Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 14

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

The result was delete. The main point of concern was whether Mr Roche played in a fully professional league, and hence passes WP:ATHLETE. The votes for deletion focused upon this point, explained various reasons why the subject failed WP:ATHLETE. Those arguments were not adequately answered by the keepers. (pun intended :) ) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Roche (football)

Stephen Roche (football) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Stephen Roche (football)" – news · books · scholar · images)

I contested this as a speedy, but looking into it I don't really see where this player passes WP:N currently. He's basically a college footballer, that doesn't seem notable in and of itself. Wizardman 23:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 07:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 07:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Being a college footballer isn't enough Spiderone (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, He was the captain of Ireland's 2009 World University Games team and has played for UCD in the League of Ireland. Is this not enough to warrant keeping the article? SchumiUCD (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, but the general consensus on here is that youth football isn't notable at all. Jhealy (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

World University Games or FAI First Division isnt "youth football".--Vintagekits (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree on the former. On the latter, we've hardly established that Premier division football is notable, much less one appearance a division down. As I say, I think there's merit in keeping the article, but it doesn't meet wikipedia's guidelines.Jhealy (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, seems to play at a low level in Ireland and the Student Games appearances don't satisfy WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. Tricky finding sources for him as even with a more refined search you end up with as many results for the 1987 Tour de France winner. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete definitely non-notable subject, fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, Your arguments are flawed because the rest of the UCD squad all have pages. Whats more the fact that he has captained his country places him at a higher level of importance than the rest of the squad. The page should remain. 13.44, 17 August 2009 -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.207.58.11 (talk • contribs)
  • Actually, only 12 players out of 28 listed in the "current squad" section of the club's article seem to have articles of their own, not all as you state -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Probably the most pedantic comment I've seen in this whole attack on Irish football. That's world-class pedantry right there. Dahamsta (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in AfD's - the UCD players that do have articles would probably fail Wikipedia guidelines anyway. This player fails WP:ATHLETE due to him never playing at a professional level, and fails general notability guidelines due to a lack of published third-party sources. Anything Google gives us is about the other (and much more notable) Stephen Roche. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not yet notable. Appearances at a non professional level do not make him notable in a sport whose pinnacle is professional. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, Whilst the bulk of the UCD squad are based on players who attend UCD as students they are a professional football team who also sign external players. Stephen Roche gets paid for playing and is therefore playing at a professional level. Their players get payed and they also have players who don't and never have attended UCD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.107.17 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's understandable that there's confusion here - Wikipedia's rules on notability are complex. I'll try to clarify. UCD play in the FAI first division. Roche may be a professional, but the league is not "fully professional"... not even the premier league in Ireland is. This means players need to pass the general notability criteria, rather than gaining automatic notability per WP:ATHLETE. For more information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, which explains things well. --Dweller (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable football player, fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. --Carioca (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, if you look at every irish league club on wikipedia you will see that most squads have many players with wikipedia pages. does he not deserve a page the same as his team mates and fellow irish league players just because he shares a name with an extremely famous irish athlete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucdafc (talk • contribs) 23:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, article significantly improved and multiple sources now added.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• You've done a great job - congratulations - but all of the sources provided are trivial, which means he won't meet WP:GNG I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 14:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. Read GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" - describing a players participation in the world student games and in Ireland 2nd highest league is more than a trivial mention. Now if he was only English!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• That's a bit hypocritical, especially as you argued WP:NTEMP in the aforementioned AfD. --Jimbo^[online] 17:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually my argument was the he was playing in the 104th level of English football.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's where you went wrong, he plays fourth. --Jimbo^[online] 17:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at the time of the nomination he didnt!--Vintagekits (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Still 99 tiers off. --Jimbo^[online] 17:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It still proves the British bias of the FOOTY Cabal members.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, has represented and captained his country at the World Student Games and now is playing in a professional football division. Multiple sources go beyong trivial mentions. Growing concensus that these players are notable.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• You've been arguing the professional status of the League of Ireland Premier Division. This player only seems to have played in the First Division, which has no fully professional clubs. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Bray were in the Premier division when he was with them.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

But do you have a source that he actually played for Bray? Or is the figure in the infobox incorrect? GiantSnowman 14:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can see there is a source already actually. The source given confirms he played in the League Cup for Bray, not the league - I have adjusted the article accordingly. GiantSnowman 14:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The league cup is a notable competition with professional teams.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, There's a serious lack of understanding of the League of Ireland going on here. While not all teams are full time only two sides in the league, including the first division, are amateur; Wexford Youths and Mervue United, the others are all professional, including UCD. Also Sporting Fingal playing in the First Division are a full time professional outfit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.42.32 (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• According to this report in the Independant, there are only three professional teams in Ireland at the moment (Bohemians, Derry and Sligo). Also, I would find it highly doubtful that UCD (or any university team in the entire world) would be fully professional. Indeed, if you look at that source, you'll see UCD and Bray are both mentioned as one of last year's part-time teams. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Clearly when the IP refers to teams as being "professional", he/she is using it in the sense of "not totally amateur" and therefore including semi-pro teams..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The date of that article is January 2009. There is now a fully-professional Premier Division, the clubs not stated in that article are Dundalk, St Patrick's Athletic, Cork City, Galway United, who, according to Wikipedia itself, are professional.--86.41.68.222 (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    • You may want to read that article properly, as it refers to the upcoming season - "Next year's Premier Division will have just three completely full-time clubs..." Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, but the season starts in March, and by that time four other clubs had gone professional, and in a ten team league, that's a lot.--86.41.68.222 (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Refer to my previous comments on the nasty little spackers running this attack on Irish football. Dahamsta (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oi - remain civil and don't engage in any personal attacks. GiantSnowman 11:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• It would probably be easier to remain civil if there wasnt such an overwhelming Anglo-bias on here!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh. What Anglo-bias exactly? GiantSnowman 11:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know how GiantSnowman is even qualified to be talking about these articles, since you are from Britain, I mean I've never heard of any of the players playing for Milton Keynes Dons but I don't delete them because people from England would know them. And of course Irish players would fail WP:N for you, for me all the Mk Dons players fail WP:N, but the people in Milton Keynes and in England might know them so I leave them alone.--FiftyDeadMenWalking (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Where does where I come from, or any other editor for that matter, actually matter? An article should meet notability guidelines regardless of geography. GiantSnowman 13:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• It does because you have never heard of almost every player playing in the League of Ireland, likewise I have never heard of any of the players playing for Aberdeen and a quick google search doesn't help me either.--FiftyDeadMenWalking (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

How can you determine whether another user has "heard of" a player or not? --Jimbo^[online] 14:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well this is a AfD and its a discussion so everyone opinion is valid. Granted most novice editors are not so cynical to nimbly skip from one policy to another to protect "their articles" as the FOOTY Cabal are but that doesnt make their opinion less valid - in fact it probably makes it more valid because they dont hunt in a pack and are less biased.

FiftyDeadMenWalking, if you think the article should be kept then you should !vote "Keep" and dont be bullied otherwise.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep He passes WP:N, and he has played for Bray Wanderers in the Premier Division who are professional and despite only playing in a league cup game, he has played in a professional team so I don't see why there's any problem in the first place with this article.--FiftyDeadMenWalking (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• The only 'problem' is that the LoI isn't a fully-professional league, something which WP:ATHLETE stipulates. I've nothing against Irish players at all; but I do have a problem with players who don't meet notability. GiantSnowman 14:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• There should be an exception in all fairness to leagues such as the League of Ireland, as the top level in a country of 6 million, despite not being fully-pro. It's as close as you can get to a fully professional league, eight out of ten clubs are professional. I know Roche doesn't play in a fully professional league, but the fact that he has done so on two occasions for a sustained period of time should be enough to keep him.--FiftyDeadMenWalking (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment More of an effort should be made to keep these articles, improve them as much as possible like I have done to Gary Hamilton which has a never-ending line of external links. And everyone else, try and find sources and references instead of deciding to delete them first.--FiftyDeadMenWalking (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The external links listed in that article should be included in the prose as references. See WP:EL and WP:CITINGSOURCES for the correct useage. --Jimbo^[online] 14:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I will change that now.--FiftyDeadMenWalking (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete footballer fails criteria for sportspeople at WP:ATH as he has not played in a fully-professional tournament (league or cup). Also fails WP:GNG criteria due to lack of independent source coverage, refs regarding match reports/call-ups etc fail WP:NTEMP. --Jimbo^[online] 14:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, another British editor that is completely biased and absolutely hypocritical. Here is his !vote last week for a player that played non-league football and had weaker references. What a load of bollocks!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• And what exactly is hypocritical about Jimbo's comments? GiantSnowman 15:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• My vote was based on the multiple references that passed WP:GNG. Vintagekits seems to miss the numerous delete !votes on other English players I've made/nominated. PS - please remain civil. --Jimbo^[online] 15:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Is it fuck! In my opinion you both !vote to keep a player in an English semi professional league who was less notable and had weaker references then this Irish player this week. Its a fuckin load of bollocks and ye both as biased as fuck.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• CommentI think you all need a holiday, there are more important things in life! (Like going to Glentoran and Rangers matches)--FiftyDeadMenWalking (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This is ridiculous, I look around the site and see GAA players added to the site when they are not even professional and a professional league, even if the teams in it are not all professional are still part of it, in this case all GAA players should be deleted from the site aswell, as they have never played in a Professional GAA match as all matches are Amateur. (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• GAA is the top level of the sport and receives substantial coverage in Ireland and some coverage outside. A delete argument on established GAA players would be similar to arguing that rugby union players pre-1995 were not notable, because that sport wasn't professional either. The subject here is a young Irish footballer who has made the odd appearance at a semi-professional level, and has only received a small amount of coverage in relation to his participation in student tournaments. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It's very confusing to follow this discussion but to clarify, UCD AFC have been involved in senior Irish football since the 1979. As Ireland only has two small divisions in senior football there isn't a huge distinction between playing in the First and Premier. Many clubs and players will drift between the two. UCD have won the FAI Senior Cup and participated in both the European Cup Winners Cup and Inter Toto Cup. UCD have also produced numerous Irish U-21, U-19 and U 18 internationals. Its players are professional in that they are paid to play football for the club. This quest to delete one of its players pages is very bizarre and an exercise in pedantry at its worst.
• Keep Recent additions by VK have established notability. BigDunc 18:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Player is notable and plays in a professional league, just because it's not a fully full time league does not mean it's not a professional league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricksinnotts (talk • contribs) 18:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep the recent improvements made to the article ensure that it passes WP:GNG. 86.45.144.215 (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC). A significant improvement has been made since this Afd was first nominated, and is now worthy of a place on Wikipedia.--Umberside (talk) 20:31, 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 delete. JForget 23:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My Life As A Teenage Robot: The Movie

My Life As A Teenage Robot: The Movie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "My Life As A Teenage Robot: The Movie" – news · books · scholar · images)

This "maybe upcoming movie" fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. According to the article, it is unknown whether this film will be made. No WP:RS coverage found in search. Disputed prod. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: "My Life As A Teenage Robot: The Movie is a "maybe" upcoming movie. By maybe, it is unknown whether the movie will actually produced and directed." Those two sentences right there..this screams WP:CRYSTAL. Google brings up nothing. talkingbirds 00:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. "Maybe upcoming"? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Article about a rumored possibility of potential film is far too premature. Faills WP:NFF. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NFF, and I'd say that it should be also slammed with WP:HAMMER. --> RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 16:38, 16 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 to delete, default to keep. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Peewee Moke

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

fails WP:ATHLETE. has not played in the highest professional level in Australia, the NRL. still a junior. LibStar (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 17:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Article claims that he played for Samoa - if true then this means he will meet WP:ATHLETE. Is there a source? Mattlore (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:33, 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 23:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Meldrum Nonsense

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

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

Unreferenced article about a possibly non-notable event about which I can't seem to find any sources via Google. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 23:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No coverage in any sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable local event. Possible hoax. — Rankiri (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete As something made up. Maybe it even happened in 2007, but is not notable.YobMod 10:57, 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 Cheers, I'^mperator 18:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Abdullah Abu Masood camp

Abdullah Abu Masood camp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Abdullah Abu Masood camp" – news · books · scholar · images)

