poor as one speaks of it being previewed at a smalltime animation festival in Rimini and the other is basically a TV schedule. treelo _radda 19:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and clean up - The movie was made and I'm watching it right now. So the "it's never been released" statement is far from the truth and I keep despite the above because the nom made a rather poor choice in wording and because this a TV show which usually falls under notability especially because of it's high profile nature. Rgoodermote  22:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as wholly unreferenced and lacking any evidence of meeting the Notability gudeline. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and come back in a year. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wonder if you could elaborate on that statement? Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect Delete I'm yet to see a decent reason as to why this article should be kept, so far the reasons for are that it should be kept through inherited notability and to wait a year before requesting again, the last one striking me as the least reasoned !vote here as it doesn't say why a year's wait should be enough. I guess it could be some kind of bizzaro-recentism logic but I'll await further clarification. Even with the many AfDs proceeding this, they were for crystal-balling so a bit moot here. The lack of sourcing for this overlong synopsis along with no establishment of individual notability separate from the series doesn't give me much confidence in this article's future though I expect it to be recreated several times before being protected. treelo _radda 03:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Change of !vote, I thought maybe it could be a good redirect but nope, a redirect can just be turned straight back into the article with a click of an undo link. No, let these overzealous fans work to recreate the content. Also, I know it aired elsewhere, I've seen it too but I don't see much in the way besides fanfappery regarding it, not notable at all. treelo _radda 22:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @721  ·  16:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete As usual, until Time Warner/Cartoon Network/Turner Networks ever release a press release saying this project will be coming out (and that standard has never been met in any of the previous three decisions), this is still all WP:OR based on suppositions of what the movie will be like when not a frame has been screened except internally or via leaked copies. If it has aired internationally, where are the sources? Why couldn't a more compact plot summary suffice? If there is any way to convince me to change my vote to a keep, it would be to source the article with reliable descriptions of the film from someplace besides a fanboard.Nate • (chatter) 04:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Come on keep it up This was a awesome movie if it wasn't as good as it was i would say delete. The movie did come out in a few country and it should come out in north america in the next year. The point is that it is a movie it did come out and it was good keep this page up and going —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drramsey (talk • contribs) 04:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• This debate isn't regarding where it has aired or how good or bad people might believe it to be, it's about if there's any sourcing for the film and if it's notable, neither of which have been shown to be there so far. A North American airing or whether or not you think it's awesome is irrelevant yet many keep !votes make much of just that. treelo _radda 08:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, i loved this movie keep this page up make more . –blurpeace ^(talk) 07:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason to keep. treelo _radda 23:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to suggest that this article is not suitable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Legally Blonde (musical) cast lists

Legally Blonde (musical) cast lists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Legally Blonde (musical) cast lists" – news · books · scholar · images)

Should be deleted article per Wikipedia:Notability and also per the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure which state "The names of non-notable (i.e., non-bluelinked) ensemble and chorus members, understudies and non-notable production team members (other than directors and choreographers) should be deleted. Only the actors playing principal (significant speaking and singing) roles should be mentioned." I have added the original cast lists for the three major productions at Legally Blonde (musical) and there have been no notable replacements (blue linked) in any of these casts (the london production is yet to open) Mark E (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @741  ·  16:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per discussion of separate cast lists on another musical theatre article, Wicked, archived here:[24]. This is exactly the same situation, and the decision was to delete the Wicked Cast List per WP:NOT. JeanColumbia (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per comments by Mark and Jean. No notable information exists in this article that could not be covered in the parent article, Legally Blonde (musical). While I believe these articles can sometimes serve a purpose, namely giving the fans a sandbox to play in (effectively keeping the cruft out of the main article), I find they often develop into little more than an uninformative list of names. What's worse, it's often difficult to verify the changes being made due to the non-notable nature of many of the actors. I've worked with this article in the past, and while I cited what I could, I was hard-pressed to find sources for most of the cast lists and replacements IPs would often add. If we can't verfiy the accuracy of the information, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. —MearsMan ^talk 22:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, but clean up. This is a broadway level performance, and the notable actors/positions can be recognized. I agree, kill the ensemble of non-noteworthy members, but I think cast lists are worth keeping. This would, IMO, be on par with professional rosters for sporting teams. The fact that it includes non-notable cast/ensemble, is not grounds for deletion, but rather for clean up.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment to above, please see the article Legally Blonde (musical) where all the note-worthy information from the article nominated is presented neatly. These cast list articles become lists of unworthy ensemble/understudy/standbys etc. Just yesterday I deleted a list of everyone to ever be a ballet girl in billy elliot the musical from that cast list article. The article currently has Not announced for all understudys for the london run. So what! This specialist information can be found in the programme for the show and also on the shows official website.Mark E (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete You have to remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia. How are lists of ensemble members, swings, and understudies even remotely encyclopedic? Who cares who they are except their mothers and agents? How is the Broadway Cast Replacement History noteworthy when only one person listed is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? How is the fact that Lucia Spina replaced Natalie Joy Johnson as "Enid Hoopes" on July 23, 2008 encyclopedic? I think articles like these are created by fans, not serious editors. 209.247.21.77 (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per MarkE, JeanColumbia, and 209.247.21.77. LargoLarry (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

