Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zulu (film). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies in the film Zulu

Historical inaccuracies in the film Zulu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant collection of OR and TRIVIA. Content fork which manifestly fails our own policies and guidelines about how to handle such information, including MOSFILM. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Zulu (film), surely.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per WP:IINFO Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a list of trivia. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge (per S Marshall) or weak keep, the article could use some work but the subject itself is suitable for wikipedia. Some of the entries are trivial and many might by original research but there are referenced data in there; it can be cleaned up. For a film about historical events to have a referenced section about its inaccuracies is not inappropriate. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge. If we keep this we should then create equal articles for Titanic (1997 film), Valkyrie (film) and the like. WP:NN as a standalone topic, but still deserves mention. -- RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Merging is not appropriate: it's well-established Wiki policy that articles on films must be confined to sources which relate specifically to the film and criticism thereof and cannot bring in general history. And the issue of the accuracy (or not) of films or plays or books depicting actual events is an entirely appropriate subject for Wiki articles: a perfectly valid branch of human knowledge, and one for which there is most assuredly public need or demand. Virtually any viewer of a "historical" film wonders to a greater or lesser degree "but how 'true' was it?" whether Zulu or Valkyrie or Titanic. If the complaint is based on OR, then what is needed is citation tags, not elimination. I partially agree with RUL3R: "Historical inaccuracies in X work of fiction" ought to be an article class, and one maintained separate from the main article on "X work of fiction," in which external comparisons are inappropriate. (NB: "Trivia" is in the eye of the beholder. WP's mission is broadly inclusive, not exclusive.) Solicitr (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  Wikipedia might be broadly inclusive, but lists of miscellaneous facts and original research are explicitly forbidden. I think it should be deleted, but, at best, this mess deserves a few lines in the main article for the film, after it has been heavily cleaned up, converted to prose, and sourced. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 14:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it requires cleanup and sourcing badly: but it *cannot* be merged into the main article; nor is it a 'miscellany' as you put it save in its lack of organization and encyclopedic form. Solicitr (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @037  ·  23:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to the film's page. A section under this header is appropriate there, but hopefully it will be treated better than a few pages of listcruft. ThemFromSpace 03:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• merge to the main article on the film. I see no reason why it cannot be merged, nor is it a list of miscellaneous facts; it's a list of historical inaccuracies, and that is a proper part of the discussion of every notable historical fiction. If the film wikiproject thinks otherwise, that instance of OWNership should be rejected by the wider community. No one project gets to make policy. As I see it, it's an intrinsic part of discussing the plot, and a good example of real-world information, which we generally encourage in articles on fiction. DGG (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Zulu (film), it is a POV fork. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as POV fork. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth would this be a POV fork, "an attempt to evade the neutrality policy"? Solicitr (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it's basically "things the film got wrong" without explicitly saying so. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Things the film got wrong" isn't POV if they are objectively wrong, not just someone's opinion. The anachronistic use of WWI Webley Mk VI revolvers is a fact, not a point of view. Solicitr (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And why would you need to point that out in an article about a film that by its nature cannot accurately portray reality? Unless tons of reliable sources explicitly discuss inaccuracies in the film (that is, a source says "Zulu incorrectly portrayed this fact", not "Zulu got this wrong; this source says this really happened . . .", there's no need to document them. By the way, a number of sources don't look acceptable, and quite a few others are used to synthesize arguments. The article is a big POV mess. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge - It's not a POV fork, but it's an unnecessary fork. Shadowjams (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Not really "inaccuracies", but actually "things the film got wrong". Not just trivia, but "blatant trivia". But tell me, how is it OR? Perhaps, 'insidiously cited as academic consensus' OR? Anarchangel (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  WP:SYN. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge or keep... not a POV fork but I don't know if it can stand on its own. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 07:25, 10 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 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Pingfatzu

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

An esoteric philosophy, so esoteric that it produces scarcely any Google hits. It has received short shrift on the Portuguese Wikipedia having been speedied three times (incomprehensible, no context, etc.). Igor Buys, the author of the article mentions himself in it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete It seems cool, "Thus, to constitute "kamic-manasic" weapons, mentalizing them into the astral plane one must to consult the Doctrine of the Pingfatzu," but notability is not well established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be referenced chiefly to self-published or to fictional sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable at best. Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. It is not very notable (or why would it have been deleted three times on the Portuguese Wikipedia?) Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:47, 6 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 guideline for amateur players is that they need to be successful at a national level and the argument that they aren't hasnt been refuted Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Pat Carter (golfer)

Pat Carter (golfer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reason the page should be deleted Abc518 (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Question about notability Abc518 (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I wrote the article. Carter is a notable amateur golfer who has garnered state and national honors in amateur golf. michfan2123 (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Response: Amateur golf doesn't even have it's own article, why should it's players?--Abc518 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Response: By your logic, no amateur golfer should have a page. Should we start deleting all of the notable amateur golfer's (Bobby Jones, Francis Ouimet, William C. Campbell, etc.) pages then? michfan2123 (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Response: William C. Campbell is the golf hall of fame, and as for the other two, perhaps they should be. However, I wont nominate dead people. --Abc518 (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear. Are you saying the articles on 13 time major winner and HoF member Bobby Jones, and 1913 US Open champion Ouimet should be nominated for deletion? I sure hope not. And if someone is not noteworthy, it is irrelevant whether they are alive or not, so why the reticence in nominating their articles? Finally, amateur golf probably should have it's own article, or at least a section in amateur sports. _wjemather^bigissue 22:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Domination of a top-level subnational political unit's top golf tournament + various other awards combine for enough to merit inclusion. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^bigissue 21:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Extraordinary level of achievement in dominating the state amateur championship is notable, as highlighted by the USA Today article. _wjemather^bigissue 21:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Kind of a tough one. There are no google news hits, ESPN's got nothing (except for the wide receiver, who's a different guy). Seems like he's done well in some tournaments, and I might even entertain that amateur golf is a non-league kind of "top level". With this kind of ambiguity I'd defer to the guidelines at WP:Athlete. He doesn't meet them. Shadowjams (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not because amateur golf in itself is unworthy of inclusion, as suggested above, but because he's not sufficiently successful within it. The article notes he has qualified for the US Amateur, as good a benchmark as there is, 12 times, but never bettered the quarter-finals. Nor has he progressed further than that in the U.S. Mid-Amateur, which is a weaker competition. On the national level he is a good player, but not spectacular - it may just be that his competition at local level is unusually weak. EJBH (talk) 19:20, 8 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 22:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Atticus: ...Dragging the Lake, Vol. 4

Atticus: ...Dragging the Lake, Vol. 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence that this release actually exists. See record label website: [1] Nouse4aname (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

ATTICUS WEBSITE: http://civvies.biz/atticususa/product.php?productid=16237&cat=274&page=1 http://www.civvies.biz/atticususa/home.php I do not know how to cite things on Wikipedia but I can inform you I purchased this compilation album from an Atticus merchandise tent during the Vans Warped Tour this month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.147.34 (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you know how to cite sources or not because that source would be deleted as unreliable. Read WP:RS to see why. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not unreliable: as the online outlet of Atticus clothing, it's a good source which goes towards verifiability. 86.44.29.180 (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. A non-notable compilation. While some of the songs may be notable, the album itself is not. Fails WP:ALBUM. There are 3 other ones of this series I will be nominating shortly. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: Was this article speedy deleted before? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't think so. Deleted by Prod [2]. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 03:30, 4 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 Adam Copeland.  Skomorokh  16:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Edge a decade of decadence

Edge a decade of decadence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reads like a movie review. Fails WP:N. NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 06:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge into Adam Copeland - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 10:34, 28 July 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, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge anything useful into Adam Copeland, failing that, redirect as a plausible search term. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Move to grammatically correct title, merge any reasonable content to Adam Copeland, then redirect to Adam Copeland Since I can do the first part of that uncontroversially, I will, I just wanted to !vote with three things :P Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:00, 11 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Maya Ababadjani

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

The subject of this article does not apparently meet the WP:Pornbio criteria, nor does this article otherwise appear to be about a notable subject. The standards for porn actor notability have been increased since the previous, 2008 nomination for deletion, when no consensus was achieved. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete This woman had a brief & minor career in pornography. She has won no awards. Her three references include two links to Danish language porn sites (one which showed me an image of a woman with a man's penis protruding from her mouth, as soon as I clicked on it), which would almost certainly not be regarded as notable sources, while her other reference is a link to another Danish language site that also doesn't appear to be a notable source (such as a major newspaper from Copenhagen, or whatnot). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement for the sources themselves to pass notability. The requirement is that they be reliable and independent. WP:RS. Horrorshowj (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Meets basic requirements of WP:N and WP:ENT. WP:PORNBIO is additional criteria for inclusion, not a criteria for exclusion. Also, only one comment is necessary from the nominator. Chuthya (talk) 20:58, 7 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, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete does not present intersections of reliable independent secondary sources. Algébrico (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N until the legitimacy of the foreign-language sources can be verified. 86.164.58.117 (talk) 14:36, 9 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 00:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nouveau Riche (real estate investment college)

Nouveau Riche (real estate investment college) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unaccredited, obscure college, with very little news coverage as far as I can see. Most ghits are sites run by the school itself. Fails WP:ORG. —Chowbok ☠ 00:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep though I am surprised to find myself saying this; looks like an ad for a scam but the enterprise itself has been noted per [3] and cites in article. JJL (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep appears to be notable through its references and the source brought up above. ThemFromSpace 03:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Really weak keep - It appears to be notable, but I'd like more to see good sources. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 4 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. per nominator, notability does not (typically) extend to anyone involved in a work. Consensus is to delete. tedder (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Chris Mowry

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

No third-party evidence of notability. While the principal creator/illustrator for notable comics might be notable, that doesn't mean everyone on the production team is. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep, he has authored bokos currfently for sale on amazon. under ISBN-13: 978-1600104572 and ISBN-10: 1600104576. He is notable.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There are 22 books he is credited too as an author. All in the transformer universe. On whatr grounds is he not notable?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment: I have no opinion on his notability, but having one or even 22 books listed on Amazon is not a sign of notability. Anyone can list a book for sale on Amazon, including someone churning out stuff in his basement on a mimeograph. Being sold on Amazon should never be considered proof of notability for a book or an author. --NellieBly (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:26, 21 July 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, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case though he is a credited comic author and the series were licensed for use by the Transformers. I think that makes him notable unless you think they are letting crap authors do their work. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Being licensed by the owners of the Transformers name does not make the series notable, either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, Perhaps you'd like to explain how the person isn;t notable. He authored the tie in series between the 2 movies so I'm drawing a blank here.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:37, 28 July 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, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. In present form, the article does not establish notability. There are no reliable sources, just link to his blog and facebook. Offliner (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Looking at the specific details in the article, he does not seem a major author within the franchise DGG (talk) 19:13, 7 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 00:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Axiom stack

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

WP:NN technology. {{Findsourcesnotice}} turns only promotional pieces (press releases). Part of a series of articles placed by AXIOM SPA COI editors. Failed Speedy Deletion as spam / G11. Toddst1 (talk) 14:20, 21 July 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) 00:03, 28 July 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, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't demonstrate any notability, nor can I find any evidence of notability through my searches. ThemFromSpace 03:44, 4 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 21:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

LG15: The Last

If you came here because http://www.lg15.com/bbsposts/list/27/93/827/12 told you to do so, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