Fails WP:N. A single internal document states this camp exists - that isn't enough to justify an article. Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Expand - military facilities are not an automatic pass. They must pass WP:N, which requires reliable, third-party sources giving significant coverage. The only sources provided are mentioning it in relation to something else, NOT covering it in any proper detail. Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep, a terrorist training camp is notable, and the fact that so far the creator has only had the time to detail one source talking about the camp, does not merit deletion. It merits patience in waiting for future revelations about the camp. For brief example, ten seconds with Google showed me "In or about early October 2001, at LeT's Ibn Masood camp near Muzafrabad, Pakistan, Muhammed Aatique fired an AntiAircraft gun and an RPG"[1] and "As he explains, he was recruited by the Lashar-e-Taiba from Multan a couple of months ago and sent for a 21-day preliminary course at the Abdullah bin Masood camp, located near the Chalabndi bridge in the Sirkot area of Muzaffarabad."[2]Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  The second link doesn't work for me, the first is a skeleton argument for a court case. If that's the best google-scouring can find that really adds weight to my argument and doesn't detract from it. "Ibn Masood" and "Abdullah Abu Masood" are different things, and a terrorist training camp is not inherently notable, so simply stating that it is notable is worth nothing. Ironholds (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We have 35 Marine Corps training centres, and none of them were listed as justification for a military invasion. On the other hand, the 40 terrorist training camps in Afg/Pak were listed, and thus are notable. And that's hardly the best "Google-scouring" can find, it's from the first page of hits for a very simple search of the title of the article. And I highly doubt LeT maintained three different camps named Ibn Masood, Abu Masood and bin Masood, realistically...especially when all three are listed as being in the same village. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 07:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"other stuff exists" is not a valid argument, neither is "listed as justification for a military invasion". Were they listed in independent, reliable sources? Did those sources cover this camp in some detail? Ironholds (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The only reason you gave for deletion was "A single internal document states this camp exists - that isn't enough to justify an article.", I have proven that wrong - come up with a new reason, or withdraw the nomination. It is clear there are, at least, several sources for the existence of the camp, including a PBS documentary which mentions it. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 07:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There you go - given. "mentions" is exactly the problem. Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep adequately sourced. Military bases are notable, provided there is reliable information. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Enough sources exist to write a decent verified article (even if a stub), so it is notable.YobMod 10:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep reading the nomination I never imagined that this "single internet document" would prove to be an official Dep of Defense report. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:31, 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. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Bek Ofis

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

No sources cited, probably doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete can't find reliable independent sources that discuss the band. There is discussion in passing but no in-depth coverage. No indication the band meets inclusion criteria. --A new name 2008 (talk) 23:27, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Mickey Bentson

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

No sources cited, probably doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:04, 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. The "keep" opinions are unconvincing because they do not address the sourcing requirement of WP:BIO (all we have are primary US government sources of obscure provenance) and the WP:BLP problems inherent in listing an allegedly living person as a terrorist leader solely on the basis of such sources.  Sandstein  07:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Abdul Salam (Taliban leader, Karabak front, 2001)

Abdul Salam (Taliban leader, Karabak front, 2001) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Abdul Salam (Taliban leader, Karabak front, 2001)" – news · books · scholar · images)

non notable person. If the best thing we can say about someone is that American intelligence are sure they exist then we don't have enough material for an article, and it fails WP:BIO at the first hurdle. Ironholds (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, no credible sources say this person even exists. The only information we have comes from someone detained in Guantanamo Bay not a real reliable source. --A new name 2008 (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • A point of clarification -- this comment is based on a misunderstanding of what the article says. The article, and the underlying references, do not say that the information the American intelligence establishment has on Abdul Salam was based on Guantanamo interrogations. Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I think I did misunderstand the article. I am striking my comment for now. At this point after re-reading the article again, I am not even sure what the article is saying. The first line is not even a complete sentence and still trying to figure out the rest of the article. --A new name 2008 (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- It seems to me that this nomination is based on a misunderstanding of the wikipedia's policy on verifiability. The nomination asserts that we don't even know whether Abdul Salam exists. Well, the very first sentence of WP:VER says we should aim for "verifiability, not truth". Basing a nomination for deletion on the question whether we know whether Abdul Salam really exists lapses from WP:VER, because, without regard to whether we know he really exists, the American intelligence asserts he exists. It is verifiable. I suggest there is nothing exceptional about having articles on topics that may not exist. We cover theoretical sub-atomic particles, which may or may not exist. We cover the gods and supernatural beings from across the religious spectrum. We cover the 20th hijacker -- an individual who may not have existed. Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  You've completely misunderstood what I wrote. I wrote that according to American intelligence, we do know he exists, but that's the most we know. There is no misunderstanding going on here other than your misunderstanding of what I wrote. Ironholds (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- The nomination asserts that Abdul Salam was "not notable". He is described as a deputy to Abdul Hadi Al Iraqi -- number three in Al Qaeda after Osama bin Laden and Al Zawahiri. That is an important position. We may not know as much about him as we would like. But, I suggest this is not a good reason to delete an article we have good, verifiable references for. I have addressed this in more detail here. Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- Further "Abdul Salam" is a very common name in the Muslim world. Abdul Salam Rocketti and Abdul Salam Zaeff are two other senior figures who were Taliban leaders. Without having a separate article on Abdul Salam the Al Qaeda leader, it would be easy to mistake him for one of the other Abdul Salam who American intelligence were interested in. In addition Guantanamo held half a dozen other individuals who might have their name shortened to Abdul Salam. Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -- for the reasons I offered above. Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The article needs a good spit and polish, more info would be nice, but it does seem to meet WP:V, albeit barely. WP:NOTABILITY, on the other hand, is also a factor here and this article asserts no notability whatsoever. I am open to revisiting my delete comment, but in the absence of any proof that he's done something notable I feel we would be better off without him here. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep clearly notable as a military leader of internationally known stature. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC) .
• Delete - I went back through and reviewed this article again, the supporting documentation and the notability guidelines. I also searched for addition sources to verify the information in the article. The current sourcing for this article is two primary sources. (I could not retrieve the first one for some reason, but will assume that the article accurately relates what the document says.) As Geo Swan says above "Abdul Salam" is a very common name in the Muslim world and there is no verifiable connection that these two documents are talking about the same person. They could be or it could be two different people. I found zero reliable secondary sources that discuss this person in passing or in depth. According to the notability guideline for people the basic criteria is that a person is presumed to be notable if he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. We do not have that in this article. All we have are primary sources that mention this common name in passing. Again from the notability guideline for people the basic criteria goes on to say, primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. At this point we have nothing to establish notability according to wikipedia guidelines. --A new name 2008 (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep obviously notable irregular military/terrorist leader. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:32, 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. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Bandito Records

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

No sources cited, probably doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 06:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:CORP.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 06:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:57, 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 keep. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Joe Bini

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

No sources, probably doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - According to IMDB, the subject has won a film editting award at Sundance. The article needs work, and some sourcing, but the award establishes notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - Editor on multiple notable films, was on the Jury for the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and won a Sundance Film Festival award for editing another notable film. This is a notable person. --A new name 2008 (talk) 00:24, 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. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

RealWorld Icon Editor

RealWorld Icon Editor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "RealWorld Icon Editor" – news · books · scholar · images)

DELETE. I don't believe that a one off review from CNET and a few trivial never-heard-of websites is enough to substantiate an encyclopedia article here, nor do I believe it is an indicator of notability. I am recommending deletion on the basis of this being a non-notable software product and I hope you will agree. JBsupreme (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Weakly sourced and non-notable. One of the three listed "reviews" was an advertisement and said so on the page. Some guy (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:54, 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. Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Open Organization

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

This appears to be a non-notable neologism. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:53, 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. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sean Fields

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

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

Non-notable. No BLP compliant reliable sources and no matches in google news make the article unlikely to be improved to demonstrate notability. Ash (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. News about "Sean Fields" seems to be about a hockey player. See this archive search. Bongomatic 23:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 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 List of Are You Afraid of the Dark? episodes. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Tale of the Quicksilver (Episode)

The Tale of the Quicksilver (Episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "The Tale of the Quicksilver (Episode)" – news · books · scholar · images)

Per WP:IINFO #1 as this is entirely a plot summary. There is already coverage of this tv programme at List of Are You Afraid of the Dark? episodes. I42 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following pages for the same reason:

The Tale of the Phantom Cab (Episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The tale of the phantom cab episode (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Tale of the Lonely Ghost (Episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete No independent notability established. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• If it is just because of WP:PLOT, then you should give it some time. Same perhaps for notability. Debresser (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If there's no way to establish notability, then these articles need to go. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect all to List of Are You Afraid of the Dark? episodes. Fails WP:EPISODE. Joe Chill (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Read WP:WAF and merge and redirect to List of Are You Afraid of the Dark? episodes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 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 23:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Upside Down (2010 film)

Upside Down (2010 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Upside Down (2010 film)" – news · books · scholar · images)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Per WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with the nom. The film is still in pre-production. Allow it when it can then meet WP:NF. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete (or userfy). WP:NFF / Wikipedia:NFF#Future_films.2C_incomplete_films.2C_and_undistributed_films is an excellently working rule of thumb. Follow it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:29, 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 23:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Monster, Monster

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

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. Incorrectly deleted as an A9 article, the article was restored after I notified the admin. The article does not merit an article yet, but probably will be notable enough when released. ceranthor 22:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Note, I had to modify the rationale because I said "meets", while meaning the opposite (does not meet). Sorry, ceranthor 01:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced speculation about an as-yet-unreleased album. No opposition to re-creation when/if the album is released and some sources to verify the content can be provided. -- saberwyn 01:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no sources and no album...I don't even know who the publisher is going to be. Coffeepusher (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Notes: Even if it will be deleted, it does not have the correct title, which only further's my suspicion given that erector has used at least two other IPs. For the article, move again to erector's userspace as a draft until release. For Monster,Monster, however, a redounding
• Delete: an implausible typo.--Launchballer (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I've gone ahead with moving the article to erectors userspace. Please, can someone delete the other redirects, and also show me how to close one of these things?--Launchballer (talk) 20:46, 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 delete. JForget 23:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Drawing (film)

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

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

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Film is still in planning stages. Production not to even begin until March 2010. This article is way premature. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NFF failed. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:09, 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. Cirt (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

List of music releases from British reality television stars

List of music releases from British reality television stars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of music releases from British reality television stars" – news · books · scholar · images)

The person who created this was obviously hoping for a complete list of albums and singles released by contestants in the show Popstars, Pop Idol, Fame Academy and The X Factor, but there are much better articles now for three of those shows and I'm sure the fourth is planned. In addition to this, it hasn't taken into account music releases by contestants who appeared in British reality TV shows like Big Brother, Celebrity Big Brother, I'm a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here!, Reborn in the USA, Britain's Got Talent and all the other British reality TV shows in Category:British reality television series, many of which are not music-based shows but feature celebrities who are already famous for releasing music, or unknown people who go on to start a music career. And for that reason I think it would be better to delete this article. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Supremely unNotable, and largely already covered (why?), apparently. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:23, 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. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Rumble of 56

Rumble of 56 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Rumble of 56" – news · books · scholar · images)

per WP:NALBUMS, no independent coverage in reliable sources Dlabtot (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't see where this passes WP:ALBUMS Niteshift36 (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:26, 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. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

To the Music

To the Music (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "To the Music" – news · books · scholar · images)

fails WP:notability (music) as the song did not chart nor has it been covered lots nor did it receive critical acclaim. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete, (or merge) per nom and because it would be easy to cover it in an album's article.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 21:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers. Esradekan (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:21, 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. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Money As Energy

Money As Energy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Money As Energy" – news · books · scholar · images)

Originally tagged as a G11 speedy advert, I took a chainsaw to the article to remove the non-encyclopedic bits. However, I'm striking out when it comes to finding notability for this e-book. Lots of PR pieces, but a shortage of independent, reliable sources showing notability. (Since this is an e-book, I'm not sure if the notability guide for books or web applies, fwiw.) Since the speedy was contested, I assume a prod will be too. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with the nominator that it's difficult to tell whether the notability guide for books or web applies, and thus it's difficult to find a reasonable speedy category; this seems like a good way of proceeding in case someone can find more notability than I could in a brief search. Whatever the medium, self-publication attracts no notability. The closing administrator should also check the author's name, John Rocco Savalli, which is currently listed for speedy deletion but might still be present when this is closed. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It would be notable if passed either web or book, but AFAICT, it doesn't. Thanks for the cleanup, Fabrictramp, and for the AFD. Keeps the wheels turning. Cheers, Ben Aveling 12:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:19, 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. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Dominique Dane

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

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

The subject of this 27-word stub fails utterly to meet any of the WP:Pornbio criteria, in addition to the fact that she has no demonstrable Notability what-so-ever. She has appeared in a grand total of three (3) films, and has never been so much as nominated for an award. Her two sources are both porn industry-related (nothing from AVN, by the way, just a profile at IAFD, and her name included in a list of former Penthouse centerfolds). She had a very brief career beginning in 2002, and ending in 2003. This article is pretty close to being a sort of avatar of unNotability. If this woman is deemed Notable, its difficult to imagine how anyone who has ever appeared in a single adult film (or three of them, anyway) could ever be deemed unNotable. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Does not present intersections of reliable independent secondary sources. Per WP:BIO. Algébrico (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:14, 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 no consensus. Its been relisted and swe seem no further forward... Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Leon S. Talaska

Leon S. Talaska (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Leon S. Talaska" – news · books · scholar · images)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG: doctor did not receive any notable honor or award and did not make any significant contribution to obstetrics as can be verified by publications from the relevant field. Of the sources provided:

• one is from a family/personal website on a domain name maintained by the author of the article (Talaska's great-grandson)
• another is a short death notice about the topic's son from a local newspaper
• one other is Talaska's obituary, and
• the others (Memoirs of Lucas County and the City of Toledo and Toledo and Lucas County Ohio 1623 - 1923, a scan of which is displayed in the article) are just a short biological pieces that refer to him as "successful" and a "good citizen" with a "large private practice", but nothing suggesting that he made major contributions to his field or was the recipient of any major award or recognition.