For the Love of Mike

For the Love of Mike (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "For the Love of Mike" – news · books · scholar · images)

Notability concerns - lacks the importance or significance of the subject. It was a commercial failure and is now a lost film. Smilemeans (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Deserves an article as it satisfies WP:N and WP:V. IMDb: [25]. MSN: [26]. BFI: [27]. Halliwell's Film Guide: [28]. The New York Times Review: [29]. Toronto Star Synopsis: [30] Rafablu88 16:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @741  ·  16:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

But fails WP:NF#General principles as it appears to be a historically non-notable film that was never in wide release. (sabotaged by distribution problems). Smilemeans (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Jumping the gun a bit here. The full ADVISED guideline is "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics".

1. 1. Now, first of all, "widely distributed" is subjective to begin with (when do you consider a man to be bald? when he loses one follicle, or when he is completely without hair, or at some point in between?).
   2. Secondly, many independent movies that are here would also fail based on your strict interpretation.
   3. Finally, "sabotaged by distribution problems" could mean anything: it could mean that instead of being shown in 48 states it was only shown in 30. Is that not "wide" enough?? We can't be sure of what Allmovie means.

What we can be sure is that it HAS received full length reviews at the time and throughout the 20th century and its shambles of a production process is still being discussed today, especially in Frank Capra biopics. Rafablu88 00:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep part of early film history (falure or not) and directed by an icon of cinema history (whether he liked it or not). In 1927, the film received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG (had it existed 82 years ago)[31], and notability is not temporary. Further, the film istelf is considered recently notable enough by multiple authors for them to write about it [32], and scholars to research it [33]. This article improves Wikipedia and a reader's understanding of early film. My opinion is that there is enough available for this article to be expanded and further sourced... currently "lost" or not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The involvement of Frank Capra as director and Claudette Colbert as star tends to suggest notability, particularly considering that a later collaboration between them (It Happened One Night) swept the Oscars. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  Another sourced historical note: The film was the screen debut of Claudette Colbert and was her only silent film. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Based on the sources now found in the reference section. It gets adequate coverage. Dream Focus 16:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• For the love of Mike, please do not delete this article based on "notability" of all things! Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep - per souring provided in the AfD & improvements done during it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wil Mataolin Coffey

Wil Mataolin Coffey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability not established per WP:MUSICBIO. Maint tags removed without issues being resolved. Reliable, third-party, sources searched for before nom.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 22:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 22:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete unless much better sources can be found. All those Amplifier chart links are not for official chart placings, but rather seem to be a download/buy site. A search for "Panda" on the official New Zealand chart archive doesn't give this artist. A search for Wil Mataolin Coffey yields no results. The two blue links in the articles Discography section are not for links to his album, but random other articles with the same name. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• neutral. Tracked some songs on a non notable chart. If you look on the right on the amplifier.co.nz site, there is a chart ^TheWeak_Willed 01:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Axel Aakerstroem

Daniel Axel Aakerstroem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Daniel Axel Aakerstroem" – news · books · scholar · images)

I declined a speedy request on this article, but it does not seem as if the subject meets WP:FOOTY or general notability guidelines.  Skomorokh  15:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @742  ·  16:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @743  ·  16:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A lot of unsourced claims in the article, a Google search doesn't yield much. Spiderone (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: There is no AfD tag on the article. BigDom 08:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The article's creator removed it, I have put it back -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: fails ATHLETE and more importantly, fails GNG. BigDom 09:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable subject, fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:ATHLETE. UnitAnode 17:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Smart montage

Smart montage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Smart montage" – news · books · scholar · images)

WP:N, WP:NEO, WP:OR. Note especially "Smart Montage was a phrase coined by Brigid Maher... in August 2009", and the article creator was Bamaher. I42 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Non-notable neolgism: "a phrase coined by Brigid Maher.... in August 2009." Self promotion, and what's further, the idea adds little that's not already captured by calling someting a "montage" or "video mashup". This is old wine in new po-mo academic bottles. Hairhorn (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Hairhorn who continues to edit out the references to the links. Spatial montage and mash ups are used to create intellectual statements similar to Eisenstein's intellectual montage. This is evident in Tracey Fragments as well as the other examples that get deleted. This term has already gone into use in academic circles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.252.6 (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC) — 68.33.252.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Um, please have a look at the edit history. I have made only one edit to your page, a prod for deletion on August 12; I have not touched the body of the article. Most of your links were removed by automated bots that weed out spam links. And please tell me how your neologism has caught on with academics over a matter of days... Google scholar has exactly one hit for "smart montage", an economics book (in German). Hairhorn (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete as neologism. Come back when the concept is adequately and independently sourced. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, Non-notable neologism, probably still a protologism. WuhWuzDat 19:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO: "Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." - that seems to be the case here, with the author posting her new phrase within days of inventing it. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep.