LG15: The Last (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

It is the latest spin-off of the lonelygirl15 web-series, but I can only find one third party source on this, so seems to fail the general WP:NOTABILITY+WP:WEB guidelines. I guess after so many spin off series of the show, people have completely lost interest and nobody even bothers reporting it.--Otterathome (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: An official social show for entertainment company EQAL's LG15 Franchise (not just a spin-off). Professionally produced and featured on the popular LG15.com. Executively produced by EQAL. Comprehensive plot, and very good acting from the cast. Notable in the fact that Jonas Wharton (main character from EQAL's lonelygirl15 and LG15: The Resistance; minor character from EQAL's KateModern and N1ckola) emails one of the main characters in the pilot episode and is seen in one of the first episodes. Kayvahn (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Your personal opinion of how good the show is contributes nothing to the notability and verifiability of the article. And Jones Wharton character, played by Jackson Davis is also up for deletion as he has had only minor roles and hasn't actually starred in anything notable.--Otterathome (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Otterathome, you nominated Jackson Davis (and other lg15 related articles) for deletion, but obviously lonelygirl15 itself is notable. (Though I remember when the lonelygirl15 article WAS deleted off wikipedia in the summer of 2006, which was ridiculous and reversed soon afterwards as it was one of the biggest internet hoaxes of all time.) Now, as to LG15: The Last, I believe it can/should meet the requirements of notability, I will look to see if i can add any helpful edits to convince you of this. --Milowent (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• The two sources you added are Blogspot.com websites, only reliable non-primary ones can establish notability.--Otterathome (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What's this rule on blogspot sites? At least these aren't cat blogs, but sites dedicated to covering webseries. The "Web and 1" is written by Andy Asensio, who is also a TV critic for Zap2it. In any event, I added two more references to cites that are not blogspot sites. --Milowent (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Blogspot sites are not reliable sources. The tubefilter.tv source doesn't mention this spin off, and the newteevee.com just mentions it in the second last sentence so is still trivial.--Otterathome (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • "Blogspot sites are not reliable sources" - not trying to be difficult, can you cite me support for that? That seems to be overbroad. Tubefilter is talking about the whole TSIY project, of which The Last was the winner. The crowdsourced creation of this show is notable, as its the first of its kind that i'm aware of. --Milowent (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      • They can't be used to establish notability because I or anyone else can make one. See WP:BLOGS.--Otterathome (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
      • WP:BLOGS does not say that a blogspot blog can not be used to establish notability. Anybody can register a domain name as well. The two blogpost cites cited among other cites are not anonymous blogs, but by writers in the entertainment industry. Suggesting that intractable rules apply when they don't doesn't get us anywhere. --Milowent (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

        • The author of the storygas.com blogspot website was the author of the KateModern series, so is not independant of the subject and does not help to establish notability. And the "TV analyst for Zap2it" blog is an off-site blog so is not subject to any editorial control. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel for sources here.--Otterathome (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

          • Regardless of the quibbling over the blogspot posts, which are not anonymous, and at least one of which you admit is independent of the subject, what about the cites to salon, tilzy, newteevee, tubefilter, and c21media? When I point out that the wikipedia "rules" don't say what you claim they say, you simply shift to another argument. This is frustrating and counterproductive. I understand the reasons you may have proposed this article for deletion, but with the additional citation and edits added to the article, and additional knowledge you have gained about the subject, I should think you might consider reevaluating your nomination.--Milowent (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I already debunked those sources above (22:10, 4 August). Yes, I've learnt about it, from unreliable and primary sources, none of which show it is notable. And c21media source is an article about the company working on Harper's Island and doesn't mention this series.--Otterathome (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
              • ???? You "debunked" them? This series is The Show Is Yours, mentioned in all the articles. ----Milowent (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
                • Then why is the article called 'The Last'?--Otterathome (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
                  • Because The Last is the title of the show that won The Show is Yours competition, e.g., in the main page for the show at http://www.lg15.com/, you'll see the "TSIY" in the corner of the name. --Milowent (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
                    • Well it seems very strange you can find sources on talking about the competition but not the winning show. Which kind of shows what ever interest there once was, has died off. Which is why the only source we have for it is in my nom.--Otterathome (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
                    • It appears you have a conflict of interest as you've contributed to a number of lg15 related videos at stated on your page at http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=Milowent.--Otterathome (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
                      • I see you continue your smear campaigns rather than arguing for a deletion on a factual basis.
                        Counting obvious fan contributions (e.g. there are several outright marked as "spoof") as a "conflict of interest" would basically ban every fan of everything ever from contributing.
                        Despite your cheap attempt to discredit him, Milowent is not involved with the production of LG15, and there exists no conflict of interest. The fact that he's a fan does not bar him from arguing for its inclusion.
                        ~ Renegade - 80.171.84.166 (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Look, this is something that exists. It's difficult to find sources because it's completely internet-based. Yes, it's a spinoff, but one that is featured on the LG15 website, along with the original shows. I don't know all the rules about deleting articles, but could someone please simply explain to me why this article should not be on wikipedia? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.114.190 (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Why would it be difficult to find sources on something completely internet based? Sounds like nonsense to me.--Otterathome (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: This source is useful and should not be deleted as pointed out by Milowent, has information regarding a webseries. Yes it is a spin off but it is unique as it is the first to take place within Australia. Once the series is complete I am sure that there will be more reviews and articles to be added to the page. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.250.46 (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Wikipedia isn't an archive of everything, see WP:ITSUSEFUL. If it is "unique as it is the first to take place within Australia." then you'd need a source to back up that. But sadly there isn't any.--Otterathome (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - I believe LG15: The Last meets the standards of notability to be on Wikipedia. Its been cited in a number of articles, and is unique as the first webseries by fans, based on an establish mythology, that has been raised to the status of an official show as opposed to "fan fiction" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.61.191 (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: The source argument is ridiculous. That's like saying you can't write an article on Christopher Columbus because all you have are his personal diaries. The original source trumps any need for third party sources. I assume no one is arguing the notability of the original series lonelygirl15. The Last is a part of that franchise. If The Last is deleted then with it goes such gems as Joanie Loves Chachi, Archie Bunker's Place and Torchwood.--jenlight (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  Wait, so you're comparing a 15 century explorer with an internet show? What? Just because the original show was notable, that doesn't mean this can automatically bypass notability requirements, see WP:NRVE. And all those other shows you mentioned were actually broadcast on TV and have many notable actors in, while this doesn't have any.--Otterathome (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  lonelygirl15 is notable. This is a spinoff of it produced by the producers of lonelygirl15. The notability of the actors is not in question. Since the show belongs to a franchise already established to be notable it is notable. I don't really know how to explain this so you can understand it. Seeing as you have not one other person agreeing with you I'm not terribly worried.--jenlight (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  If a company makes one notable service/production, that doesn't mean everything else related to it can automatically bypass the WP:NOTABILITY standards. You'd know this if you'd read WP:NRVE which I linked you to above.--Otterathome (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: It is the spin off from the successfull lonelygirl15 web series which is notable itself. I put forward the same arguements to keep as Jenlight and milowent. KindredPhantom (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  And I just defeated that argument.--Otterathome (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: This is a very significant series in the history and development of web series. It represents one of the first instances where the nature of a canon mythology has been handed over to the fan base to continue and expand. For that reason alone this article must be kept.--Modelmotion (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I have yet to see a reasonable policy-based argument for keeping this article. It is being referenced with sources that fail WP:RS, and it's clear that there aren't any available (a Google News search for this series comes up with absolutely nothing). There is no way for this article to satisfy WP:N. To the LG15 fans, this isn't a vote, you need to state how this article meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, not why you like the show. -- Atama^chat 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge: lonelygirl15 is notable for being the first widely recognized web series; its article has a list of 40 references asserting its notability. As such, LG15: The Last is notable in at least two ways:

1. For being a spin-off of a famous franchise. Take a look a Star Trek: The Animated Series - it has a mere 22 episodes and was considered "decanonized" for decades - The Last has 45 episodes and never had its canoncy disputed. Both are spin-offs of popular franchises. TAS is allowed to stay. Or The Lone Gunmen - canceled after 12 episodes. Why is it notable? Because it's a spin-off of a famous franchise. Hell, look at The Fonz and the Happy Days Gang - that's a clear precedent for inclusion of LG15: The Last; it has the exact same format: It's a spin-off of a famous series with little content on the page. The difference is that The Last is relatively fresh, with, as this discussion demonstrates, active and eager fans who can improve the page - in other words, there's still a vast potential for improvement. Can you say the same about The Fonz and the Happy Days Gang? And yet, TFatHDG is allowed to stay.
2. For being yet another ground breaking narrative concept by the same people who already redefined the way online entertainment is done once. Compare Microsoft's Project Natal - so far, it doesn't even exist for consumers. Yet, it's notable - why? Because it's a new, ground-breaking thing by a company which has done ground-breaking things in the past. The only difference is that Microsoft has billions of dollars in marketing money, and thus could place Natal in conferences and magazines, whereas EQAL doesn't have as deep pockets. Or compare the original iPhone page. At that point, the phone was merely an announcement - why was it notable? Because Apple had already revolutionized the MP3-player market, and now targeted a new sector. A company which previously revolutionized an industry set out to do it again. The situation is the same: EQAL has revolutionized the way web entertainment is done (frequently being described as a "pioneer"), and now they are going one step further, basically revolutionizing their own revolution. That is a notable decision in the history of this young form of entertainment, and, as such, deserves mention.

In addition the The Show Is Yours contest has been reported on by NewTeeVee twice, by Tubefilter and other sites. NewTeeVee and Tubefilter are primary news sources in the web series segment, with NewTeeVee hosting the industry event NewTeeVee Live, which lists Google, Yahoo, MySpace, Amazon, Apple, AT&T and countless other high-profile technology and media companies as its attendees, and Tubefilter hosting the Hollywood Web Television Meetup, among numerous other things both are involved in. All three sites linked were co-hosts of the Streamy Awards, testimony to their leading position in the industry around web entertainment. As such, at least the The Show Is Yours contest qualifies for WP:WEB under criterion 1: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.".

WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that, in order to not be regarded as an indiscriminate collection of information, "Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting." - LG15: The Last has information about the show's background, concise descriptions of the characters, as well as a plot synopsis. As such, it clearly fulfills the necessary standard to not be considered indiscriminately collected information. In addition, as mentioned above, the voters above me signify that the page is not abandoned in any way, so, as said, the page can always be improved to be even less indiscriminate - but only if it stays.

Summary: There is at least one clear precedent for pages of this type, as well as several precedents for short-lived spin-offs of famous series who get their own page. As such, the page should be kept simply by virtue of equality, based on precedent. WP:NOTPAPER applies as well, so given the obvious number of people who would like this page to stay, deleting it would serve no purpose and lead to a detrimental experience for users interested in the franchise. (Especially for the last part of the sentence, WP:IGNORE of course applies as well.)

Beyond that, even if LG15: The Last as a series should be deemed not notable, the The Show Is Yours concept is most definitely notable, as the canonical continuation of a franchise that has already been deemed notable - lonelygirl15. Not listing The Last anywhere would be like having a page on Buffy, but denying the existence of Angel. As such, even if the decision is made that The Last on its own is not notable, the information on the page should be merged into the lonelygirl15 article, rather than simply be deleted.

~Renegade - 80.171.83.58 (talk) 06:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Only one of the sources you have given is about the show, the rest are about the competition. So it would be appropriate mentioning the competition in the lonelygirl15 article. And the only one mentioning the show name is a duplicate of the one I mentioned in my nomination [4] is the same as [5]. So we still have 1 non-trivial coverage source mentioning the actual show name, the rest are just about talking about the competition. Like I said above, if it is notable then why do we only have 1 source talking about the winners of this competition? Both the show and competition is a big WP:1E that never took off.--Otterathome (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, wrong: [6] mentions "The Last" even with a link to their pilot. If you want to count mentions, at least count correctly.

Secondly, just ignoring the multiple precedents for this kind of page I pointed out is not going to make them go away. It is very obvious that being a spin-off of a famous show is notable enough to gain a page or at least mention on Wikipedia, and no one doubts the fame of lonelygirl15. Logically, The Last deserves its page.