I can't tell the quality of the other reference because I don't have a copy of the book and I can't find an electronic copy, but I wouldn't expect "History of St. Anthony's Parish" (a book about the church where Talaska was the choir director) to provide notability-giving coverage of an OB-GYN. Google web and scholar searches for "Leon Talaska Obstetrician" yield no results. — DroEsperanto (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

—Keep This biography should not be deleted because: The not notable claim conflicts with five reputable independent references that cite Leon as the equivalent of notable. The citations are substantial for that time period of the late 1800's and very early 1900s. There is nothing wrong with providing additional references to a personal website by family of the subject so long as there are other reputable independent references of which are a sufficient supply of them for that time period. Additionally, the family website passes the test of being quite unbiased, neutral and factual. Information in Google is scarce regarding this because the references are very old and not archived online yet by their source. However there is one notable reference online with the Toledo Blade as referenced. -Unbiassed (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the existing sources are high-quality enough to establish notability. The fact that a few sources call him a "prominent doctor" means very little, especially since it seems that only Toledo-related sources seem to think so. His other claim to notability is the fact that he was the first Polish doctor in Toledo, which is thus far only supported in passing by an appositive statement in a short article in a local paper (an article which wasn't even about Leon S. Talaska), and which seems somewhat trivial to me. Should we likewise have an article for whoever was the first Italian doctor in Scranton or the first Catholic lawyer in Tallahassee? Maybe if he was the first Polish doctor in the United States, or even in Ohio, but not Toledo. As far as I can tell he wasn't a groundbreaking figure of medicine or in breaking down anti-Polish prejudice, so he remains non-notable.

(Regarding the family website, assuming it is reliable, it does nothing to establish notability since it's just used to provide evidence of a medical degree, which isn't in and of itself notable, and isn't independent of the topic. Also, just as a note, in AfD discussions it's customary to precede your "vote" with '''Keep''', '''Delete''', etc. and a bullet point.)— DroEsperanto (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This point is well received. However I leave it up to medical experts in Wikipedia to contribute their opinions on whether delivering over 5,000 babies in the late 1800s and early 1900s without a single loss of child or mother is notable or not as the main notability theme. Not all facts need to be notable. There are many non-notable facts all throughout by far most notable persons' biographies on Wikipedia. This is no different. The personal website made by a family member is not provided to establish notability, but rather provide images, etc. that would otherwise clutter the biography.--Unbiassed (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course articles can include facts that don't make the subject notable; it would be ridiculously incomplete without them ("Sonia Sotomayor is the first Hispanic Supreme Court Judge" would be a terrible article). I was just stating that that particular reference (as well as the other references listed) didn't establish notability, which is the case I'm making. I apologize if I was unclear. — DroEsperanto (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the 5,500 babies/no deaths claim is cited to an obituary, which doesn't seem like a particularly reliable source for such a grandiose claim, especially considering that obituaries are often written by the family/friends of the deceased (although I can't tell since there's no info about authorship in the citation). It would also seem to me if the claim were true and truly notable and important in the field of medicine, he would have garnered additional coverage or would be recognized as a major contributor to his field, which doesn't seem to be the case. — DroEsperanto (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The reference of the 5,000+ babies/no death fact is written in: History of St. Anthony's Parish, Toledo, Ohio Anno Domini, Diamond Jubilee of St. Anthony's Parish 1882 to 1957, not the obituary. As stated, it is not necessary to provide a large amount of references for a notable fact of this time frame being the turn of the second to last century particularly for something notable, but not highly notable. Perhaps there should be a voting system on how notable a fact is such as on a scale of one to ten or "completely not notable, somewhat notable, notable, very notable". This could be on the article where users/visitors can vote once based on IP address. In this case, I would say this would be a 4.5 on a scale of one to ten with 10 being most notable, and a 4.5 being the minimum qualifier for Wikipedia, so, this means "barely notable", but nonetheless, notable. As state, I'm most interested in those with relevant medical backgrounds to sound their opinion on this. --Unbiassed (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) On the contrary, statements that that are challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to reliable sources as per WP:ATTRIBUTION, especially facts upon which an article's notability are based. In the article, the 5k babies statement is attached to a reference pointing to the obituary, which is why I thought that. The source you now say wrote the statement still doesn't seem reliable to me for what you are citing it for: how likely is it that the authors of a book on the history of a church went to great lengths to verify the number of charity births their choir director had administered, and that none of those 11,000 mothers/babies died, especially considering the book was written decades after Talaska had already died? I think it is more likely that the number came from his estimates/stories, and the book just reported that. — DroEsperanto (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is extremely unlikely the source referring to is inaccurate. The source is third party / independent and credible. Nobody should come to the conclusion that it is unreliable without facts. This is a contradiction to say the source is unreliable without pointing to some source that proves it is unreliable. The statement it's unreliable is speculative and speculation has no place in Wikipedia. However, it is true the source is not very specific and it would help if there were more sources, but as stated, due to the time frame it is normal not to have ten major sources particularly regarding nobility that merely meets minimum requirements. So I would say the sources and nobility are not strong, but rather just meet minimum standards to qualify. Here are some more details about the source: "St. Anthony's Parish history is the story of an oppressed, immigrant people building a new life of freedom; of a church preserving and embellishing a Christian heritage; of a school training an industrious, thrifty, and self-sacrificing citizenry. It is, in miniature, the story of the building of America". --Unbiassed (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of that source (about whose reliability I still have doubts, but which I don't want to discuss anymore), the fact that he has not received any attention from the relevant field, and only from his family, town, and church, indicate that he is not notable for his work as an OB-GYN. Doctors who make breakthroughs or discoveries in medicine publish papers and are cited heavily, or have their work written about later by people in their field. Talaska has none of these things: he is reported on by his family, his local newspaper/archives, and in his relationship to his church. — DroEsperanto (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - a Google search which excluded Wikipedia returned exactly one hit: genealogical material on a broken website. Mangoe (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep In current terms, he would probably have been Chief of Obstetrics at a major hospital, and thus probably qualified. In extending our view of what we consider notability to times before the professions had their current degree of organization, we have to take into account what the standards were at the time. Whether he had received recognition from the professional field can be determined only after making a search through the appropriate paper journals and indexes. And in any case, whether or not he achieved professional notability, he still could attain notability under the BIO guidelines for civic notability in general. This is a nice example of the inherent problem with the GNG--there is no real question he meets that rule as written , but the difficulty is that this gives a degree of inclusiveness at which many of us are very uncomfortable, so we increase the requirements for what we wish to call significant coverage and reliable sources on an ad hoc basis for that particular article. (I have used similar arguments when I did not think a local figure ought to be considered notable, even though there were sources). The argument for whether the sources are in fact significant will succeed or not depending upon whether people like the overall result. Regardless of what we say we do, in practice we almost always use GNG as an excuse, not a reason. The GNG goes by sources, but that was really intended as a surrogate for the only actual meaning of notability that makes sense, one that would by the subject itself. I give the GNG another year before we realise its contradiction to the actual meaning of suitable for encyclopedic coverage. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The GNG ensures a criteria for notability that is neither based on original research ("I think this guy sounds important/I find his work to be really interesting, so we should have an article on him") or unverifiable or doubtful claims (e.g., "so-and-so was the first person to invent X") or hoaxes. If a person is truly important, then several reliable third-party sources will have written about their accomplishments. Regardless, the GNG is accepted consensus for now, so we should go by that. That being said, as far as any of us can tell, Talaska does not pass the GNG. The one claim to notability he has (having delivered 5500 babies as charity cases with no fatalities, which could confer notability either as a doctor or as a philanthropist/humanitarian of sorts), as succinctly stated by User:Abductive, is insufficiently substantiated, and that he might have been more notable in today's day and age is therefore irrelevant. — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This case saddens me, because delivering 5,500 babies without any deaths would be a remarkable achievement. Taking Singapore's modern infant mortality rate of 2.31 per 1000, the odds of this happening now are 1 in 334,267. Since the source is not contemporaneous, it is likely to be a family legend, and an untrue one. One would think that the other doctors would have noticed after a while, and given him an award or some other mention in sources at the time. His 1935 obituary would have mentioned it. All other claims to notability in the article are not enough. Abductive (reasoning) 03:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Using today's US infant mortality rate of 6.31 deaths for every 1,000 live births (which is probably lower than it was in the early 1900s), the chances come out to about 1 in 1,469,774,150,000,000 (about 1.5 quadrillion, calculation). — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree that the claim of 5,500 deliveries without a single death is questionable. However The Toledo Blade just about qualifies as a reliable source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to the article "Soft-spoken doctor made house calls", that wasn't about Leon Talaska (the topic of this AFD), it was about his son Frank. Leon was just mentioned in passing in it ("Son of Leon Talaska, Toledo's first doctor of Polish descent...") — DroEsperanto (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that the "Soft-spoken doctor" was Leon's son, Frank. I'm referring to the obituary from 1935. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

An obituary may be reliable for some facts (e.g., date of birth, occupation, date of death, etc.), but I don't think they can be used to establish notability. An obituary in a local paper doesn't mean that they were important, it means that they lived there and that they died. Most likely, the obituary was written by the family or a staff writer who got all their facts from the family, which doesn't seem to confer notability to me. — DroEsperanto (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your opinion on the use of an obituary to establish notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

the mere presence of an an obit ,unless in a very selective source like the NYT does not itself establish notability, though the information it provides may do so. We routinely use ithem for uncontested information. I agree that the no. of successful births seems a little high for the period, and I can not see accepting that without some collaboration. DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is to ask whether he is notable or not according to the mentioned references. When I read "General notability guideline" in WP:GNG ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.") and in WP:BIO "Basic criteria - A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."I draw the conclusion, that the article does - so there is no reason to delete (according to the rules). Greetings Redlinux (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is that one of these sources is not reliable, and the obituary is not independent, as it had family input. Here's what probably happened; dad comes home from work every day, having delivered 98% living babies and preserving the lives of 99% of the mothers. Over dinner, he is not going to tell his children that a little baby died, nor that a first-time mother bled to death while her husband wept. He lied, said everything went fine. Abductive (reasoning) 13:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be grasping at straws to look at the sources and say he has "substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources". Of the six, two are self-published, two just give basic biographical details (in a book that seems to just be a collection of genealogical/biographical info about Toledo, Ohio families, perhaps also self-published/self-derived), one barely mentions him, and one is non-authoritative and unreliable for what it is claiming. So what we're left with is three very local sources verifying that he was, in fact, a doctor, and a family legend saying he did something that is fantastically unlikely. Disregarding that last fact, we have someone who two local sources verify was a doctor. Not notable. — DroEsperanto (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The references are not linked, that's true, and no ISBN-Number is listed, hmm. - That also holds true for the "non-article" Bernhard Göpel. - The "advertisement-link" to [3] (under "relatives") I personally think, should be removed. But according to the rules here it's IMHO hard to find a reason. Greetings Redlinux^···→ 11:44, 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I Wanna Be the Guy

I Wanna Be the Guy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "I Wanna Be the Guy" – news · books · scholar · images)

Most of the reviews cited seem to be personal websites or possibly unreliable sources. I don't see much, if anything, in the way of notability here; no non-trivial coverage to be found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 17:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep – gNews brings up at least a few reliable sources that can establish some notability. MuZemike 17:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• I found only false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a source from Shacknews, ZDnet (Belgium), The Sacramento Bee (print only), and a little bit in Ars Technica. That's what I got from the gNews search. On the regular Google search, Destructoid has a little on the game. It was listed by the Independent Games Summit as the 17th best freeware platformer of 2008 here. MuZemike 22:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. There are enough hits in gNews to establish notability, if only by the skin of its teeth. Lithorien (talk) 02:04, 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. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Homorazzi

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

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

Non-notable website with no GNEWS and lacking GHits of substance. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Unnotable blog site. Triplestop x3 14:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite thoughts on the website being unnotable, as a vancouverite, homorazzi's pivitol involvement in giving vancouver's LGBT community a public voice has been invaluable. As Vancouver's first LGBT blog and public forum, it truly deserves a spot on wiki as part of vancouver queer history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.0.216 (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:37, 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 Withdrawn by nominator.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese language

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

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

I don't think that this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and reliable sources are very hard to find to support it. There is already an article on the Lebanese Arabic dialect, and the nationalist aspects of the topic of this article are already covered in the dialect article. This should likely become a redirect to the existing Lebanese Arabic article. ← George ^[talk] 01:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to Lebanese Arabic seems to me as the best course of action. It's not even clear from the article whether these are in fact two different things or the same thing, in any case they must be too related to have distinct articles. Greenleaf (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I don't really know enough about Semitic languages to able to address this topic very intelligently, but are we really certain this article is about the Lebanese dialect of Arabic, as opposed to some other tongue with roots in ancient Phoenicia, and whatnot? Because I'm rather getting the impression it may be. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

CIA world fact book says :

Languages: Arabic (official), French, English, Armenian

Wikipedia article seems to agree.