Yep. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Yep." – news · books · scholar · images)

The prod was contested in July 2008. I found zero sources for this. This is a non-notable bootleg album. Joe Chill (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @744  ·  16:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Sorry, the link was poorly formatted (as a normal external link, not using the wayback template) under an External links section. There is now a properly-formatted link showing that this was an official Propagandhi release. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • But how does it pass WP:MUSIC? Joe Chill (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Per WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia". This was an official live album released by an actual (indie and now defunct as far as I know) record label. I would agree to the article's deletion if the album had never appeared on the band's discography, but that's not the case here. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
      • "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Joe Chill (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
        • And there's the problem. I agree that we do need reliable sources, but they're now mostly gone. The Internet Archive doesn't have archives of Applecore Records' releases page on Geocities or any of their site on TCHC.org. The two independent sources (here and here) that do reference the album aren't notable. I'm pretty sure I read about the album in Maximumrocknroll or HeartattaCk (possibly Punk Planet, but I doubt it) but those issues are long since recycled and there's no web source available. All I can say is that the band listed this album on their official releases, I've got the album, and I've seen the album for sale in record stores and via distro. I realize that everything but the discography listing utterly fails WP:RS, which is a good thing. But considering all that, I still feel the article should stay. Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Joe Chill. Fails to demonstrate notability. Edison (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:ALBUMS. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Looked long and hard for sources but came up dry. ^TheWeak_Willed 01:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mecca Centric

Mecca Centric (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mecca Centric" – news · books · scholar · images)

Although some of the people in their catalogue may or may not be notable, I could find no sources that satisfied WP:ORG. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete since it's nothing but an advertisement. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Rafablu88 14:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @745  ·  16:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @746  ·  16:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to The Muppet Show#Recurring skits. The decision to redirect is an editorial one and subject to reversion. Consider this a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Pigs in Space

Pigs in Space (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Pigs in Space" – news · books · scholar · images)

Unreferenced stub and duplication of simple paragraph already on The Muppet Show#Recurring skits section. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, I was able to find 3 references without too much trouble (including the NY Times and LA Times), and have added those to the article. This was one of the most famous segments on The Muppet Show. That said, I wouldn't have a problem with a redirect. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to section There's little more to say about it than what's in the main article. Mangoe (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @746  ·  16:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notable both as one of the most memorable recurring Muppet Show skits, as well as a spoof of Star Trek. Merging might be reasonable, but is an editorial decision not needing AfD. Jclemens (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion regarding editorial actions should continue on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Camping (video gaming)

Camping (video gaming) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Camping (video gaming)" – news · books · scholar · images)

Well-written but entirely unencyclopedic page, complete with weasel words ("some gamers"), lack of references (the only one is an EVE Online article which establishes that the term does exist, but not much else), inappropriate editorializing and value judgements, and inherently unsourcable statements. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, particularly not Urban Dictionary, and there simply isn't anything encyclopedic to be said about the subject. Ashenai (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak Keep as the term is quite notable in gaming, particularly first person shooters. I'm sure there are enough reliable sources to back the content up. An article in need of major revamping isn't good enough reason for deletion. --Teancum (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The term definitely exists, that's not being debated. I'm pretty sure I could prove that the term "AWP whore" also exists, but we don't have an article on it (that is a redlink right? okay, good...) Gaming slang can merit an article, but only if there's actual content behind it. "Griefing" is a gaming term that deserves an article. "Camping" is not. --Ashenai (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge -- but I don't know exactly where. Maybe to an article on multiplayer gaming, or on FPS/TPS, to describe one type of player that can be found in the game. Not a full article though. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -- it is about the only term that I have heard of in Category:Video game culture. I don't think Urban Dictionary could cover 4,000 words of text. Enough there to warrant an article.--EchetusXe 09:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - I agree that this is one of the most widely used gaming terms, it has been in usage long before most of the others in the above-mentioned category. However, the current revision is a great big pile of WP:OR, I suggest actually starting again from scratch, this time using our verifiability policy (a few usages in Edge magazine of turtling and camping, for example). But: is there actually enough coverage about the term "camper" to warrant an article, and not just a dictdef? Marasmusine (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep To render adequate judgement on this AfD, specialist knowledge is crucial, and uninformed speculation about the term's relevance in game history is not a substitute. None of this is OR. There is quite a lot of PoV about whether the strategy is fair, which is best written about in terms of game balance, if at all, but as usual, that is a matter for the Talk page, not AfD. Sources are abundant. I added two citations to the article; I do not usually bother with articles on AfD, but these are so easy to find, and the subject so deserving. The term dates back at least to the first Quake, thirteen years ago; there will not be any citations of that, because the online gaming magazines did not exist at that time. Anarchangel (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Argentine–Turkish relations