You also try to ignore the fact that The Last is the canonical continuation of a series that has already been deemed notable by Wikipedia. Removing information on The Last would automatically render Wikipedia's representation of lonelygirl15 incomplete.

Deletion is out of the question. Deletion would be akin to having pages on every season of the Simpsons, only to then randomly delete The Simpsons (season 21). Or writing about The Lord of the Rings and deleting the page on The Hobbit. lonelygirl15 is notable. That is undisputed. The Last is the canonical continuation of a notable franchise. Keeping information about it is required for the accurate representation of the LG15 franchise. The only question here is whether to keep or to merge.

So let's see: You nominated the page for deletion.

I provided several precedents for this type of page, as well as a logical argumentation for its inclusion based on its nature and creators; I pointed out that the page includes information that is necessary for the accurate description of a phenomenon already accepted as notable by Wikipedia. I directly cited the policy stating that the page does not count as an indiscriminate collection of information, and provided references that show that at least the competition this show embodies is notable, and that, as such, The Last deserves mention.

And what did you do?

You ignored everything I said and tried to get rid of it anyway, with a (false) count of phrases, culminating in "Both the show and competition is a big WP:1E that never took off.", which is pretty much just the experienced Wikipedian's version of WP:JNN. It's your opinion, about notability, based on a conveniently narrow subset of the argumentation that looks like the policy you cite could work with it. It ignores a variety of other factors that speak for the inclusion of this information, be it as an independent page or merged into lonelygirl15.

9 votes to keep versus 3 votes to delete. Multiple arguments based on both notability as well policy to keep it. And yet you insist on deleting it, disregarding all points made, disregarding general inclusion-friendly policies like WP:NOTPAPER and WP:IGNORE, disregarding the effects this deletion has on the completeness of other pages, and not even accepting merging as an option.

Scrolling up, it looks like you're the only one actually arguing for the deletion. Sure, Joe Chill and Atama dropped in to voice their opinion, but the only one who goes around and tries to dismiss other people's arguments is you. Out of 40 revisions for this page, 17 (42.5%) were made by you. What's your agenda here? Why exactly are you so hellbent on getting rid of this particular page, no matter what?

~ Renegade - 80.171.53.21 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because one show is notable, spin-offs of it don't automatically bypass WP:NOTABILITY, see WP:NRVE, which is what most of your argument appears to be based on. And it's WP:1E because of the lack of sources. [7] talks about the competition and spin-off's in general and mentions 'The Last' right at the end. And the publish dates between the two articles are February 6, 2009 & January 28, 2009. You'd think since then there'd be more sources? But no, it remains a big WP:1E.--Otterathome (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Still rehashing the same arguments, still ignoring everything else I said (including precedents), still refusing to reveal why exactly it is so important to you, and apparently only you, that this page is gone.

You're the only one actively pursuing a deletion, and the only two supporters you got provide no valid argumentation - Joe Chill did a textbook example of WP:VAGUEWAVE, and while Atama is a little more elaborate, s/he provides no argumentation why the cited resources supposedly fail WP:RS, and is guilty of WP:GOOGLEHITS.

The only one actively pursuing this deletion is you, and you're rehashing the same arguments over and over again with no willingness to discuss the actual points made or even discuss a compromise like merging.

Seeing that, in combination with statements like "I guess after so many spin off series of the show, people have completely lost interest and nobody even bothers reporting it." or "Both the show and competition is a big WP:1E that never took off." it's easy to see that you don't really care whether the information on the page is Wikipedia-worthy or not. You want the page gone, no matter what.

The only thing I'm not sure about is whether you're one of those who lost out in TSIY1 and is trying to get some kind of revenge this way, or if you're just bored and trying to show force by getting a random article removed.

Either way, you're the only deletion supporter with anything close to a valid argumentation, and your constant cries of WP:N! WP:N! do not change the fact that the information on the page in question is integral to lonelygirl15, and will end up on Wikipedia one way or another - the only question is if it happens on its own page, or over there.

And for whatever Administrator who ultimately decides over this: "There are some subjects that are only known to a handful of people in the world. There may only be a limited number of people who are interested in reading the articles, and very few if any GHits. But this is not grounds for deletion." -> Wikipedia:MYTHS#Articles on obscure topics.

Even if you decide that there's nothing suspicious about Otterathome being the only one pushing this deletion, and even if you agree with the notability issues cited, WP:AQU still applies, and the article should be given a chance. Especially given that Otterathome is the only active supporter of this deletion, and his entire argument sums up as "Not notable! Not notable!", WP:NOPE should imo be given a thought as well.

Deleting an article just because a single user is pushing his personal opinion of a series would be unfortunate, and even if the independent page should be deleted, merging is still a valid and much saner option. Total annihilation of information due to a single user's vendetta should not happen.

~ Renegade - 80.171.53.21 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You're suppose to be proving how the article is notable, not discussing the user nominating it.--Otterathome (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - "s/he provides no argumentation why the cited resources supposedly fail WP:RS, and is guilty of WP:GOOGLEHITS." As to the first one, the sources are blogs or the show's own web site. It should be pretty obvious why they aren't reliable, I didn't feel the need to elaborate. As to the second, that's bogus. I was showing that I had made an attempt at finding sources, I wasn't basing my entire argument on a Google search, which is what WP:GOOGLEHITS is about. And you're quoting WP:MYTHS, an essay, as some kind of counter to the WP:N guideline? -- Atama^chat 02:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am, because it shows that not everyone has the same extreme deletionist views as Otterathome. Besides, while it may not have the same strength as a guideline, it would hardly be saved and shortcut if it wasn't considered worth a thought.

Of course, since you're already contrasting "essays" with "guidelines", you might as well just go forth and compare the meaning of "guideline" to "rule"...maybe after reading the very first box on WP:N, which clearly states "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." - emphasis mine.

Don't pretend that WP:N is an unbendable command of the universe that knows no flexibility and whose applicability is solely decided by you and Otterathome. As I pointed out multiple times before, the vast majority of users on this page voted keep, and so far, neither of you has addressed the numerous points for inclusion I made.

As for Google...your argumentation was thus: "The sources listed are not reliable. It is clear there are no reliable sources, because I found none on Google.". I would say you pretty much based your entire argument on Google search. You may not have done so intentionally, but it boiled down to "I found nothing on Google, so it's not notable.".

@Otterathome: Thank you. Every single time you refuse to address the factual points I make only underlines how little interest you have in actually achieving a consensus. As for your cheap attempt to put the burden of proof on me - the page existed for three entire months before you started your little crusade, there was a consensus about the page at the time of your nomination, and not only that, but your nomination is based on a vastly outdated revision. So if anyone has to prove anything, it's you, to show that your nomination even still applies to the current page.

As for both of you, since you are such big fans of WP:N - go read the introduction. It clearly says "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles."

Even if a WP:N test failed, nothing would speak against inclusion of the same information on the general LG15 page - in fact, it would be required to appear there, as, as I pointed out countless times before, The Last is the canonical continuation of a series already deemed notable by Wikipedia; simply dropping the information would unnecessarily mutilate Wikipedia's coverage of the topic.

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Nothing speaks against giving a complete overview of a notable franchise. Failing WP:N does not mean the information itself has to leave Wikipedia. As such, the question here should be whether to keep or to merge - deleting the information serves no purpose and renders Wikipedia's coverage of LG15 useless, as it would be incomplete and missing the large majority of the franchise information of this year.

And Otterathome's constant refusal to even acknowledge the option of a merge into lonelygirl15, despite the clear relevance of the information to a notable topic, betrays his intention to remove The Last from Wikipedia at all costs.

~ Renegade - 80.171.53.21 (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you appear to be discussing my motives for listing this for deletion, which isn't the purpose of AFDs. The way you speak about the subject makes it sounds like you are somehow connected to the subject. It is your WP:BURDEN to prove it is notable, not mine. And the AFD still applies to the current revision as any third-party sources in the article have already been listed here. And I didn't say it shouldn't be mentioned in the lonelygirl15 article. All I can see is that you are unable to find anymore sources to make it pass WP:N, so have resorted silly/weak arguments. I suggests you read the top of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.--Otterathome (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll second everything that Otterathome has said, and I'll also state that I'm not opposed to a merge. I don't see why this show can't be mentioned at the lonelygirl15 article, it's clearly related. If that's a satisfying compromise then that's probably what should happen. -- Atama^chat 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I also would like to respond to your statement, "You may not have done so intentionally, but it boiled down to 'I found nothing on Google, so it's not notable'." Your analysis of what you think I'm saying is not only incorrect, but offensive. Do not put words in my mouth. You clearly are unfamiliar with WP:PROVEIT or are simply ignoring it. All that I needed to do to make a reasonable argument for deletion was to state that there are no reliable sources in the article. However, I am not a deletionist, and before I declare something notable or not I will make a sincere attempt to find sources, and if I find them I will argue for an article to be kept no matter how poor of a state the article is in. Demonizing editors for making good-faith attempts to find sources, along with your other personal attacks, only sabotages your attempts in this AfD. -- Atama^chat 17:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't even that old, it was created on April 24th and the series hasn't even finished yet. It does seem a bit premature to be deleting an article on a show before it is even done! Can't the firing squad be postponed until the series has at least finished? KindredPhantom (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no time limit on deletion. Many articles are deleted right after creation if the subject isn't suitable for an article. If you feel that the show might gain more coverage after it's done, great, the article can be recreated at that time. -- Atama^chat 19:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The article says it ended on July 28th 2009 which is sourced from the official website.--Otterathome (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

@Otterathome: Yes, I am indeed questioning your motivation, and that is fully and entirely within both the writing and the spirit of the AFD:

Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy.

WP:AFD clearly states that the goal is not "delete, unless someone can prove there's no reason to", but a discussion about the merit of the content with a multitude of potential outcomes, including, but not limited to, improvement or merging.

Therefore, it is very relevant to this discussion whether you are acting out of the desire to improve Wikipedia and are open to all options that will lead to that result, or because you have a personal vendetta against The Last and the sole goal to remove it from the Wiki.

Your original deletion already included language implying a personal distaste for the subject matter, and after I have suggested merging six times now, and even Atama has spoken in favor of it, you are still refusing to even acknowledge the existence of that option. Even after the large majority of participants has voiced support for the page, you have still not shown a single sign of willingness to achieve consensus, or even anything close to a compromise. From everything visible on this page, your only reason for nomination is to get rid of The Last.

That is not what the deletion process is for, and your refusal to discuss or even acknowledge alternatives is hindering both the process of this discussion and the ultimate improvement of Wikipedia.

Pointing out that you're refusing to participate in a factual discussion and show no interest in consensus or compromise is not a personal attack, it's an observation that is of high relevance to this process, considering you're the original nominator.

Trying to paint that as "personal attacks" is weak at best.

@Atama: I apologize if I offended you, but that's how I understood your statement. I was not trying to demonize you, it just sounded like all you had done was a Google search and then deemed it not notable. No offense intended.

I'm not sure why you're pointing at WP:PROVEIT, as it is a content policy for text-additions, not a guideline for the deletion process, and thus not relevant to the question at hand. Ironically, it would support my statement either way, as it states The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material., and the relevant material added would be the deletion template, thus putting the burden of proof on Otterathome.

Nevertheless, since you seem to be more interested in consensus than Otterathome, how about we stop trying to club each other with policy links and try to find a compromise instead? :)

Currently, lonelygirl15 is one giant page with everything about the series and forms sort of a central page, linking to multiple smaller pages about the continuations and spin-offs. According to the Creators, the term "LG15" is to be used as a general term for the entirety of the franchise-universe; alas, a page of that name got deleted as a dead end redirect.

Would it be acceptable to you if we created a central portal-style page LG15, which keeps general information on the franchise and its smaller series, until they cross the necessary threshold of notability to gain their own page?