Nothing wrong with this, but I have the feeling that the site mentioned has a rather nationalistic tone. Given all evidence, I'd wager a guess that what we deal with is just another name for Lebanese Arabic. Greenleaf (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My best understanding of the situation is that there exists a nationalist, political movement within Lebanon, that considers Lebanese to not be an Arabic dialect, but to instead be a language of its own. Scholars and linguists, on the other hand, consider it to just be another dialect of Arabic. The Lebanese language article is written from that (non-neutral) nationalistic point of view, describing the Lebanese dialect as its own language, while the Lebanese Arabic article is about the dialect. I think that the nationalistic idea of Lebanese as a language is mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia, and that it represents too much of a non-notable, minority view to warrant an article of its own. ← George ^[talk] 23:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1: the nominator does not think this article should be deleted.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Where can I nominate an article to be turned into a redirect then? I thought it should be deleted, then a redirect page created in its place. I don't view any of the unsourced material in the article to be worthy of merging. ← George ^[talk] 22:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, sorry—you're quite right that I should have pointed you to the correct venue rather than just saying "not here". That's entirely my fault and I apologise profusely.

  You don't need to discuss a redirect. Per WP:BRD, you just do it.

  It may be that someone reverts you, in which case you should discuss the matter with them on the article's talk page in order to seek a consensus.

  Deleting the article is not done unless it should be a redlink. That's because of Wikipedia's copyright licensing provisions rather than for any internal reason, so "delete and redirect" is simply not a possible outcome; but the only difference in practice is that the previous content will be visible in the redirect's history page.

  If you would like to go this route, this debate can be closed under the aforementioned speedy keep ground.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the best course of action then. This page really should be a redirect to Lebanese Arabic. Thanks for explaining the next steps to me, and feel free to close this at will. Cheers. ← George ^[talk] 22:43, 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. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Big Brother 11 episodes

List of Big Brother 11 episodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Orphaned page that isn't even being updated/transcluded. All the information in the article can be found on Big Brother 11 (U.S.). –Turian^talk 11:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 14:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: None of the other Big Brother seasons have their own episode page; they also have all of the episodes included on the season page. That also seems a more appropriate location for weekly summaries. talkingbirds 14:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:59, 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 no consensus. JForget 23:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Max Bollinger

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

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

Prod was contested, so I'm bringing this here. Minor roles in TV movies, audiobooks... this man is just not notable. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 17:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• There are book titles and many other numerous entries. A lot of reference exist to this performer / writer on wikepedia already, but no simple article to record existence of this name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdsabooks (talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Book titles? Well, he fails WP:AUTHOR as well. He has not had a major role in any significant production, and until he has, he is not worthy of an article here. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 17:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• delete wiki-ised IMDB entry. Artw (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a waste of time.

I will leave this to someone else. Never going to use this as a source of info either.

Does not make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdsabooks (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @813  ·  18:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Has had roles in major stuff, however not major roles, per WP:ENT. Triplestop x3 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• weak keep, since the extra added parts show more notability. Triplestop x3 01:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've flagged this for rescue; I've spent a bit of time looking for sources, with little success; I flagged it because I wonder if other sources might show the credits and things. At this stage though, I think it's unlikely.  Chzz  ►  18:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep After doing research on Max as an author, it seems he may have more note as an author than as an actor... taking advantage of his multiple language skills. Time to look and see if his books have received favorable reviews. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete (pending outcome of rescue attempt). An extensive list of productions and books he's been involved in, but I can't pin down any particular roles of significance, nor can I find anything on GNews. But if someone finds something I didn't I'll look again. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Voice actor should be treated as regular actors are. This person has been a key part in many notable series, and therefore is notable enough to have his own article. Dream Focus 00:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - a reasonably notable voice actor - especially for documentaries. Needs more cites. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've gotta say Delete. I honestly can't see much evidence of notability. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Can someone close this already? It's almost been two weeks. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 19:48, 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. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A. S. Mnatsakanian

A. S. Mnatsakanian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "A. S. Mnatsakanian" – news · books · scholar · images)

Hmm... From a quick search, there appears to be little to no references regarding this historian. He may not meet WP:NOTE. The information section uses phrases such as "It is quite possible..." and "exceptional." I would have to guess that this article is taken from a portion of the book listed as a reference. BrianY (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete can find nothing on him both under this spelling and the other possibility (Mnatsakanyan). There are two other academics with similar names -- an engineer and a biologist; nothing for an historian though. If someone can read Armenian and finds sources in that language (or Russian which he might have written in) that might do it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Regardless of notability the article is so incoherent that it not worth a place in WP. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC).

It is a mess but that could be fixed iff the man could be shown to be notable. I cannot see that he can be. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Most of the article was a copyvio; I removed it, but that leaves essentially nothing. There's a little about him in Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war, De Waal 2004, p. 153 — he was apparently central to an academic controversy with Ziya Bunyadov involving the historical connection between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, later to become a very important cultural issue in that area. And in Nation-building in the post-Soviet borderlands, Smith and Law 1998, p. 51, he's mentioned as the promoter of a nationalist theory that the rulers of Urartu (9th to 7th centuries BC) were ethnic Armenians. But I can't find enough to base an article on. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • PS If anyone else wants to try searching more: there was apparently an art historian named Asatour Sh. Mnatsakanian (or Mnatsakanyan) who published in the 1950s. The incomprehensible copyvio paragraph I removed was about art history, so likely relates to this person. I'm not convinced that he is the same person as the historian. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • To add to the confusion, there was apparently a historian named A. N. Mnatsakanian who co-authored a history of the Armenian SSR in 1957 with A. M. Hakobian. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I had missed these Mnatsakanians -- I think you are correct and our Mnatsakanian is the art historian. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that the nationalist historian is more notable — at least, I can find published references saying something about what he did rather than merely citing one of his works. But I'm still not convinced there's enough about either of them for an article here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the nat. historian might warrant a mention in the Nagorny-Karabahk article if nothing more. The engineer and the biologist don't seem notable. I tried to find the online searchable Great Soviet Encyclopedia that used to be hosted out of Russia --- its gone now; I thought if the art Mnatsakanian is notable he'll be in there. Not in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia either. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 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 keep. Merging is an editorial decision. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fireside Publishing

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

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

Article about a publishing company; does not have reputable, third-party sources to verify the information claimed makes it "notable." Seems to be only a way to advertise; no real information —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 15:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Article does assert their notability as a leading publisher of Catholic Bibles. I have heard of them and I am not even Catholic. The article itself could be improved and better sources found. Borock (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • How do you counter the argument that no such sources exist? Uncle G (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Give it some time, it's been up for just a few days. Re-visit in a few months. Re-nominate if no-one's worked on it since. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If no sources exist, giving more time won't help. Show that sources exist. Vague handwaving about revisiting doesn't help. That's just prevarication. Citing sources is what helps. Cite multiple independent reliable sources that cover this subject in depth, and make an argument that actually holds water. Uncle G (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Why Mr E. Sanchez is bent on deleting this article is beyond me - firstly a request for a speedy deletion, that was downgraded by someone else. Then after I have improved it and added other references, he has requested its deletion again. They are one of the largest members of the Catholic publishers association, one of the biggest Catholic Bible publishers and they were the first publisher of the New American Edition. If this is still not satisfactory to constitute what is notable for Mr. Sanchez, please kindly explain why. Hans1964 (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Because the article has no sources. I executed a Google search of the subject, using -Wikipedia, and no good, reliable sources come up. You have one usable website as a source, but it doesn't really cover the importance of the company. Now, yes, I may have come across a book published by them, but I have no sources backing up the "fact" that it's [one of] the largest bible publishers out there. All your so-called "references" point to sites written or owned by the company (which cannot be used under WP:SOURCES). And, finally, if we're going to start taking in articles with no sources just because "we've heard of the company," I can start pushing up some good articles with no sources, since, after all, we just need a few people to have heard of the company, add a few links to unusable sources, and call it a day.

    Of course, I am not one to try to be rude or bitey, but the whole "asserts notability" here is just tied in with the "fact" that others have heard of it. That whole clause is wacko, because anyone could write an article about "X-Thing" and say it's the 2nd fastest thing to do y-action in the world, and that asserts notability in and of itself, but there's no reliable source to back that statement up. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 06:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

    • Comment The article has 3 external sources - I did add additional text to improve the article after Mr. Sanchez wanted to 'speed delete' the article. Yes, a very quick google search doesn't bring up anything, although a longer search shows an interesting court case (which I added as a reference) - doubtless other information can be found with deeper searches. Delete if you wish Mr. Sanchez, but I think you'd be acting more impartially if you tried to improve the article insteadHans1964 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
      • Reply/Comment No, it has a series of external links that point to the following websites:
        
        • Firesidebibles.com, cannot be used because it's self-published
        • Firesidecatholic.com, again, self-published
      • Now, the Google Books book you have there is that source for your Minnesota court case, but it just basically says, "these guys publish bibles, they got sued, now they'll publish different bibles." My final point is that the Google search should bring up relevant articles within the first two pages, but it's just mentions of "oooh! Bibles!" and other non-encyclopedic or non-informative stuff. I did try to look for sources to expand the article, but I couldn't find anything to start me off. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 15:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Trim heavily and merge to DeVore & Sons Inc., on grounds that there are sufficient sources to make it verifiable that this publisher exists, but not sufficient to demonstrate notability that would establish that it merits a separate article. But I do expect DeVore & Sons Inc. to be nominated for deletion if it isn't sourced PDQ.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:18, 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 keep. Consensus indicates that the origanization is sufficiently notable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Confederation of Indian Amateur Astronomer Association

Confederation of Indian Amateur Astronomer Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Confederation of Indian Amateur Astronomer Association" – news · books · scholar · images)

Notability for this Association not established with any reliable sources and so fails WP:ORG. The article has been tagged as needing re-write for two years with no signs of progress. As the article is rambling with the majority of text off-topic or generic it seems sensible to delete this article and let an editor start afresh if there is any demand for information here about the "CIAA". Ash (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I can't remember how it is that I'm watching this article, but anyway... The organisation does exist and seems to be notable; although it's called the "Confederation of Indian Amateur Astronomers" (no redundant 'Association'). It's referred to in news sources, book sources, even a couple of academic papers. "Article is badly written" is for discussion on the talk page, not deletion, is it? Shreevatsa (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The guidance of WP:BEFORE applies. As the article has been tagged as suggested in that guidance and two years then pass with no interest and no one is bothered enough to add a source in order to demonstrate notability; there must be a time where the guidance of WP:BEFORE is satisfied and we are ready to go to deletion. If you think two years may not be long enough for a response to a clean-up template, what other criteria would you recommend?—Ash (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:BEFORE is not about you doing nothing but waiting on the sidelines for some (non-existent) time limit to expire. It is about you searching for sources yourself, before nominating articles for deletion. What effort did you put into doing that? There's no mention of your doing any searching for sources yourself in either your nomination or what you write above. Don't sit on the sidelines doing nothing. This is a collaboratively written encyclopaedia. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do for the long-standing procedures in this regard. If you think that something lacks sources, your first response should be to try to find them yourself. It should not be yet more tag-and-wait-on-the-sidelines-doing-nothing, with a deletion nomination. "no signs of progress" is everyone's responsibility, including yours. Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
      • This has been much debated on the pages of WT:AFD and I do not see much that specific in the guidance. In order to make your point, could you please direct me to some authoritative guidance with respect to AFD rather than part of your own user pages?—Ash (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
        • The user page shows you where in policy the procedure comes from, as well as for how many years this has been expected practice of Wikipedia editors. Read. Learn. Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Stop repeating yourself when all it does is harass Ash. Read. Learn. Joe Chill (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment : Someone here has asserted that references establishing notability exist but no one has bothered to insert them into article with even sekeleton refs ( "notability is established from [1,2,3,]"). I guess you could leave tagged stuff in a state of limbo since eventually someone will fix it or require that the person asserting that refs exist to make it notable just go ahead and insert 1 or 2 of them into the article. 67.166.244.55 (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. As far as I can see, the association fails WP:ORG. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• How far is that? (I mean, what was your judgement based on?) Shreevatsa (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep—Organization definitely exists and a quick google book/scholar search demonstrates there are sufficient sources available to establish notability. National amateur astronomy organizations are certainly worthy of retention. The article can be cleaned up, so I suggest a copy edit rather than deletion.—RJH (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but move to correct name of the organization, Confederation of Indian Amateur Astronomers. I have added a lede and two more references to the article; several other references are also available (as pointed above) that clearly establish the organization's notability. Any remaining article issues can be discussed on talk page. Abecedare (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment  : Is this group practicing a static art something like European Astrology, only culturally Indian, or are they contributing to the science of astronomy? There are numerous groups of amateur astronomers around the world that do all kinds of research that would not qualify for professional funding. Also there is an astronomy conference once every three years just ended. They may not have many free leaders to defend this for a week or so. --Dgroseth (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Astronomy is one of the few scentific fields where amateurs still make major contributions, so I would accept a national organization of this sort as likely to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The topic of amateur astronomy may be notable but this fails WP:ORG. While there are some google hits in news, web, and scholar, there aren't many and all appear to be passing mentions rather than ones where the organization is the subject of the article. In most cases it appears that they are articles about people who identify themselves as part of this organization. These articles are great for demonstrating the notability of those individuals but do little to demonstrate the notability of this organization. RadioFan (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and Rename to Confederation of Indian Amateur Astronomers. The 19 Gnews, 7 Gbooks, 4 Gscholar and other GWeb hits combined ensure that the org pass our general notability guideline. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Counting hits isn't the best indication of notability. Of the hits you mention above, which ones do you feel could be used to demonstrate notability here? Is the organization the primary subject of any of those hits? Could you expand on how you feel those hits help this article meet general notability guidelines? --RadioFan (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course number of hits doesn't matter, but if you read the Gbooks hits, it provides in depth coverage sufficient to write an article. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about the news articles you see as establishing notability here?--RadioFan (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10] all work for me. There are more. Even articles which quote the organization's general secretary as an authority show notability for the org, since he is being quoted as representing the org. This book mention[11] (New trends in astronomy teaching published by Cambridge University Press) only confirms what frequent press reports do - the organization is a very notable amateur astronomer and teaching association. Priyanath ^talk 01:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and rename. Notability has certainly been proven. Priyanath ^talk 20:42, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Broken Hope