Argentine–Turkish relations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Argentine–Turkish relations" – news · books · scholar · images)

whilst the 2 countries have embassies, there is a distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations. the first 70 of this seems almost entirely multilateral [34]. the only commonality is that they both seem to have had economic problems. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep Since Turkey are embroiled in the Armenian genocide debacle, I'm sure all states have had something to say and so formed dialogues and discussions with the country. Make sure to keep it in mind before nominating other Turkey relations articles. Here's news of the Turkey-Argentina relations on the genocide, or "genocide" if you're so inclined: [35]. And the two countries have widespread nuclear relations, with no less than 6 cites here: [36]. Rafablu88 13:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Argentina's view on the genocide can easily be covered in this article Recognition of the Armenian Genocide. doesn't 3 or 4 of those 6 cites actually come from 1 source? LibStar (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there's still a plethora of info left in the links, and notable info at that. Rafablu88 13:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @747  ·  16:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @747  ·  16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - there are long-standing, significant relations between these two countries. There is sufficient coverage to make a worthwhile article and to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Yet another in a long line of non-notable X-Y relations articles. Zero notabilty asserted in the article, zero notability to be found. Tarc (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Zero notability? What exactly do you expect of X-Y relations articles? Mutual nuclear annihilation at some point in the history? This now has the key areas of bilateralism: diplomatic links and incidents, economic ties and trade agreements, and more importantly, deep-lying nuclear assistance (not many X-Y have those). Rafablu88 00:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I expect meaningful substance with in-depth, significant coverage by reliable sources. Certainly they don't have to all rise to the level of, say, Japan – United States relations, but if all you can say about X-Y is that they have embassies, signed a few agreements and rattle off some trade figures, the relationship really isn't notable enough for an article. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So a nuclear agreement between 1988-2003 is not meaningful enough? A nuclear reactor deal, eventually rescinded, that was discussed at the UN is not meaningful, too? Rafablu88 01:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that can be inferred from what I just said, yes. Tarc (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I hesitate to use the term inherently notable, but I think that world diplomacy probably is. Keep Irbisgreif (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep another in the long line of notable articles. Treaties and embassies are notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. So they've done business. So they've done the pedestrian things that governments do with each other. That doesn't say notable to me. Notable means something beyond the ordinary, otherwise notable would mean ordinary. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep One nation has its leaders officially declare a day to remember the mass murder of another, in the Armenian Genocide, then that is notable between them. The other items add to their notability as well. Dream Focus 11:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep - understandable nom, but the article has been substantially improved by Rafablu88 . Another source as just been added , which though titled Turkish Community in Buenos Aires actually goes into some depth about the overall bilarteral relationship. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Uptown Laredo

Uptown Laredo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Uptown Laredo" – news · books · scholar · images)

Almost entirely a photo gallery, no sources, no chance of being sourced. It's just an undefined district. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 12:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. A district with no specific relevance. Deserves no more than a paragraph in the city's main article - if even. McMarcoP (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep there are articles about city's neighborhoods, most cities have articles about their downtowns why can't Laredo have an article about its uptown district? I would agree to a merge but the Laredo, Texas article is growing to big. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMAPO (talk • contribs) Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe because there's no specific definition to "Uptown Laredo". It's not like it's a signed neighborhood or anything. You might as well write about "Uptown Oscoda, Michigan" which is a bunch of subdivisions and a Kmart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Dude don't even compare a town of village of 900 with a metro area with +700,000 people... which makes think up of my next point most metro areas in the world are not officialiy defined, you wanna get rid of those too? you might not know about Laredo, Texas or Laredo Uptown but it attracts hundredes of thousands of International shoppers (which is a form of tourism (Look up border shopping on the net)) each year. You wanna compare a Kmart with dozens plazas with doezens or stores and malls? You are wrong buddy. --AMAPO (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• You also realize that your argument is WP:WAX? Just because we have an article on X doesn't mean we should have one on Y. Do you have any sources? All I'm finding is Google Maps or directory listings, which are not enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources; unlikely to be of note outside of Laredo. Karanacs (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable district. I have not been able to uncover reliable sources about it. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Viewing instrument

Viewing instrument (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Viewing instrument" – news · books · scholar · images)