We would then have:

• LG15: Housing information on The Last, n1ckola, as well as a general overview of the background and mythology of the franchise, its impact, viewcount variances, media response and treatment, etc
• lonelygirl15: Purely housing information about that particular series
• LG15: The Resistance: Purely housing information about that particular series (has been mention in the LA Times blog, CNET and other places...definitely notable enough for its own page.)
• KateModern: Purely housing information about that particular series (While the references on the page are lacking, a quick Google search ;) will show you a number of mentions on places like The Guardian's site, The Sun's, NewTeeVee, Tubefilter, etc. The page just needs someone to add them.)
• EQAL: Giving an overview of the company behind everything, its history, key personnel, business endeavors, market position, etc. This page should probably be created anyway, given that they're working with people like Anthony E. Zuiker, Paula Deen and CBS, and have a leading position in the web series market. And yes, they do have enough media mentions to be notable.

Would you support such a merging/reorganization effort, rather than just plain deletion? :)

~ Renegade - 213.39.158.142 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support such a reorganization effort. It's a common compromise to make when you have a series of related articles that lack evidence of notability, but are themselves related to an article that does have notability. I don't see a problem with something like that. -- Atama^chat 05:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge - Certainly notable. A quick search turns up a number of references, Tubefilter, NewTeeVee, etc. I support Renegade's reorganization proposal. Byronwrites (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)— Byronwrites (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Question - is there a way to report Otterathome to request an investigation in his behavior? If you check the page history, you will see that now that it is obvious we are coming to a compromise, he stopped participating in the actual discussion, and he has instead changed his behavior to trying to discredit supportive posts by inventing a conflicts of interest for Milowent and trying to put the validity of Byronwrites' opinion into question, by flagging him for having "few or no other edits outside this topic". (Given that the same is true for me, and I'm not even registered, it's quite clear he's just attempting to artificially reduce the support a merging effort has.)

He is also trying to downplay the significant support the page has in general, by implying in the header the page linked is a plain cry to vote for the page no matter what, while the users actually call for help improving the page:

"maybe we need to add more 2 it?"

"Yeah, anyone wanna help expand the LG15: The Last Wikipedia article?"

"The list of characters is [sort of] done."

"Yes! Thank you to whoever edited that page, *cheers* *gives you millions of e-cookies* "

And then on the next page,

"re wikipedia: I added some references to the Lg15: the last article, let me know if there are other articles i am missing. That usually helps with any notability debate."

"if you wish to keep the article, the best way to do so is to vote keep : --- *'''Keep''' - with your explanation."

Otterathome is cherry-picking a single post in a thread full of replies trying to improve the page and clearly stating one should explain why to keep, rather than just vote. In addition, the attempt to frame informing people of the deletion is somehow a dishonest attempt to skew the discussion, when, in fact, WP:AFD has an entire section "Notifying interested people" is just plain ridiculous.

I believe at this point, not even those of you who support the removal/merging of the page on notability grounds can deny that it is obvious Otterathome has some kind of underlying agenda, rather than the urge to improve Wikipedia. His refusal to discuss merging was telling enough, the fact that he now stopped discussing and resorts to these FUD tactics only underlines it.

So...is there some place I can go to have his behavior investigated?

~ Renegade - 80.171.84.166 (talk) 20:05, 10 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. Lack of references is a solvable problem, copyright/spam issues are actively worked on, and claims for and against notability are speculative. Per WP:CSB and the ongoing improvements, this article is kept.  Skomorokh  16:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Austriamicrosystems

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

The article has no reference citations and appears to be a synthesis of cut and paste from http://www.austriamicrosystems.com/ Jezhotwells (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-consumer business manufacturing components -- The company focuses on the areas of power management, sensors and sensor interfaces, portable audio and car access -- unlikely to be the topic of significant coverage outside the trade. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• The article was originally created by me. Since then, clearly someone within the company had turned it into something of a brochure which is not at all the kind of entry we want. However over the last few weeks, it has been steadily improved by a number of people and is now much more factual. It could use a little further improvement I grant you, but it's on the way. I don't agree that a business which does not sell to consumers directly is automatically a subject for deletion. There are many very large manufacturers which have little or no consumer product portfolio, but it does not make them unimportant. I hope and trust that we can remove the deletion tag soon. Colin99 (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep needs work, but possibly notable. A public company , so there ought to be some financial data and information on market share. Wherther a company derals with consumers or not is totally irrelevant to notability, though it does affect the nature of the sources likely to be available. Considering non-consumer businesses as less notable is systematic bias--if anything, their under-representation here is a reason to be flexible on sources. DGG (talk) 05:28, 4 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Junken Building (Pittsboro Pizzeria)

Junken Building (Pittsboro Pizzeria) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Several non-notable small-town buildings and businesses. No references or other evidence of notability. LP ^talk 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hayworth Building (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sawyer Building (Mason Inn) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all three unless references establishing notability can be provided: so far there are none. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all. Unremarkable buildings, not listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Zero relevant online sources (Google Web, News, Books, Scholar). Deor (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• These three are new articles and are not finished. They should be kept. 65.26.176.123 (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• These articles have been improved and should kept. Sedna10387 (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that Sedna and 65.26.176.123 are the same person. If this AfD closes any way other than "delete," I'll see that a checkuser sorts the matter out. Vote fraud through sockpuppetry is grounds for blocking. Deor (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Now that you have drawn attention to it I have had a look of the editing history of these "two" users, and I think there is abundant evidence of sockpuppetry elsewhere as well as here. I think there is a good case for an investigation. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• I've had my eye on Sedna's editing habits for some time, and I have no doubt that the IP is him/her. Most of the user's edits have been problematic. This is a person who means well, but doesn't know how Wikipedia works and apparently doesn't care. --LP ^talk 21:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I should like to put on record the fact that 65.26.176.123 deleted "delete" comments by two other editors in this discussion, as can be seen in this edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Even if a building isn't on the National Register, I'm willing to make exceptions for buildings that have unique architecture or that have a unique association with the history of a town. However, these three buildings don't meet that threshold. There's no indication of architectural merit in these buildings, and the only one that even comes close to historic importance is the Junken Building (mainly because it's the oldest building in town). The current uses of these buildings aren't notable. So, I'm going to say delete and say that the coverage in History of Pittsboro, Indiana is adequate. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

These articles should be kept because these buildings are part of the Pittsboro Indiana history. The coverage in Pittsboro History isn't enough. In these articles It tells about the history of the buildings. Sedna10387 (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 9 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. Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 17:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Becki Kregoski

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

Only minor roles/stand-in's in a number of shows. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ENT. Otterathome (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Minor roles only. No indepndent reliable sources provided or found. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

KEEP - OMG do you pple not know who she is? Seriously?--Modelmotion (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - We are saying she is not notable because she has had only minor roles and there are no independent reliable sources on which to base an article. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - OMG we don't know who she is because she's not notable. A Gnews search finds a single article about a high school play she was in. -- Atama^chat 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - The "KEEP" vote explanation above from modelmotion is more a reaction to Otterathome's activity on the AFDs for LG15: The Last and Jackson Davis, and who does seem to foster some drama from time to time. I am a lonelygirl15 fan, but I agree that sadly Ms. Kregoski shouldn't make the cut at this time under wikipedia's guidelines. --Milowent (talk) 03:40, 8 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 01:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Vanderanese language

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

Failed prod, but the article most certainly needs to go. It has no references and no evidence to assert notability. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not for something you made up in school one day. (My favorite of all the "nots"!) --Gimme danger (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• • I only saved it from speedy because when I first looked, the writing seemed to indicate a semi-sophisticated knowledge of linguistics. I'm pretty sure I was wrong. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:MADEUP. WuhWuzDat 03:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MADEUP. ThemFromSpace 03:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Wp:NFT. I might have fallen for it, if it wasn't for all the "will be"s in the article, including my particular favourite, "Vanderanese is created by Vander Eubanks, who will become a famous person". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The description reads like a description of Smurf language; in this one, simple monosyllables starting in 'V' are sprinkled around the same way that Smurfs randomly substitute 'smurf' for various nouns, verbs, and adjectives. Made up, original research, non-notable et cetera. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. When Vander Eubanks does become a famous person (I'm thinking GOP nomination in '44), it will not be as a result of this. Mandsford (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as made-up. Due to good faith mistakes in changing the format of the PROD and PROD2 tags, PROD was seconded by three different editors. See Talk:Vanderanese language. Cnilep (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No Consensus - the input in this discussion is split. The article's supporters are invited to strengthen its text, while those who favor deletion are welcome to revisit this subject later in the year if the article has seen no substantial improvements. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Jackson Davis

If you came here because http://www.lg15.com/bbsposts/list/27/93/827/13 told you to do so, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

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

Only known for appearing in lonelygirl15 web show, other wiseminor appearances in a number of shows. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ENT. So delete and redirect to lonelygirl15. Otterathome (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. This was already nominated for deletion once before and kept. If we're doing another nomination, I ask on what basis are we departing from the prior consensus? Jackson Davis was one of the primary cast members on Longlygirl15, and then the lead character of the Lg15: The Resistance spinoff. I agree that most webseries "stars" do not merit their own article because most series are obscure, but the primary cast members of lonelygirl15 are just as noteworthy as the actors on cable TV shows, e.g., even the minor actors on The Closer (shown on TNT in the U.S.) have their own wikipedia pages. On WP:ENT alone, he has a large female following online, just look at the comments to any of the 100s of videos he appears in online, especially when shirtless. On basic notability criteria, he has been covered by secondary source material such as the newspapers cited in the article. --Milowent (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Have you got any reliable sources, preferably third party ones to back up your claims? The local newspaper is only talking about him being in the lonelygirl series he has appeared in, and the new york times is a trivial mention in an article about the show too. Actors have to have multiple major roles in notable things, not just one. So it's a becoming a WP:1E too.--Otterathome (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Notability of a person is presumed "if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." That is the case in the Lancaster article, for sure. (I see the article is no longer available for full online, but I do recall reading it at some point, as I follow a number of webseries.) I do not think actors "have" to have multiple major roles in notable things to be notable (look at the cast of The Closer again), though I agree it is a consideration for notability. For example, "if the event is highly significant (which lonelygirl15 was), and the individual's role within it is a large one (which jackson davis' was), a separate article is generally appropriate." And again, is there some change of circumstance for departing from the prior consensus on this article? --Milowent (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• You can read the Lancaster article here. And the actors in the The Closer all appear to have had starring roles in other things. The only non-trivial source you have is a local paper from the subjects home town, and is only about the lonelygirl15 appearance, so its WP:1E. And if the event was 'highly significant' then there would be plenty of sources on him, for example Chesley Sullenberger and other examples given at WP:1E.--Otterathome (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Why do you keep ignoring my point about the prior AFD outcome? Your conclusion about the actors in the Closer is subjective as to whether they are more notable than Jackson Davis. Surely that shouldn't be the dividing line for inclusion. --Milowent (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:NOTAGAIN, also give me an example of somebody in The Closer show who you think is less notable.--Otterathome (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• I will happy to provide that information once you answer my point about the prior AFD outcome. On what basis are you saying the consensus has changed? As NOTAGAIN states: "An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion." What are these "strong reasons"? --Milowent (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• See original nomination above. We still only have 1 non-trivial source, and he still hasn't starred in anything notable other than the original lg15 series..--Otterathome (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• So why has the consensus changed, then? Your points are simply retreads of the prior AFD. Lg15: The Resistance, by the way, is notable separate from lonelygirl15. I know they are related, but both are separately notable. The latter was subject to much press on its own, invariably mentioning Jackson Davis as the star of the show. --Milowent (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't say the consensus has changed, I nominated again for the same reason as before which was 'Non-notable Youtube personality, with only claim to fame is a small tie-in with the Lonelygirl15 series. ' which is still true.--Otterathome (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• LG15:The Resistance was a separate show, as I just noted. And his fame is not based on a "small tie in" to Lonelygirl15, he was one of three major actors on the show. That misapprehension triggered the prior AfD as well. --Milowent (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I see no new reason for this to be nominated for deletion again, after the concussion of the first was to keep. Jackson Davis played a big part in the Lonelygirl15 series which for a while was thought to be real and this alone is notable enough to keep. KindredPhantom (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:NOTAGAIN. And being in one web show hoax doesn't pass our entertainer guidelines.--Otterathome (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• There are numerous pages dedicated to the folks surrounding the The Blair Witch Project, a big web hoax of the late 1990s. I feel like we are getting a little contentious here and aren't sure why. --Milowent (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Keep". The people placing these deletion notices are totally out of control and need to be stopped. They are totally spoiling the enjoyment of those who like to contribute to Wikipedia and hence its very survival as a valuable resource. Anyone who challenges why this page exist clearly does not have a clue as to the World they live in and why it is important. This is just insulting and the person who did it should take a step back from the cliff before they do any more serious damage to Wikipedia and the culture of openness that has led to its development.--Modelmotion (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Keep". Lonelygirl15 was a pioneer in the area of the modern web series. Any serious discussion of the history of web series must include LG15. It is historically significant. Jackson Davis appeared in more episodes of LG15 then any other actor. If for no other reason then completion sake this article should not be deleted. Anyone researching web series would be interested in learning more about him. Mathieas (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Those above two keep votes look like WP:SPA accounts related to the subject.--Otterathome (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm, yeah you might want to check my joined date Otterboy, I've been a member of wikipedia for years. I don't edit much because of people like you, but I've been around since the Bomis days when wiki didn't exist. Mathieas (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