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

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

Contested prod. An attempt to source this article has been reverted by XLinkBot (talk · contribs). Band with unclear notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also nominating:

Repulsive Conception (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Keep Multiple albums on Metal Blade. Allmusic link [12]. Duffbeerforme (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a keep on the band only. The album should be redirected (or deleted if you don't like redirects with dabs) unless sourced. Allmusic link doesn't have a review. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Article does not espouse any notability claim. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy declined. The article clearly "indicate[s] why its subject is important or significant". Splash - tk 14:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi Cybercobra. wp:music includes in it's "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" one that says "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". The article as it currently stands suggests multiple albums on Metal Blade Records. The onformation shown on the allmusic link I provided includes a discography that shows multiple albums on Metal Blade. The article on metal blade shows a good number on independently notable bands, which appears to satisfy the "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable" section. That, to my eyes, is a clear claim of notability. And is a claim that satifies wp:music, justifying the existance of an article for Broken Hope. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, wasn't familiar with the intricacies of the music SNG. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Broken Hope per Duffbeerforme. Probably merge the album to the group. Rlendog (talk) 21:09, 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 keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Mark Deutrom

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

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

Non notable person - owner of a minor (failed) record label and a bass guitarist, article has been heavily "fattened up", with zero references, by an author with a very large WP:COI who has already removed the "BLPunsourced" and "COI" templates a few times (currently blocked for 24h for 3RR). More "fattening up" has since occurred (and reverted) with a new editor (created 5min after the first one was blocked...). Suggest merge any useful data about the failed record label with Alchemy Records (U.S.)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't believe there was a good faith effort to at least check to see if sources exist, which 15 seconds on google news surely can fix. Please be familiar with what to do before bringing forward an AFD nom k thx riffic (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - There are many articles in Google News about his work with The Melvins and also some on Sunn O))). Much of the material is behind pay walls but it certainly looks like there is enough to establish notability with news sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep per riffic (talk · contribs) comment.--Cannibaloki 16:48, 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 delete. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

TiK ToK

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

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

Fails WP:NSONG non notable future release. BigDunc 21:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —BigDunc 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers. Esradekan (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Amazon has this on their website and a reference has been added to the wikipage.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaolohan (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: non-notable release, has not charted. No covers or awards. talkingbirds 00:21, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Callum Morris

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

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

Fails WP:Bio and WP:Athlete —Preceding unsigned comment added by RM-Taylor (talk • contribs) 2009-08-07 23:44:35

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Recreate when/if he becomes notable in the future. GiantSnowman 17:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - much like other articles created by this user Spiderone (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Question Is the level immediately below Premier League really not fully professional? Nyttend (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If by "the level immediately below Premier League" you mean the Football League Championship, then it most certainly is fully professional. But this player hasn't played in it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete fails notability at WP:ATH as he has not actually made an appearance in a fully-professional league. Lack of significant third-party coverage means he also fails WP:GNG. Recreate if and when he makes his debut for Newcastle or any other team in a fully-pro league. --Jimbo^[online] 21:38, 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 23:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Seville Acoustic Guitar S-13

Seville Acoustic Guitar S-13 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Seville Acoustic Guitar S-13" – news · books · scholar · images)

No evidence this particular brand meets WP:GNG. It also smells like an advertisement. Triplestop x3 21:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The last sentence of the article sums up why it should be deleted! ^TheWeak_Willed 17:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Per the last sentence. Joe Chill (talk) 18:31, 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 article is much improved, and as the proposer I am prepared to withdraw the nomination; since the Afd has run its full course I see no possible conflict of interest in doing this as nobody else has argued for deletion. Rodhullandemu 23:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Rafferty

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

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

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability within WP:CREATIVE; one cult film is inadequate for this, and article lacks reliable sources per WP:BLP. Half the article is about his famous relatives, not himself, and notability is not inherited, even if it were sourced. Rodhullandemu 21:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:CREATIVE, he is the creator of a well known work. "atomic cafe" was well known in its time, recieving significant coverage, which im pretty sure i can find. the article does need to be massively trimmed back, and should only list other significant movies directed by him.If kept, i will trim the article, but wont bother until decision is made. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep and send to cleanup for expansion and sourcing as subject easily meets the governing criteria of WP:GNG [13]. No reason to delete if an article can be improved through normal editing. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Mercurywoodrose. He created several notable works, they blue links after all. Dream Focus 21:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As a sidenote: Not wishing to wait for an AfD to finish judgement of an article that can so easily be improved, and even though AFD is not supposed to be for forcing cleanup, I have begun doing just that. There is much available in multiple reliable sources for this subject to meet WP:GNG and the subordinant WP:BIO. All additional assistance is welcome, and this article will be a worthy contibution to Wikpedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:27, 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 23:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Bodhi Green

Michael Bodhi Green (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Michael Bodhi Green" – news · books · scholar · images)

There is no indication in the article, and I have found none by searching, e.g. Google Scholar, that this University lecturer is notable to the standard of WP:PROF, or anything like it. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. What the hell, he has a Bachelors and two Masters, all of them from ASU... that's academic career suicide. Yet another prof entry for someone who doesn't even have a doctorate. Five of the seven items in his bibliography were published in the same ASU publication, another is from a magazine. One actually does seem to be from a literary journal, although he has appears to have zero hits in Google scholar. Not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Expanding on Hairhorn's observation, Marginalia, the venue of most of his publications, is not actually an archival journal, but rather a "magazine that features news about Piper Center for Creative Writing programs, items that promote the ASU MFA program and alumni, and community engagement" (from the Arizona State University website). In other words, it's a standard university public relations circular. His book is "in its final stages of revision..." (from the article), i.e. it's not published. The article is essentially all WP:PUFF. A no-brainer delete, I'm afraid. Could have just gone directly to prod. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC).
• Delete. I can't see even a claim to notability here (phrases like "gives a yearly talk to the local film club" don't exactly help). Wouldn't this qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 as "an article about a real person… that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant"? Qwfp (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. While I agree with Hairhorn to some extent on the problematic nature of his lack of connection with anywhere but ASU, an MFA is a terminal degree that can be an appropriate substitute for a doctorate in a performance-based field. Since his work is on film-making rather than film criticism, that would fit. The same reasoning would imply that we should be using WP:CREATIVE rather than WP:PROF to evaluate his case, and ask: how famous is he for his writing? Is he notable as a screenwriter or novelist? The answer appears to be no. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• I understand that MFAs can be terminal degrees in fine arts fields, although that is less and less true. There are more and more PhD programs in Fine Arts ( and even more in Communications, which is where he's working). Many of his departmental colleagues have doctorates. Hairhorn (talk) 21:10, 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 speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The_Masque-_An_Erotic_Renaissance

The_Masque-_An_Erotic_Renaissance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "The_Masque-_An_Erotic_Renaissance" – news · books · scholar · images)

Not sure what the article is even about. It appears to be about a webpage with forums, chat, ect. Makes no claim to notability. A google search shows several sites called The Masque but I cannot find one that is similar to what is described in this article. TParis00ap (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete with salt - I agree with the nominator. Furthermore, googling for the beginning of the article ("After leaving your gondola with the aid of a uniformed servant,"), to locate this "Masque" thing and also to ascertain whether it might be a copyvio, I have been redirected to some kind of finance website. Goochelaar (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I'm pretty sure this meets the criteria of WP:CSD_A7 and WP:CSD_G11. — Rankiri (talk) 21:16, 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 Public Housing Estates in Kwai Chung. Looks like we have a satisfactory external solution. Thanks WP:HK Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Shek Yam East Estate

Shek Yam East Estate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Shek Yam East Estate" – news · books · scholar · images)

Non-notable apartment buildings. Three Google News in Chinese are bus plunge articles on petty crimes that occurred there. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 17:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I added more English links to support its existance. I know that reference articles rather than English are allowed in English Wikipedia. They are not bus plunge articles. If you don't know Chinese language, please let me know. Ricky@36 (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The tagging history of the article is confusing: is there still a request for deletion, or simply a request for improvement? Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I prod-tagged this a while ago, and User:Ricky@36, the article's creator, deprodded it. After it became apparent that no further improvement was possible or forthcoming, I nominated it for deletion. Ricky@36 added the expand tag. Ricky@36 has created many articles on these housing developments, some of which are notable and some of which I suspect are not. Abductive (reasoning) 04:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added several links to support the article. Now only you are not satified with the condition. I don't know why you chase to delete the article. My final plan is to finish all the public housing estates of Hong Kong, no matter big or small to show the integrity of the category of "Category:Public housing estates in Hong Kong. You will destroy the plan if you asked deletions. Ricky@36 (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You are engaged in a project to add every single public housing estate in Hong Kong, a "completionist" agenda. According to this there are 196 estates operated by the Hong Kong Housing Authority, and 20 estates by the Hong Kong Housing Society. Now, I have sampled some of the articles on these estates, and most of them are notable, but some are not. Notability is a special term on Wikipedia which mean more than just proving it exists, which we call "verifiability". Please see WP:N and WP:V for a fuller discussion of these ideas. The way the Article for Deletion process works is that other people comment here until consensus is reached on whether or not the topic of the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. You and I have said what we think, and now it is the turn of other members of the community to weigh in. Abductive (reasoning) 05:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

When I write every article, I provide enough sources and reference which shows their existance. Notability is very subjective. Once you don't know the articles, you could say "notiability". I challenged with so many Wiki users on that. Fortunately, most of my articles could be reserved finally. If you tag more articles, I am so sorry that I don't know have time to comment with you on every article. Ricky@36 (talk)