This is an article on the suffix "-scope", and was titled -scope until recently. The article claims to be about "viewing instruments" (a pretty loosely defined term), but really the only thing the list entries have in common is the suffix -scope (gyroscope and horoscope are certainly not "viewing instruments", for instance). This material is already covered in Wiktionary. There is precedent for deleting suffix articles that basically consist of dictionary definitions - see, for example, here and here. Jafeluv (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. McMarcoP (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• DeleteWeak keep I moved the article from -scope to viewing instrument because this was probably the best chance the article had for survival, and because an article on that topic can probably be written that outlines the general principles that viewing instruments can employ to make an abstract or real phenomenon more visible. I agree that the article is essentially a dictionary definition at this time, but I believe the article can be made encyclopedic, and hence should be kept.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Changed to delete. This article is never going anywhere that the wiktionary:-scope article isn't already; in fact it's not as good, the list of 'scope's is a fraction of the length and the 'glossary' lacks definitions which is actually the whole point of glossaries. There's no references to viewing instruments, and renaming it to -scope would violate WP:MOS as well as WP:NOTADICT.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make it beyond saving, it just needs some TLC. WP:RUBBISH. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is not salvageable without redefining its topic to make it not a dictionary entry and completely rewriting every part of it. There is no part that is worth keeping, and hence it fails both WP:RUBBISH as well as WP:NOTADICT and WP:MOS.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: A horoscope is a means to measure or see the future. Gyroscope measures and makes available rotational changes. How is this list any less encyclopedic than any of the comparable lists that get by? It is more a list than article but maybe you could write article text on more details of etymologies or something. I've never understood lists in the post-treekilling era but I'm not sure where you could easily generate this list- does google do well with something similar to "*scope"? Is this less encyclopedic than lists of various award winners? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Award winners are at least proper nouns, and proper nouns are not usually found in dictionaries, so the argument that articles of award winners are misplaced dictionary entries wouldn't fly. See also List of scandals with "-gate" suffix which are also proper nouns. Those kinds of lists are not purely lexical however, they are built around some kind of concept, unlike this article we are discussing, which is everything ending in 's' 'c' 'o' 'p' 'e'.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Article is no longer primarily linguistic, it just needs work and expansion. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This is a "List of ..." (and thus encyclopedically valid) rather than a mere dictionary definition. If any of these terms have articles that warrant deletion as mere dictionary articles, that should be raised per-article, where needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a list of words having a common suffix. That is, a list of related words, as opposed to related entities. That's a dictionary article, not an encyclopaedia article. As I noted above, the list is already covered in the Wiktionary article. Jafeluv (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Although it's currently equivalent to a list of *-scope words, that's not its definition. That is now as a list of viewing instruments with names derived from this suffix. As its defining factor has shifted from spelling to function, that's encyclopedic rather than lexicographical. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Speaking as the person that did this, I simply made it up from scratch, and you'll note it is unreferenced; and it's completely unclear that this an important topic of knowledge, and hence IMO it is doubtless not WP:notable right now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and move back to -scope. This should never have been moved in the first place. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you think this is a point of principle, but even if you succeed in this weird idea of putting it back, the article will just be a carbon copy of the dictionary one. The centre of the article is a lexical item 'logy' and things related to that. It doesn't matter whether it is in the dictionary or the encyclopedia, any article starting at the same place, on the same topic that contains stuff related to the same thing will end up essentially the same, with at best only trivial differences in formatting. At best you end up with a duplicated article, and if they're not, you can trivially make them so.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This was the deletion discussion for -scope/Viewing Instrument, not -logy. I don't consider it a point of principle, it just rubs the linguist in me the wrong way. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of any encyclopedia is that you centre each article on a general idea of something, not a word. That's because ideas are much more general, and they give you general knowledge about something. Words only tell you about how English speakers refer to things. That's very valuable too, but it's what dictionaries are for. Encyclopedia articles on a general idea like 'viewing instrument' are translateable, an article on 'scope' isn't.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight to a new definition of encyclopædia as "something with articles centred on different general ideas" and not "a compendium of knowledge" [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. I realize you feel strongly about this, but could you please both assume good faith and a desire to build an encyclopædia on the part of those who do not agree with you? Irbisgreif (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(Comment) this is an ad hominen attack on me, and is unrelated to the article or the review. FWIW this user appears to be WP:WIKIHOUNDING me.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Wolfkeeper brought this up here, in what I can only view as an attempt to discredit me, (which is unfortunate, as I wish to work with this user, not against them) I think I should link to the discussion on that over here. I do not understand this editor's anger towards me, I have only desired to discuss things with this user. Irbisgreif (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep anre move make to the originalo title. The current fad for trying to delete word suffixes when they represent by themselves concepts capable of encyclopedic discussion seems really absurd in this case, and an article under the original title should be sustainable. Wolfkeeper makes a helpful distinction that the articles in an encyclopedia are centered around things and groups of things, and concepts, not words-- the words being secondary. If there is a common semantic concept, and it can be discussed, that's the basis of an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Gack. While it is true in a sense that a sequence of letters like 'scope' is a concept in its own right, trouble is, that's a just a word part, and lexical concepts like explicit words are disclaimed by the WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The list of scopes is pointless for this article, there's a dictionary entry that is not going to be deleted and is better anyway.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• keep and move back. Changing an article name to something that it isn't and then nominating because the article isn't about what the title is isn't fair on article concerned and taints the deletion discussion to the point where it is worthless. This needs moving back to the original location and properly nominated under what it is not what its incorrectly called. If this were deleted after this discussion I have no doubt DRV would overturn it - and I'm normally the voice for deletion at DRV.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I didn't have anything to do with the name change, which was made by Wolfkeeper, I believe. Secondly, if my only objection to this page was that its title doesn't match the content, I can assure you that I would have taken it to WP:RM instead. My concern is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that this list of words offers nothing more than a dictionary definition, and as such is redundant to the Wiktionary entry for the same subject (please note that if you open the "Terms derived from -scope" box in Wiktionary, you get the same list as we currently have in the article). The same problems affect other suffix articles, like -ism and -itis, both of which were deleted due to these issues. Jafeluv (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not accusing you of any misbehaviour and I know you didn't do the move but if you look at it its unfortunate it gets moved and then nominated. I'm aware of some of the suffix deletion debates, I have closed a few myself but I actually feel there is a need to clarify the boundary between wikipedia and wiktionary before we seriously look at dicdef articles that have more then a little content. This is also a list and I'm kinda conflicted but this should be debated as a -scope article not a Viewing instrument one if were are to have a sensible discussion of its merits. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
      • This is supposed to be a policy discussion. To summarise your position Spartaz: WP:ILIKEIT. Great. I mean, you mention no other policies at all. This presumably explains some of the other deletion reviews you closed as Keep.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Wolfkeeper, that was a little uncalled for, especially since it was you who complained about ad hominems a few lines up. I don't know what kind of history you two have, but please try to concentrate on the issue and not the editor. If you have complaints about Spartaz's earlier closures, this is not the venue for them. Jafeluv (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
          • That was entirely uncalled for but not unexpected given his recent behaviour badgering editors at AFD and just being trully objectional. I don't know if he is just obnoxious or simply trying to goad me into saying or doing something that would force me to recuse from closing AFD's that he has been involved in but I'm afraid that that's not going to happen. Just some friendly advice Wolfkeeper, carry on the ad homs and assumptions of bad faith and it won't be long before someone decides that the disruption your behaviour causes isn't acceptable. Speaking as a very experienced user and not as an admin I see several likely outcomes for you if you don't moderate yourself better: a user RFC, a nice long fat block or a ban from participating in bits of wikipedia that you can't be trusted to play nicely in. Your choice or you could just stop abusing editors who disagree with you. state your opinion nicely in discussions and show some respect to your fellow editors. You choose. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Since none of this has anything to do with the encyclopaedic value of the Viewing instrument article, I suggest you take this debate to the user talk namespace. It's distracting from the matter at hand. Thanks. Jafeluv (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The subject meets WP:ATHLETE. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Marcos Luis Jerman