They are not. They are guilty, however, of being familiar with lonelygirl15 and which actors are notable and which aren't. There are also some AfDs you did of non-notable characters that no one is voting to keep. --Milowent (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh you were all referred here from a lg15 website, I guess you can ignore my spa suggestion then.--Otterathome (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete. So far the main arguments I see against deleting it are that 1: It was already kept, and 2: That this person is part of a famous show, and therefore should be kept. If he's that huge of a part of the show, I think there should be more news articles if that is the case. It could be that, given time, that will happen, but right now it doesn't look like it. I'm still looking around for articles, but since most of them are focused on the show, and not on the person, it seems to me that the correct thing to do is to redirect it to the show, and merge any of the important information into that article. And before anyone brings it up, the renomination doesn't bother me because it's been over a year, and the arguments for keep were terrible to begin with. In the intervening 17 months, if there has not been more coverage then a few article about the show, then I think he's not notable, and should only be considered in connection with the main topic. Sodam Yat (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"If he's that huge of a part of the show, I think there should be more news articles if that is the case." How many is the proper number? The way things stand now on wikipedia, the three primary actors from lonelygirl15 all have individual pages. Minor actors pages are either up for deletion right now, or have been previously, deleted, and I think done so correctly. Of the three actors (Jessica Rose, Yousef Abu Taleb, and Jackson Davis), I would agree that Jackson is the least notable of the three, but still crosses the line, also due to starring in two separate EQAL webseries (which the other two have not). From the perspective of someone who is very knowledgable about web series (and not just lonelygirl15) I think this article crosses the line to keep. I don't know how much weight y'all will give to that, as wikipedia once deleted lonelygirl15 itself. --Milowent (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The notability guideline states, "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." Generally I interpret that as meaning that if there are at least two sources that cover the subject significantly, and if the sources are both independent of the subject and reliable, then the basic threshold for notability is established. WP:RS covers what is and isn't a reliable source in more detail. In the references in this article, except for the Lancaster Sunday News article, Jackson's name is barely mentioned at all. That does not constitute "significant coverage". If you find at least one more source, a reliable one that isn't a blog like NewTeeVee for example, that might do it. -- Atama^chat 05:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - It is entirely appropriate to renominate this article for deletion, the closing administrator in the previous AfD felt it necessary to comment that the arguments to keep the article were "thin on policy". That's another way of saying that those who wanted it kept couldn't give a good reason for it. Once again, nobody has given a reason why this person is notable. If you think that he is "historically significant", prove it by finding reliable sources to back up your claim A bunch of people saying "don't delete this because I like it" aren't going to succeed because this isn't a vote. I believe the only reason the last AfD survived was because while those arguing to keep weren't giving a legimitate reason to delete, nobody was giving a legitimate reason to delete either. -- Atama^chat 00:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep There seems to be significant notability from several notable projects, so even a merge would be too limiting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Question - Are you saying to keep it as is, or merge it into another article? And if so, which one? -- Atama^chat 02:40, 9 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 userfy to User:MPeterHenry/Language of logic. There is consensus here that the article with its current scope and structure is not appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, but also some agreement that it has value and promise.  Skomorokh  16:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Language of logic

Language of logic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined PROD. Very thin essay that deals with material already very well covered at Logic, Formal semantics, and especially First-order logic. The title also promises much more than it gives, in that the entry only makes a small point about first order logic, and not about logic and language in general. Redundant and unnecessary entry. Hairhorn (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. While in my opinion the article does make a claim that is not explicitly found in the articles existing on logic, it is still a delete (instead of merge) because the title is too general to leave a redirect to, for instance, Gottlob Frege, or more specifically, the Begriffsschrift. Still the lead sentence should be rescued if it is not incorporated anywhere yet. I have alerted the WikiProject Logic on this. --Pgallert (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Thanks to Pgallert for notifying the Logic project. I am not an expert for the aspect of logic covered in this article, but after a quick glance at it I got the impression that the creator is an expert. His contribution history supports this, and it also shows that he is a Wikipedia newbie. I am not convinced that this article needs to exist, or exist in this form or under this name. I am also not convinced it needs to be deleted or renamed. But I have some vague notion that this AfD may be a bit premature. Please, everybody, try not to bite a promising new contributor. New editors are told all sorts of things, but they are not told that every new article comes under extreme scrutiny and may well be proposed for deletion if it doesn't make a case for its existence in the first week (in fact the first few minutes). Hans Adler 11:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Comment: No content here worth keeping. I could see a point to a survey article, maybe historically oriented, on various syntaxes proposed for various systems of logic. There's no sense in which such an article would be documenting the language of logic, and the title seems to have been driven by the desire to talk about the language that a particular logic might be expressed in in parallel terms to natural language, cf. this edit. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll hold off, per Hans' request: certainly the van Heijenoort cite seems credible. I don't see where this article is going to add anything we haven't already got. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It may well be that the creator decides to merge the article somewhere, once he understands Wikipedia a bit better and realises that like Britannica we actually prefer bigger, more comprehensive articles. I just hope we can avoid greeting him with too much drama. It seems quite possible that he started a new page mostly to avoid stepping on someone's toes. Hans Adler 12:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep Because this is an essay, I'd normally recommend deletion. We already have an article for the History of logic, which the creator of this article might want to edit. The rest of this is covered in our other articles on logic. On the other hand, the topic of this article is rather common on google scholar and I imagine this could turn into quite a nice article after a bit of cleaning up and a change in the topic of the main body. I encourage the creator not to stop editing if this article gets deleted, but rather focus his energy into improving the articles we already have on logic, some of which are in need of help from an expert. ThemFromSpace 04:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Userfication - seems the logical place for it. Dont stop Editing :) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect (too ambiguous). Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:34, 6 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) 21:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Katherine Pawlak

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

Fails WP:BIO + WP:NOTABILITY, appears to fail WP:ENT. Only known for being in lonelygirl15 so delete and redirect there. Seemingly stars in Perkins' 14, but information is so sketchy whether this film is very notable and the article on it is a mess. Otterathome (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

KEEP - amazing actress and a great singer. Why would you want to delete great content for Wikipedia when it has already been created. This just makes no sense and it just deters others from contributing.--Modelmotion (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Whether or not Modelmotion or anyone else thinks she's an "amazing actress and a great singer" is meaningless in this discussion. There is no evidence (provided or found) demonstrating that she is notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't find any reliable sources to show that she is notable, just the usual mentions like IMDB, MySpace, the LG15 web site, etc. -- Atama^chat 00:14, 8 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cobus Potgieter

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO + WP:NOTABILITY. Looks like it was written by the subject. Otterathome (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSICBIO.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 04:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I do not think this individual wrote this article, could I rather suggest it is edited or issues made known in specific so that they can be rectified accordingly. Smgafrica 06:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Cobus Potgieter, it fails all applicable guidelines. Consider adding third party reliable sources of non-trivial coverage if want an article on yourself kept.--Otterathome (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Hi, I appreciate the fact that you think I (Smgafrica)am Cobus Potgiter. I am not though, but I did contribute to this article. i think this article is pretty accurate info. Could you please explain what you mean by third party content. There are links to other articles, and videos that verify details spoken about within this article. Please could you give some specific advice to help this article fit the 'requirements' for Wikipedia. You seem like you are an expert editor so some expert advice would be good.--Smgafrica (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2009 (CAT)

• He said third party sources covering non-trivial info. That means stuff that meets WP:NOTABILITY. Also, some actual reliable sources to verify the information in the article would greatly help. I count 4 citations currently. Of course, considering that most of the stuff in the article right now doesn't seem to be notable, the better advice would be something like "Find notable information, include it, and cite it with a reliable source." Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 15:10, 5 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. Yep look at the link given at the end of the discussion - thus passing WP:ATHLETE because of that JForget 00:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Scott Doe

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

Relist per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 30. Originally nominated for deletion by User:Vintagekits, who stated : Original reason for PROD removed. The footballer has never played in a fully-professional match. Fails WP:ATHLETE and the sources provided from the Dorset Echo are purely trivial. I barely consider the 3rd level of English football notable - this guy played in the 6th! Hiding T 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Hiding T 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strongest ever delete, Primarily because this guy is plays in the 6th level of English football and although there are multiple sources provided they are of a trivial routine nature and mentions provide nothing indepth to show notability, WP:NTEMP outlines that "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article".--Vintagekits (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete many of the references are trivial and the subject fails WP:ATHLETE Valenciano (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep sources Great Scott, Great Scott is one for future and Scott signs up are in detail passing significant independent coverage part of WP:GNG, which supercedes WP:ATHLETE. Nom is factually incorrect, he has never played below the Conference National, which is the 5th tier in English football. --Jimbo^[online] 22:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep notable, well sourced. Jeni ^(talk) 23:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note. Anybody voting based on WP:ATHLETE needs to realise that League 2 actually begins on 8 Aug. MickMacNee (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep- Meets regular notability requirements. WP:ATHLETE would be nice, but its not required. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Well sourced article, notablity established. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 02:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and all coverage I can find is either trivial or local. ThemFromSpace 04:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The player does not meet the WP:ATHLETE guideline because the highest level he has played in so far is the 5th level (not the 6th level as stated by the nominator) Conference National, which is a mixture of fully professional and semi-professional clubs. In this respect it is similar to the League of Ireland, player articles from which the nominator has been admirably trying to defend at every quarter. The sources provided clearly verify the player's status and achievements, and arguably satisfy WP:N. He has been reported in national outlets like The Times, BBC Sport and Sky Sports. In any case, and I know this is crystalballing, he is now signed on a two year contract by a club in the 4th level Football League Two, and will therefore likely meet the WP:ATHLETE guideline soon as well. My attitude towards this is similar to well sourced articles about Irish players. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, for the record the Times article barely even mentions Doe once! The Times actually discusses Theo Walcott how apparently played in with Doe when they where kids (even though the source doesnt mention it) yet Jimbo seems to think that it warrants a full paragraph in the article - its just padding and an attempt to get a half decent source into the article.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fair comment, but that still leaves sourced material from two national outlets that deal in principle with the subject. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Why can't this be recreated when he makes a League Two appearance? It'd be embarrassing if he doesn't make an appearance this season and his article stays. Spiderone (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - yes he fails WP:ATHLETE, but he also quite clearly passes the parent guideline of WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 08:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has more than enough references to pass WP:N, meeting the requirement for multiple substantial sources in third-party sources. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I think Jmorrison has hit the nail on the head here. While the article presently fails WP:BIO, I think the sources included help establish notability as per WP:N. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, again I'm still at a loss as how a good article could possibly be about somebody un-notable Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• well the admin involved in making it a GA a. doesnt seem to have considered the notability factor and b. doesnt think that the two are link.