The reason you often are challenged is that there are something like 135,800 high-rise apartment buildings in the world. I get this figure by assuming there is one such building for every 25,000 people living in urban areas, which are home to about half the world's 6.79 billion people. That is, high-rise buildings hold 20% of the population of the Earth. Abductive (reasoning) 09:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to keep this article and the others for Hong Kong. While I am in no way linked to Ricky@36, I have followed his very good work on Hong Kong related articles, and I tend to support his "completionist" agenda for public housing estates. Public housing estates play a major role in Hong Kong society, history, culture, and even economy. I believe that if we end up having an article for the ~200 of them, these articles will definitely have an important "group value". On a different level, think of the groups of buildings bundled together for the recent UNESCO world heritage sites declarations. Also, in the very dense urban planning of Hong Kong , these housing estates essentially play the roles of villages or towns in other locations: they typically have several thousands inhabitants, shopping centers, schools, elderly homes, bus terminuses, etc. Finally, information on these public housing estates are scattered across various websites, and it is a valuable work to gather this information in individual articles.Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If these estates are as important as you say, then you should have no trouble finding sources that say this one is notable. Abductive (reasoning) 09:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I talked about "group value", not about this specific one.Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If no third party sources exist for an estate, it can still be listed, but not redlinked, in List of public housing estates in Hong Kong. Abductive (reasoning) 09:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that no third party source exist for any given estate in Hong Kong, since 1) most of them are listed on emporis.com 2) there are always governement (LegCo) discussions and information about estates posted on the Hong Kong governement websites, in addition to 3) the website of the Hong Kong Housing Authority itself.Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your criticisms are useless. The housing estates are developed by the Hong Kong Government. It is reasonable that I use sources from the government. Besides the government sources, I also put links from several private websites (some are in Chinese) to verify their existance. If you are free to challange people, I am sorry that I don't have time to deal with you. Ricky@36 (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Emporis is a wiki, and given that emporis tries to list all the multi-story buildings in the world, a listing there does nothing to establish notability. Government of HK and HKHA websites aren't third-party, and even if they were, they don't say anything about this project to convince me that it is notable. Abductive (reasoning) 11:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I could provide enough sources to support the articles, but you said the sources are not reliable. It is just your thought, not fair. Please help find your "reliable" sources. No one could reach your "ideal" target. Ricky@36 (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Abductive, what do you want, really? Establish the notability of Shek Yam East Estate? what about the widely used rule that every human settlement deserves an entry in Wikipedia? French communes, all 36,000 of them are considered as Wikipedia worthy, so why not a 6,500 people estate in Hong Kong? and after all why not all 135,800 high-rise apartment buildings in the world? added to the 2,983,962 existing Wikipedia articles, that's not much, for places that are central to people's lives. Besides, your arguments are confusing: are you trying to 1) request reliable sources evidencing the mere existence of Shek Yam East Estate, or 2) push us to prove its notability (I have already mentioned that it is not notable per se but as part of a group, but I am not sure that you got this point, unless this is what you are calling "project", but again this point of yours was not clear), or 3) just willing to chat with people? Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, Abductive is a very ideal person. He/she needs us to reach his/her ideal requirements to fit his/her "notiblity" target. Ricky@36 (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not a fair characterization. I have even added a reference establishing notability to the article on Telford Garden and removed the notability tag placed there by another user as a demonstration. Abductive (reasoning) 07:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It is because Telford Garden is not written by me. You are now only concerned about my articles, and try to find ways to suggest deletions to fit your "deletion" aims. Is it right, isn't it? Previously, I met some editors who are trying to delete the articles, but I explained to them and they finally accepted my explanation and gave up deletions. However, although you do it in a wrong way, you still think that you are right to do it. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Henrik's tool, Shek Yam East Estate gets 6.2 page views a day. That does not convince me that this housing project is of broad, encyclopedic interest. Abductive (reasoning) 09:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it a good reason to explain your point? Don't give any excuses to support your point, since many people, besides me, disagreed with your point. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, only one person, oliver/UnderwaterBuffalo, agrees with you. Abductive (reasoning) 09:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that I am the only vocal one does not really prove that no other people agree. Anyway this discussion is going nowhere, and I would appreciate to know what Abductive suggests to do with the content of the article. Just wipe it out from the servers? olivier (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. It isn't like the data doesn't appear on the Hong Kong Housing Authority's website. They have a very nice page devoted to Shek Yam East, with a street map, and photos. Abductive (reasoning) 10:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 20:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Umofomo (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Bottom section moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public housing in Hong Kong. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as for other large housing projects/estates/complexes of this kind. As for page views, anything that gets 6 a day = 2000 a year. Two thousand people reading an article is way enough. I wouldn't even say that something that got 6 views a year should be deleted on such a basis--if I can write an article and help 6 people find information they need, I'd think my time very well spent. Wikipedia is not an abridged encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Verified. Seems a suitable topic for the encyclopedia. Does not seem prone to promotion problems that require WP:N compliance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What sources attest the the notability of this particular project? What is the project notable for? Here is what the article says "Shek Yam East Estate is a comparatively small public housing estate for Hong Kong standards, comprising three 39-floor residential buildings, without market and shopping centre;. It comprises a total of 2,500 apartments, with sizes ranging from 13.6 to 49 m2. The authorized population was 6,500 at the end of 2007." (Emphasis mine).
  • Why is this sort of article suitable for an encyclopedia? In the rest of the world there are tens of thousands of similar apartment complexes. And how about all the suburban subdivisions? If I created an article on Pine Glade subdivision (there's one in Colorado and one in Maryland), what could I say? "Some developer built a subdivision in such-and-so neighborhood of such-and-so town, which has 410 ranch style houses. The population of the subdivision is 1,209." Abductive (reasoning) 08:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In principle, I think housing estates should be part of the encyclopedia on everything. However, articles need secondary sources to attest to someone else being interested. I just examined 6/7 of the references, and I find them all to be primary source material. I could find no secondary source material on the web before coming up with mirrored wikipedia content. I think secondary sources for these estates must surely exist, but in their absence, we shouldn't have the article because we have no secondary sources to guide the content. Perhaps if there was a standard for articles covering housing estates, then it could be justified by arguing "comprehensibility of coverage". undecided --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(This is not really part of the discussion) Pine Glade subdivision might not deserve an article, according to the current inclusion criteria of Wikipedia, but "410 ranch style houses" sparks my interest. Is there any place in Wikipedia where one can read about such developments? olivier (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean in general? Subdivision (land) is the article. Creating an article on an individual subdivision is nigh on impossible; they are generally so un-noteworthy that one can't even find out who built them or when they were built without going to the county archives in person. Back when I was tagging places in WikiMapia (which has no notability requirements) I dabbled in labeling subdivisions, but could rarely find trustworthy data. Abductive (reasoning) 10:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep due to efforts at improvement and persuasive arguments that subject is verifiable. If it is not a hoax and is important to some segment of our readers and can be presented coherently then that is good enough for our purposes. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I am in the process of merging the public housing articles per consensus achieved at WPHK, which will result in a redirect of this link to a new parent article Public Housing Estates in Kwai Chung. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:14, 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 no consensus. Merging can be dealt with on the respective talk pages. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Isola (fictional island)

Isola (fictional island) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Isola (fictional island)" – news · books · scholar · images)

As the prod was writing "Fictional location with no assertion of notability.". This is just a fictional island in a video game series. The possibility that this thing was covered by any third party source should be 0. Magioladitis (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Completely non-notable. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 20:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - My default position for these types of article is "merge to more general article." However, in this case the fictional island is the setting of multiple notable games and as such I feel the best way to handle the material is via a stand alone article. Otherwise the same info - i.e. background on the game's setting - has to be covered in multiple articles where one should be sufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I would say that this could all be covered in one sentence on each article. It's not like the name of the island has a terribly significant impact on the gameplay. The "story" is clearly not the focus of the games. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • That is a good case to merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see how it might have real world notability. Goochelaar (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - I think that it is a good idea to keep this more so that it can merge many games together, and seeing that the Island is the setting of multiple games, because if you delete it, the same information would, as said above, be put in multiple different articles. PlyPlay665 (Blah) 15:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Or, this information could just be expunged. After all, most of the article contains separate data about different games anyhow, and as for the "Magic Fish" table, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Goochelaar (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is a reference guide. The article is not presented as a how to which is what "not" prescribes against. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, the tables are a perfect example of "how to", as demonstrated by the fact that if you do not know anything about the games, you do not even understand what this data are about. Saying what has which effect on "all fish in the same tank" does not add anything to one's comprehension of the game, unless you are already playing. Goochelaar (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
        • They do not say anything about "how to" do anything. They merely tabulate a major element of the games in an organized manner akin to a table of the elements relevant to an article on elements, table of casualties relevant to an article on award, table of winners relevant to an article on award show, etc. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This doesn't assert notability and there is nothing worth merging, so there is no reason to keep it around. TTN (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • By being in multiple games it asserts notability. The referenced information is worth merging. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Calling this "non-notable" is real stretch and there is no real reason to delete it per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. The first line of the article, right off the bat, contains out of universe context and asserts notability: "Isola is the fictional island that is the setting for Fish Tycoon, Plant Tycoon, and the Virtual Villagers series, created by Last Day of Work(LDW)." The article therefore informs readers who created the fictinal location, but getting back to the whole subjective "notability" context, any reasonable understanding of that term would agree that something that appears in THREE different series is "notable." But we do not simply base inclusion on subjectivity. So, let us consider WP:V and WP:RS. Rather than do a standard google search, let's try Google News for Isola and Fish Tycoon (28 results), Isola and Plant Tycoon (10 results), Isola and Virtual Villagers (26 results), and Isola and Last Day of Work (19 hits). We even get a Google Books hit. So, collectively over seventy-five reliable sources such as FOX and USA Today confirm the content of this article, beyond just who created it and what games it appears in to include actual discussion of the fictional island that can be used to write a Reception section of the article and because the island appears across three different franchises, the article serves a navigational purposes and a comparative purpose that conveniently allows readers to see how this fictional location is both depicted in the games and received by critics in these different venues. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Not at all seventy-five, of course, as several of the items you mention, which are mostly just press releases anyhow, are counted separately in two or more lists. Goochelaar (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Still multiple reliable sources in any event. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I have my doubts about the "reliable" part as wel as about their relevance to Isola per se, as opposed to the games themselves it appears in. Goochelaar (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
        • While news is not always reliable, for Wikipedic purposes, USA Today, FOX, etc. count as reliable sources, because they reflect mainstream coverage. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, it is a completely nondescript setting which has no real world significance, nor does it have a significant impact on gameplay. Outside of the first sentence, the article is a completely in-universe description. Looking at the Google News hits, they basically all say "Yes, this game is set on an island called Isola" with nothing beyond that. There's no development info (the quote currently in the article has nothing to do with development, just one developer's opinion); there's no reception; there's no info on subsequent works it may have influenced; there's no real world significance at all. There's nothing about this fictional place that makes it notable. The developers could have just made all those games set in differently named places and it would be functionally identical; they are all on Isola solely out of convenience, not some grand plan. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Update: Article has been dramaticlaly improved since nomination and now meets WP:WAF thereby negating any reason to redlink. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The article has markedly improved during the course of this AfD. Though AfD is supposedly not for cleanup, that's exactly what happened. Good job. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• How exactly has the article been improved? All that has been added is a single quote that probably belongs in Last Day of Work or one of the game articles. This article still fails to actually assert notability. TTN (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• That sounds like a call for a merge and as far as this nonsense about "asserting notability"...anything that appears in multiple game series and is verified through multiple reliable sources meets the common sense standard of notability. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, nothing needs to be merged. The quote should be independently added to another article. Seriously, you can disagree with notability being a defining piece of criteria for inclusion and you can try to change that all you want, but to ignore it or pass it off as something that it is not (verifiability and the number of appearances do not equal notability) is just silly. TTN (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, nothing here needs to be deleted. It is not libelous, not a hoax, etc. It is a "notable" aspect of THREE different game series and is verifiable in reliable sources. And as far as merging goes, the main articles actually could benefit by using the reviews/previews cited in this article. Why not help to improve them? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• That's like taking the position of forcing someone to disprove something; it just doesn't make logical sense. As I said, you can disagree with notability, but please do not ignore it. Go ahead and get the guideline demoted if you can, but until that point notability equals "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." TTN (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Deleting something that has, as this article does, "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" does not make logical sense. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, it has one source that does not qualify as signifcant coverage. The others deal with the games, not this topic directly (though if this does survive the AfD, I'll use those to turn this into a series article), and the rest are primary. TTN (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please be honest. It has at least a half dozen sources, which qualifies as significant coverage and as they are not put out by the game itself, they are secondary. That you could admittedly turn it into a series article is admission per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE that other options exist beyond the extreme last resort of deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note that the wording is "signifcant coverage in reliable secondary sources." Those sources do not cover this topic, only the games, so they don't count. I don't really believe the "series" needs an article, so it is simply an alternative to keeping an even worse topic. TTN (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Isola" appears in every one of those sources, i.e. they in covering the games, they also cover the elements of the games, of which the setting is a major element. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• As I have said, you are free to disagree with notability, but do not ignore it or attempt to make it into something that it is not. The actual usage of "significant coverage" is shown in our good and featured articles on fictional topics. Being mentioned over and over within the context of the series is not coverage; it is simply name-dropping as Axem Titanium describes. TTN (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• It clearly meets WP:N due to significant coverage, i.e. description of the island and what happens on the island, the setting of three game series as reviewed and previewed in multiple reliable sources. Yes, they mention the name, but they go beyond that when describes what happens on the island, its elements. etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• • (kickback indent) A name drop in 70+ news articles is still a name drop. That does not constitute "significant" coverage. The article has not improved. In fact, the addition of those game-guide tables tells me that it's actually gotten worse. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Following the improvements to the article we see that in so many different sources does constitute significant coverage, because they address the events that happen on island, the main setting of several notables games. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have removed the game-guide tables which, if anything, harm the article. The only, pale claim to notability would be the interview relating Isola to "Lost", but it does not seem by far enough to extract a single element of a game series and consider it a noteworthy subject for an article. Goochelaar (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • They still meet the common sense standard of notability: main setting of several notable games and verifiable through multiple reliable sources. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The news articles do mention the place and what goes on there, and it is an important location, fictional or not, for several notable games. Dream Focus 20:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The references of USA Today talk about the games and of course they mention an element of them. The "island" is not discussed separately. The other reference to Last Day of Work Official Forums is just some kind of game manual. We have some games and of course fictional names are mentioned. This doesn't mean we have to create an article for every fictional word appereaing in every book, film, video game about fiction. Maybe a redirect would be a solution. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Because the island is not a subordinate element of an individual game, but the overall setting for multiple notable games, it is a more plausible search term. In the absence of a suitable merge or redirect target, it would therefore be better to keep the article (which needs cleanup) than to delete it entirely. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Very well researched article now, I say strong keep Ikip (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Closing administrator please note the article has had signifigant improvements since it was first put up for deletion.[14] thank you Ikip (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, if by "significant improvements" one means "adding references that, at most, mention fleetingly the article's subject rather than address the subject directly in detail". Goochelaar (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