Marcos Luis Jerman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Marcos Luis Jerman" – news · books · scholar · images)

Not notable enough. Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. —Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete, close to A7. --Tone 11:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Nice work, but far from being notable McMarcoP (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The two given refernces/links are reliable and verifiable.Rirunmot (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The first one is the homepage of the author, the second one is of a small local gallery that presented his work. That does in no way make the author notable. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Googling him I discovered that Marcos Luis Jerman is an olympic athlete, thus notable per WP:ATHLETE. I added a section with this information to the main article. I agree that as an artist he is not notable enough. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per CronopioFlotante's excellent find. Definitely the same person, matching birthdates. Wikipedia works in mysterious ways. --CliffC (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep given that he meets WP:ATHLETE. Good work CP. Maralia (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work! Withdrawing my nomination. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There was no substantial support of redirecting this anywhere, although any editor is welcome to create such a redirect. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Deather

Deather (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Deather" – news · books · scholar · images)

Article is very non-NPOV, appears to be a Republican attack against President Obama, shows no sources, and is highly biased. Appears to be a non-notable idiom that entered into usage by one politician less than a week ago. Frmatt (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable neologism, covered only for the sake of political polemics; the underlying real political issues (and the episode that sparked this term, if it turns out to be of more long-standing relevance) can easily be covered elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Sarah Palin, who coined the term to promote her agenda. POV problems are not reason to delete and we've got a few sources [42][43][44][45] that indicate notability, but since this is just a buzzword it might be better presented in context. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• After reading Tarc and Rankiri's comments, I agree that we can comprehensively discribe this political group without using neologisms. We should redirect to Health care reform in the United States, and if someone wants to merge and source content from this article, they can do it from the page history. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• This entry was not made for the purpose of political polemics. The entry was made in goodfaith effort to appropriate a public definition and origin of a new word injected into the public consciousness. The definition may be edited to sufficient conclusion by others, thereby filtering out any bias that may exist in said entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian278 (talk • contribs)