• Keep - Easily passes WP:BIO as he has had significant coverage by reliable sources. While this person might not pass WP:BIO's "Additional criteria" of WP:ATHLETE, the heading of "Additional criteria" states: "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." (Boldface not mine but is in original WP:BIO text.) I'm still waiting for the former teacher Barack Obama AfD with the stipulation "Fails WP:TEACHER." It's going to happen. You know it. --Oakshade (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, maybe because Barack Obama is notability outside of being a teacher - are you trying to argue that Scott Doe has some sort of notability outside of being a local footballer. The sources provided within the article being debated here are available from probably every single local footballer down as fair as the 10th level of football, infact my own name appears enough in my local paper to provide enough info for an article - however, this is just routine sports reporting which does not pass W:N. Now that we have had most of the "FOOTY Project cabal" !vote on this we can actually get some outside objective critique on the article.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. If thousands of footballers have received significant coverage from reliable sources, then they pass WP:NOTABILITY. If you've received as much coverage as this person has, then I'd argue that your article should be kept if it was up for AfD. There's no "If the person is an athlete, then they must pass WP:ATHLETE" clause anywhere in WP:BIO or WP:NOTABILITY. As a matter of fact it states the opposite. I'm not part of a "FOOTY" cabal, thank you. --Oakshade (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And I am also not from said cabal, so I suggest you take your bad faith accusations elsewhere! Jeni ^(talk) 20:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said either of you were part of the "cabal" - however, the logic behind your keep !vote shows exactly what you are. sweet dreams.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits, you cannot say that just because someone !votes against you in a discussion, that they are then part of a cabal; especially as said cabal doesn't actually exist! GiantSnowman 08:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Read what I feckin wrote - I never said that they were in the cabal.

If you dont think that there is a biased cabal at work here then I would draw you attention the AfD of Vid Belec - a player who played for Slovakia in an underage international tournament and from Inter Milan in an international pre season tournament - there were multiple references from much better sources then passing mentions in the Dorset Express (quick Google search will show that) - however, the same editors that are !voting to delete purely on the basis of WP:ATH are the same ones that are voting here to ignore WP:ATH - I'll let you make your mind up why. I can provide a a mountain of other such hypocritical examples where they are "gaming the system".

GiantSnowman, would you like a few examples of your hypocricy to be delivered here?--Vintagekits (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying "the logic behind your keep !vote shows exactly what you are" would indicate that you believe them to be part of this "biased cabal". If you are unhappy with the result of a deletion discussion, then take it to WP:DRV; this is not the place to do it. GiantSnowman 08:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well your assumption of "my indication" is wrong, as case of reading what you want to read as opposed to what is actually there.

Also I've taken the AfD of two footballers to DRV recently and they were both overturned - despite the yelps and cries of those very people I describe as "the cabal" who are using wikipedia to further their own POV. I include you in that and like I said can provide evidence of your hyprocricy at the drop of a hat. Out and out bullies is what they are and they have been shown up as such.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of your (absolutely nnegative) opinion of me, I resent being accused of being a member of a cabal, and I certainly resent being accused of being a bully, so please cease. GiantSnowman 08:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I will cease when I the "piss take" that is the "FOOTY Project cabal" ceases to use wikipedia as their own "football". Like I said do you want example of your (and their) hypocricy to be shown here? Biased, gamers, bullies and liars.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you really haven't learnt from your block have you? GiantSnowman 09:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Which one?--Vintagekits (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This one which saw you blocked for 72 hours, and had two requests for unblocking declined due to uncivil behaviour. GiantSnowman 09:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean the one where a biased member of the FOOTY Project cabal abused his admin powers and then the block was overturned at ANI and the cabal member then came and apologised on my talk page? That one? Sorry, I thought it was one of the 26 others!--Vintagekits (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The athletics criterion is a sensible one, and serves nicely for eliminating very local heros. I think it was intended to overrule to GNG--except when the GNG applies to some other aspect of notability for the same person. There is no reason why we can not do it--at Wikipedia we make the rules. There can be many relationships between the general and special guidelines. In this case, to judge an athlete by his accomplishment by his athletes rather than if a town paper happens to be available is a very sensible way to proceed. We should do this more often. I've always been a deletionist on local figures until we can develop a multi layer structure, and call only the top one Wikipedia. Nothing the Dorset Echo and the Ilford Recorder say about a player can make him notable as a player. (Thus the Obama analogy fails--no number of articles about him as teacher (and there are a few, driven by the interest in him as a politician) will make him notable as a professor--his notability is otherwise.) DGG (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as I already stated, WP:N alone (which is a guideline itself) is not enough to establish notability for simple athletes, especially minor league footballers. In cases like these, WP:ATHLETE must be also met. Also, please note that news coverage (which may be pretty extensive on football in Europe, even in minor leagues) does not automatically give notability to a subject. I am however also supportive of freezing this AfD until August 8, so that we can realize if the subject can actually meet WP:ATHLETE for that date and, in that case, I would be happy to change my !vote. --Angelo (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I'd find it hard to justify the retention of Scott Dee, non-professional league, fails WP:N no notability to speak off. Centre mid (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • So you feel Doe's article fails WP:N, although it cites several reliable sources that allow it to pass the WP:GNG, while you created an article for John Mulroy (football player), which doesn't make use of a single reference and therefore can't possibly pass WP:N? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    • There are refs on the John Mulroy page & its a work in progress. I'll be adding more. Plus its to enhance the Bray Wanderers page & I'm not sure the Dorset Echo counts as a reliable source. I've had as many quotes in my local rag as Mr Doe but I'm not putting myself forward for inclusion. Centre mid (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, but I can't imagine you've had as many mentions by the BBC or Sky as Doe has. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep because this person passes the WP:GNG, a fact that rather seriously undermines all these people who're saying that he isn't notable. See my remark at the earlier DRV, where I cited significant coverage in reliable sources.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. As noted elsewhere, he's signed for a club the 4th level in England. I'd keep until it's established whether he's going to play at that level or not. Alternatively, delete, but keep the history so the article can be reestablished easily if he becomes notable at a later stage. I've made similar arguments for League of Ireland players in similar positions. Jhealy (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Has never played at even a reasonable level of soccer in England. Trivial press mentions used as sources and as to the good article debate it is not a reason to keep if it fails deletion criteria and says more about the reviewer. BigDunc 13:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• What deletion criteria is it supposed to fail? The only ground that I find intelligible in terms of policies or guidelines is the notability argument, and that simply doesn't hold water. The GNG is an objective test: non-trivial coverage in more than one reliable source. There are two articles on the BBC that discuss him. So unless it's contended that the BBC is not a reliable source, he passes the GNG.

  WP:ATHLETE does not supersede the GNG. WP:ATHLETE is the opinion of one Wikiproject, but WP:N is a global consensus of significant age and strength.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well I certainly do not consider that it passes GNG because the sources used do not provide significant coverage and are general run of the mill sports reporting that is available for every player down to sunday league level.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think the BBC would report that Joe Bloggs has signed for the Dog & Duck XI. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• No doubting the BBC are a reliable source - however, under the terms of their charater they are mandated to provide local news stories as part of their TV Licencing agreement.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• That's perfectly true. Nevertheless, reliable sources are reliable sources and the GNG doesn't distinguish between national and local news coverage. I can cite a reference to a local newspaper or local TV channel and that presents no particular problem.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• My point being that the reporting of this player is routine run'o'da'mill sports reporting that is in my opinion pretty trivial. Maybe I am out of step and forgive me for being slightly old fashioned but I consider a player notable when he has actually dont something notable. No matter how much wikilaywering goes on, in my opinion playing in the fifth level of football isnt, nor is someone who has just played one minute as a subsitute in any league outside the Premier Division or someone that he just playing is in the lowly reguarded FL Trophy. However, there seems to be a concensus amongest "the Cabal" (yes I know its getting boring now) that it is OK to focus on one technicality for one player but at the same time ignoring techinicalities - e.g. John Doe (no relation to Scott) plays two minutes for Jockstrap United against Rochdale so technically passes WP:ATH, but one of the Jockstrap players is a part time plasterer so therefore technically the team and therefore the league is technically not "fully professional" and therefore the player fails WP:ATH. Herein lies the bias and screwed sense of notability the sits in the mindset of "the Cabal" - and until such time comes as there is a fair and level playing field then it isnt going to be a smooth ride.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I can't answer criticisms of this "footy cabal"; even if such a thing exists, I'm certainly not a member. I agree that WP:ATHLETE has some problems, and I want to repeat that my position has nothing to do with WP:ATHLETE. My position is that when the general notability guideline is satisfied—as it is in this case—WP:ATHLETE can safely be disregarded.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I understand your rationale for your !vote - I disagree that it is non-trivial coverage for the reasons outlined, but I undertstand it. My argument is that the as well as the coverage being trivial they guy just isnt notable - yet anyway! I understand your point about his mentions about him in the BBC - but if the BBC (and other reliable sources) report that a man falls off his bike and into a manwhole - is he also notable because he will pass GNG?--Vintagekits (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep He's on the roster for a club which we have a page for. "He signed for Dagenham on a permanent basis on a two-and-a-half-year contract in March." Using an existing page as an argument for another is relevant when notability is an issue and one is a participant in the subject of the existing article. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment, possibly the weakest arguement I ever heard on any AfD let alone this one. So because there is an article about Ware F.C. does that mean that everyone in the squad. Actually if this is kept they probably are because there are the same sources available. Let Pandora's Box open!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Vintagekits, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It's particularly so on Wikipedia, where the argument from setting a precedent fails because Wikipedia specifically disavows precedent as a reason for making a decision (hence WP:OCE). Try a more constructive and less sarcastic line of argument.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue against that point if I understood a word you said! You have ta dumb doun wen yer taulkin ta me son!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Dagenham at the "fully professional" level or not? I don't see a "fully professional" label in the infobox, so I don't know whether that club qualifies. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dagenham & Redbridge play in Football League Two, which is widely considered to be fully professional. There has been the odd player in recent seasons who has played in the league while holding down another job, but these examples (eg Dave Rainford) have been reported by the media due to their exceptional status. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So therefore not fully professional! There are plenty of examples of part time players as outlined in other AfD's - and even this season there will be part timers - and thats assuming that this player gets a get! --Vintagekits (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete but likely to be a moot point after the new season starts. I class the BBC coverage on the same basis as that from the Dorset Echo - essentially local that does not show notability in a wider sense. Just because a source has 'BBC' to it does not mean that it is national coverage. Yes, it can be accessed nationally, but the interest is only local. Much the same as the Dorset Echo can be accessed nationally but is unlikely to be of interest to those outside the area. I know that the GNG do not make mention of the 'localness' or otherwise of sources, but I believe that it is vital to take that into account, particularly when regarding BLPs. Quantpole (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:BIO by virtue of passing WP:N. Clearly meets the general notability guidelines (per article as it exists) and thus meets our notability guidelines. WP:BIO specifically says: "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." This is as clear cut as it gets folks. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Scott Doe has made his debut for Dagenahm & Redbridge in League Two, against Crewe Alexandra, passing WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 14:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. If the issue of minor player notability is going to be wikilawyered to death over the wording of WP:ATHLETE, then his start today magically made him notable. Daft I know, but them's the rules. closing admin take note of the new situation. MickMacNee (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Confirmed Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 19:47, 8 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 00:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Rory Auskerry