When nominated, the article had no references and only some out of universe context. Now, the article has been put on a path of improvement including references from reviews in such reliable sources as USA Today that discuss this notable element of three notable series as well as an out of universe interview that, while briefly, nevertheless touches upon a potential comparison with another notable fictional island. Any time we go from no references to multiple references, that in it of itself is a signifcant start in the right direction. Besides as the setting of the six games are the island, much of the reviews' touching upon the various aspects of the game are in a sense direct and detailed coverage of the island as after all all the events are taking place on or around this island. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, I am not able to convey my point. Goochelaar (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me try one last time. There are two USA Today articles quoted. In the first one the unique mention of the word "Isola" is in the sentence "While running a plant nursery, you learn about genetics as you crossbreed plants in hopes of discovering the six Magic Plants of Isola." Hardly a way of "addressing the subject directly in detail." In the second one, the only mention is in the single sentence "The game starts with a small tribe of seven people arriving on the island of Isola, the only survivors of a volcanic eruption." Again, not precisely an in-depth treatment of Isola island. So, these are not sources about Isola, they just mention it. And this is not what is requested by WP policy. I know my English leaves much to be desired, it not being my first language, but I hope to have made myself clear enough. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, it really is pointless to argue with him. He'll never change his opinion, and even if you prove him wrong, like I did several times during my pointless discussion with him, he just slightly changes his argument to get around it. TTN (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

When they discuss what happens on Isola and the people, magical items, etc. that are on it they are in effect also discussing the island. They do not need to say "Isola" in every sentence to still be discussing the nature and aspects of it. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Some more things that maybe usefull for this discussion: The link from MacWorld adresses to the "Magic Fish of Isola" only once exactly as the other ones. No other references to the island exist there. I think it's more like a press release or something and the subject is not discussed at all.
• And something meaningless probably: I haven't play the game and the phrase "Many magical force are on the island. From fish to plants" makes no sense to me. Fishes and plants are not "magical forces". Moreover, they are 6 magic fishes in the list. Why is this "many"? What is the normal amount of magical forces? :) There is no irony in my questions. I am just pointing out that there some parts that are original research and they can be improved.
• To return to the main subject: The links provided are really helpful but for the main articles. Secondary references should be added in the main articles to reference parts of them. If we delete the article I think we have to use these references in other places. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete References or not, this is one more trivial article of interest only to marginalized gamers. Ghosts&empties 00:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. One could say an article on any random plant is only of interest to botanists, but so long as it is verfiable, it still worth covering. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep has third-party sources and crosses a few games. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'd say delete as well, personally. We should avoid creating numerous articles about minutiae in games/films/&c. Irbisgreif (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:PERNOM is not a compelling reason for deletion, especially when the nomination said no sources and the article now has sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Nobody, you are aware that administrators can read and are knowledgeable about WP policies, aren't you? Goochelaar (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • I really can't do more than simply repeat the nomination rationale given I agree with it, which would be a waste of time. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
      • If the nomination were factually correct okay, but it contains a number of factual errors:
        • "This is just a fictional island in a video game series." Actually, it is part of three series, not "a" series.
        • "The possibility that this thing was covered by any third party source should be 0." Well, as we have shown, it is not "0", because it is covered in third-party previews and reviews in usch publications as USA Today by name. We can reasonable debate and disagree on the nature and scope of that coverage, but that statement that the coverage does not exist at all has been disproven.
      • Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete nothing here but a bit of minutiae that can be covered in the main article in about two lines.--Cameron Scott (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That is a reason to merge, not delete. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Sometimes a reason to delete. If the 1-2 line information is "The game is taking place in a fictional island called Isola, which is also the stting for two more games of the same company". In fact that's what I would write. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Update: Merged. Following WP:PRESERVE, some of the suggestions above, and in keeping with the GFDL, I have merged ([15], [16], and [17]) the content accordingly. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  Ironically, despite your statement "in keeping with the GFDL" you have actually broke the license in the first edit by merging it text without any documentation. Whenever you do a merge, you must state where the text came from in your editing summary ("merging in text from [[source]]"). If the source isn't being turned into a redirect to the destination (which is obviously the case here), both talk pages must also received a {{copied}} tag. See WP:MERGE and Help:Merge for more information.

  Since the outcome of this AfD isn't clear at this time, I have undone the edit that broke attribution (the first one). The second one is simply adding a reference which is not GFDL significant. I went ahead and added the required {{copied}} tag to the third. If the outcome of this AfD is to merge the first edit should be redone properly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  I am not sure what you mean. My edit summary says: "merged from Isola (fictional island)" and links to that page? Thus, I have restored the merge. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  My mistake - I didn't realize the diff linked to above incorporated multiple edits. It only showed the first edit summary & thus looked like attribution was broken. However, that wasn't actually the case. My apologies. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  No worries and anyway, you were right about the talk pages as I was not aware of that template and as I indicated on your talk page, I have corrected my error there a few moments ago. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• 'Keep, it is linked t other articles, better to have here, than the same repeated in mutiple articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge somehow -- but I am not sure how to handle this. There are three related games that take place in a common setting. We would normally have an article on the games individually, but a good deal of it would duplicate. The island itself is just the background, with a remarkably non-specific name. The first two games have a common general theme, not depending upon the specifics of the island. The third game, published as three sub-games or episodes, has a different general theme, but uses the setting from the earlier two gamers. There is nothing obviously noteworthy about the setting in its own right. I am not sure why the games are so popular, and if it can be shown to be the visual or other attractiveness of the setting, there might be a point. But at present, I do not see it. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per improvements. Nice little article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per all the delete !votes. Really, when someone puts this much work into an article, there should be an auto-keep function, since the nominated article is not the same article as the one which will be evaluated at close. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Even after all that work, including adding a PRNewswire as a "source", all of the other sources are the slimmest of mentions while the source talks about the games, except an interview in gametunnel in which the Virtual Village game developer says, "We are also very excited about the story behind the game, the story of this magic island called Isola, which permeates all of our recent releases," and "and we feel compelled to continue telling the story of Isola in an interactive and dynamic way", and when the interviewer as him if the island in Lost is an influence on Isola, says, "It is a great show, and I immediately saw things that seemed appealing for VV...". So, the best source is a Internet site, gametunnel, which isn't as strong a publisher as I would like to see, interviewing the game's designer, which makes it, to me, insufficiently independent to establish the notability of this fictional place. Where is the independent, third party analysis? Abductive (reasoning) 03:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Because the article has been merged, per the GFDL, the only path for this discussion is now a speedy keep as deletion is no longer an acceptable option. We can use talk pages to discuss redireting or renaming, but the article cannot be deleted per our attribvution policies. Moreover, please remember to be honest in these discussions. The subject's notability is undeniable. It is not merely covered in internet sites, but in USA Today, FOX, etc. How many fictional locations appear in three game series and are mentioned by name in such mainstream press? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I strongly disagree. Merger of two non-notable things into a single non-notable article is no reason to keep. This GFDL thing sounds like Wikilawyering to me. Abductive (reasoning) 05:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
      • It is not something you can legitimately disagree on. It is notable by any sane standard and whether you wish it were so or not, the GFDL is what we go by. And we also go by such things as WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. As such when we have logically and common sense standard notable material verified by reliable sources and other options then redlinking we go with these other options. We can disagree on whether to keep the article separate, whether to redirect, or whether to rename or merge further. But is objective fact that the subejct is covered in reliable source and so is not a hoax and it is objective fact that we must keep the attribution history public when we merge. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
        • So, one could prevent the deletion of any article by copying some text over to a different article, and calling that a merge? Then I merely request that the closing admin oversite/delete those additions (the ones you list above) to avoid violating the GFDL, should this article be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Usually they can delete an article, even one which was kept after an AFD, by copying over only a small token amount somewhere, and then destroying the rest, calling it a merge. Then after a month, when you think no one is watching, you can delete even that small amount, so there is nothing at all. Mergers are also a great way to destroy an article, while avoiding an AFD that might not go your way, you able to wipe out most of it. Plus you can take all the character articles you don't like, and replace all of them at once with a merge, shoving summaries of the information from their pages onto one page, thus keeping the Wikipedia from filling up with fancruft clutter. Dream Focus 21:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
          • We are here to build articles and so no reasonable admin would remove content merged to articles that actually improves those articles just to satisfy the usual baseless WP:IDONTLIKEIT non-argument. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I think you guys misunderstand me. I fail at communication a lot, but I don't argue from a LIKEIT/DONTLIKEIT perspective. If you look though my AfD notvotes, you'll see I always argue from a sourcing perspective. Abductive (reasoning) 00:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
              • Information sourced in reliable sources from this article was added to previously insufficiently sourced articles on games that absolutely meet our much disputed notability guidelines. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to interfere with efforts to develop and improve such content by wanting to get rid of something that is not a copy vio, hoax, or libelous. There is no pressing need to remove the edit history of our article. We do not need to protect anyone from this verifiable content and certainly not when it can be used to develop and improve other articles. Thus, no matter what anyone tries to claim, there is no basis for outright deletion beyond just not liking it, because the content is useable in some fashion and not dangerous per WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
                • I stand by my assessment of the sources; they are insufficient. Abductive (reasoning) 02:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep A dedicated article is the best way to convey information to our readers on themes like how the Island's role changes between different games. Noteability well established following excellent improvements by editor ANobody. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:54, 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. SNOW DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

RSDRF

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

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

I simply don't understand what this article is doing here. Speedy and Prod declined. This is an utterly trivial fee paid by students at a school so non-notable that the school itself has no wiki entry. It's also clearly a cut and paste copyright violation, although I can't find a page with the exact text. Delete, delete, delete. Hairhorn (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Parts of the lead are a close copy of this page, not sure if that's enough for speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I went through the sole reference and finally managed to understand what this page is trying to do - explain what one particular institute does to collect statistical data. Fails notability criteria for the term, so apply common sense and do an early snow close. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 20:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Snow etc. Goochelaar (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - this is a piece of administrative bureaucracy at one particular college. It is of no general interest and is not an encyclopedia article. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I removed the speedy delete tag, not because I thought the article belonged, but because it was tagged as an A1 and there was plenty of info to identify the subject of the article. After looking i was going to add a PROD tag, but it was already Prod'd. This article does not belong and snow closed. --A new name 2008 (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I know the speedy nom wasn't perfect, I understand why it was declined. But - rightly or wrongly - CSDs often get stretched to fit blatantly unsuitable articles. G1 is probably the most liberally interpreted. Hairhorn (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - not wanting to pile on, but the topic is not encyclopaedic. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• it's good to have this post. I heard about this and couldn't find an explanation. good page. let it be 64.71.16.202 (talk)

Comment copied here from article talk page by Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - unencyclopedic. Astronaut (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Snow Delete No reliable sources to verify that this process is in any way, shape or form recognized or discussed as something specific, unique or remarkable (in particular since the school it belongs to hasn't passed the WP:GNG itself so far).MLauba (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note - The copyvio / close paraphrase as well as most of the non-encyclopedic material has been removed pending AfD closure. MLauba (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Snow Delete: A non-notable fee. Joe Chill (talk) 14:16, 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. JForget 23:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Modeling site

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

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

As a user said in the previous AfD: There's nothing special or notable with such sites to deserve an article and the text is pretty uninformative - models have websites, suprise, suprise. A few "keep" users asserted the article simply lacks sources, but since that Oct. 2007 discussion, no refs have surfaced, and I doubt there are any to be found to assert that this topic is really notable, especially since there don't seem to be any individually notable examples of such sites to warrant Wikipedia articles of their own. Not to mention, this article's only real use seems to be as a center for promotion judging from how many edits deal with reverting spam ELs.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 20:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete As noted by the nominator, what little content there is here doesn't amount to anything (other than being a spam target). Completely unreferenced as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I was expecting a directory, but instead I got a long list of tautologies: A portfolio hosting site is a site that hosts portfolios, tribute modeling sites are sites that are tributes to models, etc. Too vacuous for my taste. Hairhorn (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete What isn't a WP:DICDEF is entirely unsourced. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:55, 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. JForget 23:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You Think

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

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

"Most likely true", according to the article. Delete, per WP:V. I42 (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Informative article. Fails WP:NSONGS Nouse4aname (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete...WP:CRYSTAL. If it can be reliably sourced (which, I can't find any), then it, uh, most likely can be mentioned in the artist's article. talkingbirds 00:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Doesn't actually exist yet, entirely promotional. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• No reason to have this but speedy delete declined as it is not promotional, if it was it could confirm and justify having an article! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:16, 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. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Lennox Sisters

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

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

Delete. These ladies had no notability in their own right; no citations; the article has been created as a very messy spin-off from the one about their father. --Jack | ^{talk page} 20:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No independent notability even asserted. Resolute 03:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Good catch. Resolute 15:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Reso --Cybercobra (talk) 05:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Noblewomen of this stature played a sufficient role in society to be notable. The article has a good source: Stella Tillyard (1994). Aristocrats. Caroline, Emily, Louise, and Sarah Lennox 1740–1832. London: Chatto and Windus. This is a reputable publisher, not a mere reprinter of family genealogies . The book is in most large university libraries. [18]. A book specifically about someone is a very good indication of notability. The article is undoubtedly expandable from the book, which will have sources listed. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. Still spinning from the 180 turn. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:56, 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. JForget 23:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Whassup?