NOTE:I moved the above comment by Brian278 from Wikipedia Talk:Articles for Deletion/Deather to this space so it could be properly included in the discussion. Frmatt (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Why wasn't this just speedied? This isn't an article on a neologism, it is just an unsourced polemical tirade on the health care proposal. Even a basic, rewritten article probably wouldn't pass muster, as the arguably more well-known birthers and truthers are just redirects. Tarc (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Which speedy delete criterion applies? --Explodicle (T/C) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I thought about speedy, but wasn't sure enough about it and wanted to bring it to the community for some type of discussion before it went away. Frmatt (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete:WP:NEO, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOTOPINION. According to [46] and [47], the term was coined around Tuesday, July 28, 2009^[48]. Explodicle's references don't seem to take the term seriously and put it in quotes. The Google News results seem follow the pattern. The article is unreferenced, non-neutrally worded, and in some cases, unverifiable. In case you're wondering, Google shows no results for "Deatherology". On a less serious note, I'd also support redirecting the page to Schizophrenia: anyone who "subscribes to the idea that any Democratic healthcare reform would include government mandate to destroy terminally ill or very old persons receiving healthcare" is obviously as cuckoo as it gets. — Rankiri (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Would you please elaborate on your WP:NEO rationale? Although the term is a neologism, it looks like the Politics Daily article is a reliable source specifically about it. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. The term is was invented less than a month ago, and naturally not a single dictionary or serious academical publication discusses it. As I mentioned earlier, I feel like most of these news articles are written in a somewhat informal, tongue-in-cheek tone. The prevalent use of quotation marks is particularly indicative of the word's neologistic status—see Quotation mark#Signaling unusual usage. — Rankiri (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've changed my !vote to "redirect to Health care reform in the United States" (in case someone decides to write about what the "Deathers" believe), but I think you're right that we shouldn't be using this term instead of "opponents of Obama's health care reform". --Explodicle (T/C) 15:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect Obviously, this should be a redirect, the same as the similar terms Truther and Birther. The WP:NEO argument is not persuasive, because the meaning is obvious to anyone who looks a little. The genie is out of the bottle, so WP:N should not be in play either. The question is what to do with the original content, which is unreferenced, and presumably OR. So I'm not sure if delete and redirect is more appopriate. Dhaluza (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I admit that the above interpretation of WP:NEO is open to debate, but my main concerns are the historical notability of the new term and the WP:OR and non-NPOV parts of the article. I'm not against redirecting the page to Health care reform in the United States.— Rankiri (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• The term has already been incorporated in the healthcare debate, and Sara Palin's involvement just seals the deal. My pet peeve with many of these types of AfD discussions is that they are too editor-centric. Look at it from the point of the reader, who may be wanting more info on "deather" now, or in the future. They should be redirected to the appropriate article. As I said, the real issue is what to do with the content, which is apparently OR. Dhaluza (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it has reached anywhere near the critical mass of its aforementioned sister neologisms, though. Besides, is there anything really appropriate to redirect it to? It is a term used to describe health care opponents, so just sending searchers to the main health care article seems a bit too generic. Tarc (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Tarc is right. however we can link it specifically to the section on thae main healthcare thread that talks about the health care oppositionents. User:Smith Jones 02:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not suggesting that it has even approached the usage of the similar neologisms, and that should not be a test anyway. It is out there in the political debate, and it is following an established template. A "merge" may be needed prior to redirect. I put "merge" in scare quotes, because this article is apparently OR, so we actually need incorporate some new sources to point to. As has been suggested, the section dealing with health care opposition should discuss the "death panels" meme that has been developing for the past several weeks. Dhaluza (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, this is a protologism at best, and probably violates NPOV and WP:FRINGE as well. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 04:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009#Reimbursement for counseling about living wills (which is where Death panels redirects to). This is an article on a neologism, which does not yet seem sufficiently notable. A more general article on the dispute might be appropriate - Death panel controversy, or something like that - but even that would have issues with recentism and long-term notability. Robofish (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think this hysteria can be linked to one particular piece of legislation. If it needs to be redirected, it better link to a general health care reform article. — Rankiri (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

László Cseszneky de Milvány

László Cseszneky de Milvány (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "László Cseszneky de Milvány" – news · books · scholar · images)

Non-notable member of nobility, no sourcing to support any individual claim to notability. All statements about this person's individual activities (merely claiming that he "supports" certain political organisations, not even that he has a leading role in them) are in fact unsourced. The only claim to notability is that this person is apparently the nephew of someone who nominally served as the puppet "prince" of a fascist puppet-statelet invented by the Italian occupiers during the WWII occupation of the Balkans, the Voivodship of Macedonia, during one month in 1943. The author's argument on the talk page, essentially claiming that this nominal title conveys on him an automatic degree of notability comparable to that of authentic European (ex-)royalty, strikes me as absurd. (Come to that, we don't even know whether the subject himself actually claims that nominal title for himself; this too is sourced only to non-reliable websites.)