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

Autobiography of a radio journalist/presenter. The article does not indicate notability: the only reference is his own web-page, and Google shows mostly Myspace, Linkedin, Twitter, blogs and the sort of listings that any presenter would get - none of the sort of independent comment that would indicate notability, certainly nothing like the standard of WP:ENTERTAINER. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Auskerry seems to be a local radio personality only. Very local, that is, since Orkney is a small and remote community. Not Notable per WP:BIO Wefa (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails the basic criteria for notability. Searches for third-party reliable sources have proved unfruitful. The only links that can be found are created by the subject. It's noticeable that the subject created and substantially authored this article about himself, linking to pages (such as the social networking and blog sites that John mentions in his nomination) that he also created about himself. This also violates WP:COI. Ultimately, though, this spectacularly fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people). (vote/comments from established user editing anonymously. No socks going on. However, expect a lot of anonymous, newbie keep votes solicited from his uni mates.) 79.68.161.94 (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Deelte Who? User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I'd also like to point out the possible conflict of interest with the main editor, User:Roryauskerry. ThemFromSpace 02:35, 4 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) 21:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Bassorah

Battle of Bassorah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This nomination by 96.251.79.127 (talk) was incomplete. The edit summary was empty; no reason for deletion was given. From the look of it, the article has been tagged with {{Original research}} and {{Refimprove}} for over a year, and I can see that the discussion page has some suspicious sections like "Probable Copyright Violation", "Please check references" and "Neutrality of this article in question". The nominator has made no other edits outside this topic and I'm not expressing any opinions myself. May qualify for WP:Speedy keep. — Rankiri (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The first four of these books indicate that this is usually known as the "Day of the Camel", and using that as a search argument finds hundreds more reliable sources, including such illustrious works as The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, demonstrating clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as per Phil Bridger. While the article needs improvement, the subject is clearly notable and there are large numbers of reliable sources available. Edward321 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. But remove any original research.Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:52, 6 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 01:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

El Shaddai (movement)

El Shaddai (movement) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability asserted but not established by references. Almost completely unreferenced. Contains some mixture of excessively promotional material with blp-dubious "criticism", which is potentially defamatory accusations that the leaders of the group are scam artists. If an article about this topic were to be on Wikipedia, it would have to be restarted almost from scratch. ⟳ausa کui× 21:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator ⟳ausa کui× 21:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep – More than enough third party – creditable – verifiable – independent sources to establish notability, as shown here [8]. A reason of; “…an article about this topic were to be on Wikipedia, it would have to be restarted almost from scratch” is not a valid reason to bring to AFD sorry. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  Might want to respond to the other reasons, not just the one you thought was weakest. ⟳ausa کui× 21:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  I Thought I did by showing the refernces, and I am more than happy to edit the piece, and will start over the next couple of days. But thought that you may also enjoy building an article rather than proposing to delete a piece, that though badly written, does deserve a small space here at Wikipedia. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @930  ·  21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep if and only if the polemical criticisms are edited. Heavily. Collect (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per the sources found and included above, cleanup the rest of it, stubbifying if necessary. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It is the biggest Catholic Charismatic group in the Philippines with more than 8 million followers worldwide, as stated in the article, which has a reference. Although I agree that it needs rewriting and clean-up, the reason given by the nominator does not merit deletion per WP:DEL. If there are unnecessary content in the article then remove it. When I started the article [9], it's very neutral. --Jojit (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. None of the nominator's reasons point that the article should be deleted but instead rewritten. Please don't use AfD to force improvement to the article. --seav (talk) 04:03, 5 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.

• Weak Keep notability has been established, however that doesn't mean that the article isn't in need of a major NPOV rewrite. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Benn

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

NO grounds for inclusion. Clearly a one sided and biased promotional article for the subject. one reference to the BBC website is no grounds for inclusion. Such drastic revision or deletion. Wiki is not an encyclopedia for every living person - see its criteria for whats notable! --WikiKing2012 (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: this nomination was incomplete (missing steps 2 and 3). It is fixed now. Tim Song (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Relationship to a notable person is not grounds for notability in itself, and without this, there's no real claim to notability. However, I'd consider a Merge of key points into Tony Benn. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - notability is not inherited, and none of his own is indicated. JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• NOTE Nominator User:WikiKing2012 has been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of User:BirminghamAV. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BirminghamAV/Archive for details. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - the intemperate language of the nomination suggests that the nominator had an agenda, and I am not surprised to learn that s/he was a sock; but I still don't see independent notability, and my !vote stands. JohnCD (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Myself wondered about that possible agenda. Did some research. Found the name "Stephen Benn" to be a common enough name to be in lots of news articles[10]. Is it possible that a few of these are about this Stephen Benn? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I checked through them - nos. 1, 2, 5, 21, 22, 24, 26 are this Benn, but they are nearly all in connection with his father. I think the only possible independent one is #5, the Toronto Star, quoting him as a "long-time Labour insider", but it's pay-per-view, you don't actually see it, and anyway I don't think that's enough. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MikeHobday (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete -- local concillors are usually NN. Heirs to peerages need to be notable for other reasons. Father, brother and daughter are notable, but notability is not inherited. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:42, 9 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 00:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Emily Benn

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

STRONG DELETE Fails all wiki criteria for includes. No notability. Promotional page. Editing done by SPA --WikiKing2012 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: this nomination was incomplete (missing steps 2 and 3). It is fixed now. Tim Song (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Passes the basic criteria. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep legitimate Candidate for a national parliament, several secondary sources Wefa (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete If every candidate standing for parliament was to have a wiki page - the site would be overloaded and its credibility destroyed. Just because she's standing does not mean she is notable for inclusion. --WikiKing2012 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is exactly the situation we have with US congressional candidates. Furthermore, Benn is not *any* candidate - she secured the nomination of a major party (indeed, the current majority party). Wefa

(Oh, and while we are at it, WikiKing2012, would you please stop "voting" multiple times? It is annoying and confuses the casual reader.) Wefa (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE User:WikiKing2012 has been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of User:BirminghamAV. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BirminghamAV/Archive for details. I am strinking the second !vote. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Mere candidacy for Parliament is not a claim to notability, nor is a famous grandfather. However, holding the record for youngest Labour Parliamentary candidate is. Even so, the article needs heavy pruning to lose its promotional tone. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep a major party candidate for a national legislature should be regarded as notable if they win formal nomination or whatever the procedure may be. In the campaign, they'll have as much coverage as the winner, and that's almost always enough for the GNG. DGG (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as per above arguments. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 21:30, 5 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Georgia Gould (Labour Party Member)

Georgia Gould (Labour Party Member) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Strong Delete The controversy incident is not notable under wiki.

Apart from that the article is self-promotional and there are no notable achievement to warrant such a page.

Wiki an encyclopedia and georgia gould has not achieved any other significance. Thousands of students pass through Oxford colleges each year - this is no reason for inclusion. Neither is working for the Tony Blair Faith Foundation.

As the subject has failed to demonstate notable grounds for continued inclusion - the debate should be opened as to wtheter to keep the page.--WikiKing2012 (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep There are multiple third-party, independent reliable sources supporting her notability. Notability is (partly) measured through such sources. Since reliable newspapers have given her prominence, she's notable under Wikipedia guidelines. (BTW, I completed this nomination for you, which involved some administrative work as you failed to include the parenthesis.) The JPS^{talk to me} 20:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool - didn't know about that!--WikiKing2012 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE User:WikiKing2012 has been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of User:BirminghamAV. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BirminghamAV/Archive for details. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: this nomination was mistakenly placed in the log for Aug 2. It is fixed now. Tim Song (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Being related to a notable person does not confer notability. Her involvement in the dispute over a candidacy is a better claim, but this is too much like WP:NOTNEWS. If she gets significant coverage independently of this incident and not too heavily tied into her more famous relatives, that would be a different matter. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, her alleged 'notability' stems from her father (WP:NOTINHERITED), and her failed bid to be a candidate (WP:POLITICIAN, WP:NOTNEWS) In any event, she isn't there yet --Saalstin (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete a perhaps a candidate of a major party for a national legislature is notable, but not someone who tries to become such a nominee, but does not succeed. DGG (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. The only thing that approaches notability is the incident of an attempt to be selected as a candidate. Frankly, it would have been more notable if there had been no allegation of irregularity in such a contest: there is no verification that the incident is significant. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. In wondering why someone was anxious enough to delete this article that they created several puppets, I did some research. It appears that this article may have merit per WP:GNG, even if failing WP:POLITICIAN [11]. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete -- Both as a failed 2005 candidate she is NN, and a non-adopted prospective parliamentary candidate, she is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 9 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, WP:SNOW, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollball

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

non notable game, fails WP:MADEUP WuhWuzDat 20:44, 3 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) 11:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Kimmi Cupcakes

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

Fails on WP:ENTERTAINER. PROD refused by creator. No reliable source present. Hitro talk 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: non-notable..South Bay (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: relavent.. (Siriuscakefan) 10:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Insufficient notability, unreliable references only found in search. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment:Why would you delete Kimmi Cupcakes' page and not Tomika Skanes or LaShontae Heckards? They are all models and Kimmi is the only one that is relevant right now- she has her own show on Sirius radio. Please stop hating on her! She has loyal listeners and should be included in the database.Siriuscakefan 12:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Hitro talk 17:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by R'n'B under WP:CSD#G7. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ONE Lowell World Cup

ONE Lowell World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable soccer competition. Appears anyone can enter to represent their country. Motivation behind the article appears to be to gain more exposure for a non-profit organisation. The article contains significant text copied directly from the competitions website and is horribly unclear about what it's all about. noq (talk) 20:26, 3 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. Anyone requesting a userfication should contact me on my talk page. Thanks! JForget 00:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Organic Feudalism during the Civil War

Organic Feudalism during the Civil War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be about some little-known political movement during the civil war. Cites no sources. This article may be too complex for Wikipedia. Area968 (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete While ostensibly a seemingly interesting topic for inclusion, this article is very poorly written, completely unsourced, of dubious accuracy, and quite frankly, may well constitute gibberish. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unless someone can find some good sources, this is entirely original research. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Purely unsubstantiated original research, and highly dubious at that. The article is written almost as if the author knows full well that it should not exist ("this article...is a noteworthy addition"). Noir (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I laughed out loud on this one. Someone could probably CSD this as an obvious hoax or snow or whatever. Gigs (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Userfy Gee whiz - sure should survive in userspace, I trust. Collect (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per everyone, though Noir puts it best. Edward321 (talk) 23:05, 5 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) 11:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

List of self-inculpators

List of self-inculpators (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

List with four entries. Criteria for inclusion are impossibly broad:

"prominent individuals who have inadvertently inculpated themselves by producing, and failing to adequately conceal or to destroy, written or otherwise-recorded evidence that has subsequently implicated them in faults or crimes."