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

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

This article is filled with unverified claims about some commerical. It is not notable either. Much of the article is just a collection of random facts. Edward130603 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - I agree that the article is a sorry mess and should be heavily refurbished. And I must admit that for once my vote (yes, I know, it's not actually a vote) is not perfectly acceptable by WP policy. The reason I'd be inclined to keep the article is that, as an Italian who does not follow US television, even less football, nor especially into American beers, even so I know about this commercial, and about its 2008 version. So, in an unofficial, unprovable way, I feel it to be somewhat notable. Goochelaar (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Article probably needs some cleanup, but this is, arguably, one of the best-known American TV commercials of all time. Sources are trivially easy to find: [19], [20] Zagalejo^^^ 23:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Zagalejo. This was not just "some commercial" as the nom states, it was a very famous and highly influencial commercial. Rlendog (talk) 21:12, 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 23:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ambar (online game)

Ambar (online game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Ambar (online game)" – news · books · scholar · images)

fails notability guidelines. "regularly played by 150-200 people" is impressive now? No reliable sources to pass WP:N, delete and move on. Ironholds (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find anything from the common gaming news publishers, or really any independent coverage at all. Maralia (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not covered in any reliable sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:03, 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 per WP:SNOW. As many participants have pointed out, individual state highway articles have generally been considered worthy of inclusion in prior consensus. This specific road is a more notable one at that, and there are sources which discuss the topic. The point is, however, an individual AfD is not the place to discuss road notability as a whole – instead, it should be taken at a more global level. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 20:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut Route 140

Connecticut Route 140 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Connecticut Route 140" – news · books · scholar · images)

Not notable Colonel Warden (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep per WP:USRD/NT as that defines what is notability for rorads, and compared to some articles, this isn't non-notable.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 19:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:USRD/NT has no standing as guideline or policy and is contrary to WP:NRVE, "it is not enough to simply assert that a topic is notable without substantiating that claim.". Colonel Warden (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Most road articles haven't been fully expanded, but there are fully verifiable sources. :| - Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 22:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, USRT/NT says essentially the same thing, they are not contradictory. Both say that each article must stand on its own merits. Dave (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Could you please explain why you believe it's non-notable? It is a state highway—which are almost always considered notable—and a quite significant one at that. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I looked for independent sources which specifically discuss the topic and there didn't seem to be any. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a road atlas. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• [21] Not that this would be the best article for encyclopedic information, but it is a RS and an independent source found in <5 minutes. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• That is an announcement of routine road maintenance. Per WP:NOTNEWS, "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements ... are not sufficient basis for an article.". Colonel Warden (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Now that I looked at it more closely... a realignment of a road is not routine. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• I beg to differ - the source supplied seems insufficient to establish notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - CT 140 is 22 miles in length and connects major towns. Other state highways can be much shorter and be in the middle of nowhere, e.g. Washington State Route 170, but still can be notable. –CG 23:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep citing the several dozen failed AFD's of this sort at WP:USRD/P and per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, and per our notability guideline (which *is* valid as demonstrated by consensus). Also see User:Scott5114/Highway notability FAQ for the rationale behind the notability of highways. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep While the article may lack WP:RS at the moment, this article can be saved from the chopping block. And I happen to agree with Juliancolton and CG on this issue. And if a road less than 1/4 mile can be notable (Utah State Route 103) then this article sure can be too. Admrboltz (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Significant radial from an important city to surroundings Fg2 (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep — I'd be willing to assume this falls under WP:SNOW. Based on all of the precedents, there's no reason to delete an article that can be fixed up. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment – If someone wants to try to save this article, here's a quick google search of sources that could be used to show notability: [22] [23][24] Dave (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please note that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• What is your position on the notability of road articles in general? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• We're discussing weather the road is notable enough to justify an article, not weather the article has content that is not keeping with wikipedia's goals and policies. As such news articles and travel guides are a start to show notability.Dave (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm trying to determine if he is opposed to all road articles or to just this one in particular. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have a general position. Notability considers each case on its merits, depending upon the quality of the sources available. Roads seem similar to bacteria, fungi, genes, asteroids, people and the like - items which can be catalogued by the million. This is contrary to our policy that Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of indiscriminate information. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, you do not support the deletion of all (or the vast majority of) road articles? I want to make sure I understand your position before I go making arguments that don't even apply. (And we have had several users try to get all road articles deleted in the past). --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We are here to discuss this particular article (which I found by patrolling random articles). Arguments based upon other road articles are to be avoided per WP:WAX. As for general principles, we should not be trying to reproduce mapping information as our text article format is not suitable for this. People will generally prefer to consult sources such as Google Maps for navigation and routing information as they are more accurate and better constructed for the purpose with zoom, scroll and other appropriate interface options. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But the point of a route description is to provide other information that is not evident from the map; i.e. scenery, road features such as number of lanes, interchange details. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Not entirely sure why this was nominated in the first place? Jeni ^(talk) 13:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - If the notability of roads in general is to be questioned, nominating one random article is not the right way forward; this needs to be discussed at a meta-level. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I am neutral, but think that there should be a decision on deleting or merging individual roads before deleting this article. Dogposter 15:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please see WP:ALLORNOTHING. Most topics form a spectrum in which there are notable cases and then a tail of non-notable cases. Roads seem to be much the same and I have seen numerous road articles brought to AFD with varying results. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment and Keep Colonel Warden first put this up for deletion by PROD, and I removed the prod with this edit summary: "rm PROD for now. I have no position on merits, but Polaron, the original and prncipal author, is off-wiki recently. Request wait until he is back on." Polaron is a regular editor, and I think he is probably off on a trip for a week or two. I don't see what is the urgency for this now to be AfD'd, why my request could not be honored. Put me down for Keep vote. doncram (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is not a vote and particular editors do not own articles so there is no concept of a proxy vote. If you have no position on the merits of this article then your opinion is not helpful to the discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think you are the one to say when opinions about your behavior in wikipedia are helpful or not. I happen to think it is often helpful to point out when someone is behaving in ways that tend to cut off productive discussion, as when you put forward an AFD deliberately in the temporary absence of a person who could probably edit the article to address the specific concerns you have. That seems pointless to me, and unproductive on the merits of developing the wikipedia. Also, it is not for you to judge whether others' choice to mix various factors in their views is right or not. Anyhow, at first I stated i did not have an opinion, now I do. My position on the merits of the article: Keep. doncram (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• How does this !vote differ from your earlier one? Your comments all seem ad hominem rather than addressing the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• It differs from my earlier vote in which i did not take a position is that in my last post, I said, clearly, "My position on the merits of the article: Keep. I don't really care to spell out the merits in more detail for u: your nomination to delete this article is clearly failing. doncram (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• You still seem to think this is a vote. Please see WP:DGFA, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Colonel Warden (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per User:Juliancolton and the rest. Although most of it is trivial mentions, a search on Google News provides some reliable sources. Theleftorium 21:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Your search is a good one - thank you for engaging with the topic. I have been through a couple of hundred of the hits but haven't noticed any which pass our policies, WP:NOTDIR or WP:NOTNEWS, as they all seem to be either addresses (usually the Trolley Museum) or routine news - traffic accidents, road closures, etc. Have you seen a case where the road is discussed in a more significant way? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - state highways are notable per WP:USRD/NT. Dough4872 (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Again, WP:USRD/NT is not policy and topics are not notable just because some editor asserts that they are. Where is the evidence of notability? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The road is several miles long and links multiple towns. If this road was a short connector, it may be better suited to a list but in this case, it is not. Many roads of similar length and importance have individual articles. This article just needs improvements and it can potentially become a GA someday. Dough4872 (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

For comparison, I looked up a similar GA and found Connecticut Route 190. That seems to have some significant history as a turnpike but its GA status is in doubt - see the talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that GA thing was a failed effort by it :| - Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 21:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This was an internal audit by a USRD editor (myself). This article never went to GAR, so its status as GA was never truly in doubt. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Time to close as WP:SNOW? Jeni ^(talk) 15:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep There are many sources about this obviously notable topic. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• As explained above, there don't seem to be any sources which pass WP:NOTDIR or WP:NOTNEWS. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Take into consideration that the article hasn't been expanded. And here look: "Begin demolition of old bridge." Hartford Courant, Apr. 6, 1924.

Sources off the top

1. "Begin demolition of old bridge." Hartford Courant, Apr. 6, 1924.
2. Connecticut State Highway Department. Routes and Road Numbers on the State Highway System, Showing Control Numbers and Sections. Dated Jan. 1, 1942.
3. "State To Change Numbered Routes." Hartford Courant, June 14, 1961.
4. Connecticut State Highway Department. "A Report to the Highway Users of Connecticut: 1960-1961."
5. "155 Miles of Superhighways Projected." Hartford Times, June 1, 1967.
6. "U.S. Aid Sought To Fix Rts. 83, 140." Hartford Courant, Mar. 13, 1977.

These are several.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 22:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How does the old bridge item help us as that seems to be an article about the bridge, not the highway? The Highway Department sources are not independent as they are paid to make a show of looking after this road and so their reports do not establish third-party notability. The other Hartford Courant items seem to be routine local news. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You have really no idea what your saying do you? :| - These come from here. Read this up :| - Also you are saying the opposite of what is truth on CDOT - as CDOT would be a primary first-party source, sad to say. The Hartford Courant is one the biggest newspapers in the entire state of connecticut. More sources: Ready, here's 1, 2, 3 (note is abstract, Google News abstract mentions 140), 4 (same situation as #3), 5 (same situation), 6, and so on. You get my point.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 23:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• The website to which you refer, www.kurumi.com, describes itself as the work of "roadgeeks". Such self-published, hobbyist works are not usually considered acceptable evidence of notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No duh. I am one I should know that. You also should get the point that there are sourced articles and reliable ones out there, because above I've just listed 12 newspapers and ConnDOT items.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 10:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: I'd consider a slab of asphalt that cuts through three counties pretty notable. Maybe not to someone who lives in say, Oregon, but it's still a state highway in Connecticut. If one uses this AFD as a precedent, one could probably nominate a large number of state highway articles on Wikipedia for deletion. And that's not exactly a precedent that I'd like to be set. Wikipedia may not be purposed as a travel guide per-say, but there's a lot of miscellaneous knowledge compacted in it, a lot of which probably classifies as being "non-notable" to someone, somewhere. Does that mean it all should be purged? I wouldn't think so, as long as the articles are well written and have sources to back them up and which are credible. Kumba42 (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment towards Colonel Warden Your constant badgering of people who make !votes is now becoming disruptive, and I strongly suggest you stop. Its blatantly obvious you know nothing about this topic, and anyone can tell that this doesn't have a chance of closing as anything other than keep. Move on to your next project. Jeni ^(talk) 23:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is a discussion not a vote. As editors like yourself seem unaware of this, it seems necessary to point out the weakness of your arguments. Your keep rationale is quite inadequate as it does not address the particulars and merits of the article nor our policies. The closing admin is likely to disregard such empty votes completely and so you may wish to add to your observations. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. You're going after almost everyone who posts something you don't like. And these keeps aren't going to be ignored as most have value to the situation.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 10:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is normal in a discussion or debate to respond to the points made by the opposing side. Your response in particular has been illuminating as it seems that you are a road hobbyist who sees Wikipedia as a suitable vehicle for your enthusiasm. My impression is that many of the respondents here are like minded and so naturally find deletion of an article about a road to be unacceptable. But is this consistent with our general policies? The matter seems worthy of proper discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What is not normal is the level of harassment within the AfD you are partaking in. A large chunk of the people voting here certainly do not fall within the "roadgeek" clique, your argument is flawed. If you continue to post in such a disruptive manner, I shall take this matter further. Jeni ^(talk) 11:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep As notable as most other state highways; having decided to cover them, we should cover them all above a certain level. I don't always agree with the level individual wikiprojects set, and I think the general community has the right to decide whether or not to accept them--but in this case I think they've set it right, and they do have general acceptance. DGG ( talk ) 08:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• You seem to be begging the question. Where has it been decided that we must cover each and every highway, regardless of sourcing? Do we have a policy or guideline which says this? You do realise that there must at least 100,000 roads of this sort worldwide? By creating lots of stubby articles from large geographic databases we are able to boast of having 3 million articles now but is this really what we are supposed to be creating? Our policy WP:NOT says otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think its pretty clear what the communities opinion is from this AfD! Jeni ^(talk) 11:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Per extension of List of State Routes in Connecticut and per what everyone else has said. It meets the project's notability requirements. –túrian^patois 17:33, 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. Deleted under A7 by User:Splash (non-admin closure) — Jake Wartenberg 23:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

RAm (band)

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

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. No assertion of notability. No major tours or chart success. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. Why can't this be speedied under criteria A7? Dismas|^(talk) 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Delete So tagged, under A7. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:13, 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. JForget 23:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Playmate Model Mom

Playmate Model Mom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Playmate Model Mom" – news · books · scholar · images)