The only other sources cited in the article are the private webpage of the subject's own family, and a few pages that deal with just that puppet statelet (but not the present subject, who was born after it had ceased to exist). No independent coverage whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The arguments above are based on political POV. You can consider the Principality of Pindus and Voivodship of Macedonia a puppet state, but for many people it was the realization of their ultimate aims, like for my grand-parents in Western-Macedonia. For us Macedonians and Aromanians oppressed by the Greek antidemocratic puppet state he is the only person in whom we can have hope. A member of our organization contacted him and he kindly answered that he supports the human rights of the minorities in Greece, but he has no political ambitions. Even so, de jure he is the legitimate claimant. To be considered claimant one does not need to claim actually a throne, as many other pretenders don't do either. From legitimist Bourbon perspective the Bonaparte or Murat dynasties were usurpators, but they are listed equally as pretenders. From our POV he is the legitimate and King Constantine and Greek presidents are usurpators and occupiers of our homeland. --Aleksveliki (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: thanks for clarifying what ideological agenda you are following in pushing for this article. It figures. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: I respect your agenda, you have the right to think or say whatever you want (unless you live in the Greek "nation state" and belong to minorities), but please also respect my views which are not only mine, but represent the opinion of a growing number of minorities in Greece. --Aleksveliki (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment. For how much I can understand your point and sympathize with the Macedonian people, I am afraid that this discussion is going wide of its intended mark. We are not discussing the rights of the Macedonian people (which, incidentally, I'd consider fully worthy of an article if presented with a neutral point of view), but whether László Cseszneky de Milvány is worth a Wikipedia article - and, as noted below, I agree with the nomination in the fact that he is not. McMarcoP (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Comment: You are right, but unfortunately the issue cannot be easily separated from political positions. On the other hand I also think that the head of an ancient noble family whose origins trace back to the early middle age is worth an article, and if in the top of all this he is also a potential claimant to a throne, however disputed the legitimacy of that state is, the need for an article is even more evident. How many articles we have about British aristocrats who have zero importance besides their title? I am ready to expand and improve the article but currently I am struggling with the translation of some sources. --Aleksveliki (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Nope, that's not how we do things here, I'm afraid. Nobility may be inherited, but Wikipedia notability is not. What's notable here is the family as such (which has an article, quite rightly). An individual member of the family, even if he is its current "head", becomes a subject of an individual article only when he himself does something inherently notable, or at least gets a notable amount of public attention focussing on him for whatever reason. So far, we have nothing about him; he is Just Some Guy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Comment I'm afraid I have to agree. He might be the "head" of a family who has claims on an European throne (whose legitimacy is not under discussion here), but what gives notability is public attention or an "official" role (that normally brings the same). I am aware that there is about a ton of British marginal members of the Royal Family who have their own articles, but this is because they are the focus of wide media attention (and it is not even the point whether this is deserved or not). Now, as far as non-Macedonians can know, he doesn't seem notable enough. Now, if there are sources that instead confirm his notability - very welcome. Still, I need to read more about the Voivodship of Macedonia - whatever the results of the present discussion. McMarcoP (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
              • I'll also add that this whole idea of him as a kind of figurehead representing some present-day political issue about Macedonian separatism or irridentism seems to be a private or entirely fringe concoction of the author himself, with no public exposure whatsoever. Or, who's the "we" of Aleks' claim above, and what is "our organisation" he speaks of? Any public coverage? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable in himself. His uncle might be highly notable for his part in Macedonian history, his father's position on the topic might be discussed but I would agree on his notability, but notability is not inherited. It would be enough to name-check him on his uncle's or father's article. Also, poorly sourced McMarcoP (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Delete per Fut. Perf's initial comment. --Laveol ^T 19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into Cseszneky. Jingby (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; WP:BLP applies also. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. although I still think the film fails notability, in light of the recent work done on the article, I'm withdrawing the nomination.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Trans (film)

Trans (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Trans (film)" – news · books · scholar · images)

Film does not appear to pass WP:NOTFILM. It was a small indie film that was never in wide release. The article makes a claim that it won a minor award at the Berlin Film Festival based on an IMDB.com link. However, the film festivals website does not list the award or film winning an award. [49] But an article I found does mention the an award, but fails to specify which one. [50] I suspect it is a minor award, but it is certainly not one of the festivals notable ones that they keep in their archives. A total of 24 gnews hits, althought some aren't actually about the movie.[51] I found a few reviews, but none appear to satisfy the "full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" part of WP:NOTFILM. Overall, it appears to be a minor film that made a stab at being notable, but came up short. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 08:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

I understand that the film had a very limited release, but I feel like it is significant in part because it is an early work by a director who has made other films with a much wider release (2006's "The Hawk Is Dying").

Also this film has been aired many times on the Independent Film Channel ^[1]

Another reference to the award is mentioned here (at the bottom of the page)

[52]

Also (from a biography of the film's editor)[53]

and from the director's website...[54]

"Goldberger’s feature film directing debut, “Trans”, listed in the BEST OF 1999 and 2000 by film critics, has screened at the 1998 Toronto International Film Festival, 1999 Sundance Film Festival, 1999 Berlin International Film Festival (READERS’ JURY PRIZE for BEST FILM), 1999 New Directors/New Films series at New York City’s Museum of Modern Art, as well as various other international festivals."

Also here is a press release for the film "The Hawk is Dying" which mentions the Award.

[55]

If I need to remove the Berlin International Film Festival award, I will, but I've worked very hard on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyapetty (talk • contribs) 08:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)