This is a very big category of people; almost anyone (prominent) who fails to cover their own tracks in a crime or misdeed can fall in here. The broader the criteria are, the less interesting the list is. Hairhorn (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or massively increase in size, to be sure. As a stand-alone article, at this point it fails. Collect (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, refine the criteria as appropriate, and add more examples. Nihil novi (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - criteria for inclusion is so impossibly broad that the list can never serve any use - we may as well have "list of people hit by cars" "list of people shot in the head" and all. What ties them together? Nothing in time, geography or relevancy except that they failed to destroy incriminating evidence. most criminals are caught for failing to destroy incriminating evidence. Ironholds (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete the examples even indicate the complete lack of coherence. One probable case of treason disputed for centuries, 2 adulteries, and an historic & undisputed impeachment. Add to which everyone who has ever produced anything that might be considered evidence showing them possibly guilty of a legal or social offense. I suppose half the divorce cases throughout history come in this group. This is what is meant by indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia at its worst. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:37, 6 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) 11:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Tom Sawyer, Avenger

Tom Sawyer, Avenger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completing unfinished nom for IP because NOBODY EVER REALIZES WHEN AFD DISCUSSIONS ARE REDLINKED ANYMORE! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - No indication of notability, subject fails WP:N. Zero references. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - self-published (Writer's Club Press is part of iUniverse), very little to be found except the fact it exists, I can't even find anything third-party except sites selling it, and not a single review. Thus, fails WP:BK. Black Kite 00:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - This is obviously someone's personal vendetta against either the book or the author. Up until a few days ago Tom Sawyer, Avenger was a stub, which it had remained for the past several years. Now that it has been expanded, and new information has been added, it is slated for deletion. Doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frodo3019 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC) — Frodo3019 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Tens of thousands of people have said exactly what you've just said and tens of thousands of articles about subjects that did not assert notability under WP:N and provide any reliable, third-party sources to establish the notability were deleted anyway. We have, probably, hundreds of thousands of stubs that haven't been deleted simply because nobody has seen them yet. If you want this article kept, I recommend you find some reliable third-party sources and attempt to establish why this book is notable and forget about the unbacked claims about vendettas and bias. We've heard it a million times before. EDIT: I have added the one reference you provided and properly formatted it. I also cleaned up the article a lot, removing a lot of unnecessary bulk. If you can find other such references, book reviews, anything at all, please provide them and I will do my best to help you format and include them. If you can provide these references and establish notability, I will change my vote to keep. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - That "one reference" doesn't seem to actually contain any content. I've gotten a blank archive notice each time I've tried to review it, and the name "New author continues Tom and Becky's adventures on the Internet" seems to indicate this isn't even an ink-and-paper book. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - It is an "ink and paper" book. It may not be the best quality ink, or paper, for that matter. You can take that up with the publisher. But the words themselves do exist outside of the internet on over 300 pages in bound form. The point of my expanding the article on Wikipedia was to offer more information on the story itself. To consider that it was much safer, under the radar, as a stub is ironic. --Frodo3019 (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - How much longer do we need to wait until we know whether or not this article will be deleted? I won't add anything more to it before I know for certain. --Frodo3019 (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Debates are usually open for a week. --Chris (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete While self-published works can be notable, there is no indication this is. Edward321 (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge - Either let the article stand on its own, and let it be expanded, or merge it with articles about other "Tom Sawyer" related works. --Frodo3019 (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC) — Frodo3019 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Striking duplicate !vote. Please only !vote once. Edward321 (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  - The "keep or merge" was not meant as an extra vote, rather it was meant as a suggestion, an alternative to deleteing the article outright. Can we debate this idea, or no? --Frodo3019 (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability - self published. - Josette (talk) 00:39, 7 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 22:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Koch Entertainment discography

Koch Entertainment discography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Overlong, under-researched discography, no sources, no hope of being complete. See Sony BMG discography for similar problems. Borderline hoax as many of the listed labels aren't even distributed by Koch. The list is also half assed as it only shows rap artists. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. A discography of a record label is okay; a distributor or parent company, no. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Parent company/distributor discographies could never possibly be terminally complete, and even if ever completed, would be useless and endlessly long. Content is also a hoax because there's no apparent association with the purported company. Imperatore (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Even if this could be completed, it would, indeed, be way too long and much too useless. --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 19:51, 6 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 23:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Aluminum Overcast

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

Not a aircraft of particular note (referring to Wikipedia:Notability_(aircraft)#Individual_aircraft) Aircraft use by owning organization may be notable but not airframe as such GraemeLeggett (talk)

On a causal check, I have found a number of reference sources online and at least one magazine article in a recent Air Classics issue. This meets the standard of "Aluminum Overcast" being notable. However, the main problem in the article is the scarcity of information in the article. Hold off one week and I will "spruce it up" in my own inimitable style. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

You have a fair history on the aircraft now but the lead sentence still doesn't tell me why it is notable (enough for a wikipedia article). GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on some suggestions, I have revised the lede to establish the aircraft's notability. Take a look at the new version. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

• Keep page, it is notable because it is one of the few surviving aircraft of its type and it is shown and seen by many. A number of references have been added today. Snowman (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• KEEP page, it is notable because of the hundreds of flying hours every year showing and giving a small glimpse of how these venerable aircraft are flown and how they are maintained, compared to how they were used in war. This is one of approximately 14 flying Fortresses... they are all notable and by rights should have their own page. Without these flying warbirds and the other flying warbirds, 25's, 24's, 29, T-6s, P-51s etc... these aircraft are teaching today's society of what past wars were like flying and surviving in the air and war is not fun. I have hours of flight time on 17's and a 25, and having a WWII B-17 veteran saying, "thank you for keeping this bird (Alum. Overcast) in the air...", you know you are a part of the great good! I volunteer hundreds of hours to these warbirds every year, and they are all "notable" and no different than Memphis Belle or Fifi or the Wright Flyer. LanceBarber (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep' 14 airworthy aircraft out of 12,751 built makes this notable enough to have an article. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I'd just like to clarify: I am not saying that aircraft is not recorded, but not as an individual article rather than (as an example) as part of the List of B-17 survivors article. As a comparison there are about 17 Lancasters of 7,000 built, only two fly but there is a single individual article on the RAAF memorial G for George - the rest are covered adequately in the main article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment That reminds me that "VR-A", the "Mynarski Lanc" (the Andrew Mynarski VC Memorial Lancaster) is certainly worthy of an article of its own. Hoping I'm not starting a new kettle of worms? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC).
    • Comment. Notability for individual "vehicles" on Wikipedia is somewhat haphazard. Almost every ship is deemed notable enough to have an article. Almost no individual road vehicles are deemed notable enough. I'd say that aircraft and railway locomotives are on a par, with some being deemed notable enough and others not notable enough. IMHO, both flying Lancs should have their own articles. Just a case of no-one writing the article on them yet. Maybe this needs further discussion elsewhere. BTW, Sally B has an article, and is just as noteworthy as Aluminum Overcast. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I remain convinced that this individual aircraft should have its own wiki article, being one of the few surviving examples of an incredibly famous bomber. Snowman (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep "...Aluminum Overcast has become one of the most recognizable examples of the type..." – several online reference sources and a magazine article – and how many of these, or in fact any other WWII type aircraft still flying, allow the public the chance to experience a flight in them?! Seems notable enough to me. --Red Sunset 19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I would suggest that the article's facts and figures need looking at however:– "logging over one million flight hours by 2009". Really? That's more than 114 years! --Red Sunset 19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Right you are, somehow one million miles got transposed to one million flight hours, might as well said, a gazillion hours... LOL FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

• Keep doesnt appear to meet the guidelines but we do have articles on the more well know airshow and display aircraft like Sally B and Vulcan XH558. Just need to change or modify the guideline to include these aircraft without including all the older than fifty aircraft that appear in flying displays or give pleasure flights. MilborneOne (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as one of a few surviving aircraft of its type and due to its recognizability. I think the notability guideline referenced at Wikipedia:Notability_(aircraft)#Individual_aircraft is overly restrictive in this case. If nothing else, WP:IAR should take care of this. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There's consensus here that the article as it stands is untenable, and those favouring retention have not shown that the subject of the article is a discrete encyclopaedic topic nor that it is in itself notable. Should the article be needed for userspace development or transwiki'ing, please feel free to request temporary restoration at WP:UND or at my talkpage.  Skomorokh  16:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Take it one step at a time

Take it one step at a time (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia isn't an advice column for the likes of "Look before you leap" or "No use crying over spilt milk". This is probably not fodder for an encyclopedic article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep- Umm... I'm pretty sure that there's no such policy you appear to have made that 'policy' up from whole cloth. In any case, the article is not an advice column in any way; this is a perfectly standard time management term; there are entire books written about this, and the article has plenty of scope to become a well-rounded article over time; and that is all that is needed to survive an AFD.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  I haven't made up any "policy". I'm observing that a piece of advice is not a thing you can write an encyclopedic article about. I understand that the concept of time management is sensibly mentioned in other articles. To take a similar example, doctors typically advise patients to give up smoking. A smoking article exists, and it discusses the negative findings about the effects of smoking on health. That's all well and good but it doesn't justify a Wikipedia article with the title "You should give up smoking". —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  There's no rule against that either; and there are situations where that's completely legitimate. You're supposed to be arguing from policies, not making up your own.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  There also is no policy that reads, "Thou Shalt Not Write An Article Entitled 'I Had A Dream About A Cat Last Night'" but that doesn't mean you ought to write an article called "I Had A Dream About A Cat Last Night". Articles are about topics. "Take it one step at a time" isn't a topic. A book may tell you, as part of your time management strategy, to take it one step at a time. It won't tell you anything about "take it one step at a time". It won't say "take-it-one-step-at-a-time was invented in 1846. The first public appearance of take-it-one-step-at-a-time was in Warsaw in 1857. Take-it-one-step-at-a-time is most often found in institutes of higher education. In 2003 there was a shortage of take-it-one-step-at-a-time in the southwestern United States but the supply has been replenished." —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  I know you're just trying to be insulting and derogatory but an article about a dream you had last night would fail a whole host of policies; including WP:OR. If this kind of bad faith commentary is the best you can come up with, the rest of us here will be talking about wikipedian policies, which is what this review is supposed to be about.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  There is actually a category of phrases: Category:Phrases and it is quite well populated.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  Furthermore, the wikipedia already has 4 articles on this topic. If this article survives the AFD, then I can merge them to this one place, in accordance with WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I could not find the phrase "One step at a time" in any of the three references in the article. Seems like a dictionary definition and original research, as well as a short essay. The articles about "sayings" which are linked also might belong at AFD. Wikipedia is not a collection of jokes or sayings. The Keep vote above by the article creator should be noted as such, not that there's anything wrong with wanting to keep the article you created. Edison (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  No, no. Look, a dictionary definition defines one word or phrase multiple ways; it's based on a lexical topic; the word(s). An encyclopedic article defines synonymous words or phrases one way; it's centred on the concept. It's unusual but this is a perfectly well formed topic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  e.g. cat article can talk about house cats, felines, moggies etc. etc. There's nothing wrong with listing synonyms in encyclopedia articles.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  'first things first', which very definitely is in the references. Unless you're claiming that they're not synonymous, your claim of OR is without merit; apart from being ridiculous anyway. I mean are you saying I made up these common terms?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  There's a large category in the wikipedia of Category:Phrases in fact. These are by no means excluded.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. If this is indeed covered as well as the creator indicates, as succinctly and as significantly, then much better references should have been included. Links to obscure pages within Google Books, without descriptive text for linking is shoddy at best. This looks like a hurried push, something not expected of an editor of his years. A Google search reveals a mere 146,000 hits, most of which have nothing to do with this very obscurely presented concept. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  When I do a search for 'first things first' I get more than 2 million hits, and the first ones are essentially entire books on the same topic. Point of fact I couldn't call it 'first things first' because the wikipedia's software doesn't allow two names with different capitalisation, so I had to call it something different.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  That should be a logical indicator to you that this article is doomed... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  No. First Things First is a disambiguation page with inappropriate case. There's entire books written on this topic. You're seriously claiming that because of broken software the wikipedia shouldn't have an article on a valid topic?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This would need a great deal of expansion to be an article for Wikipedia rather than for Wikitionary. Perhaps it too could be turned into a disambiguation page. DGG (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  We're supposed to be voting on whether the article can grow into a reasonable article. Given there are books on this, there's prima facie evidence that this is possible. I think it can happen, otherwise I wouldn't have created the article. I was also deliberately looking for types of articles that were not being covered; unusual articles tend to surprise people, and at deletion reviews this frequently causes them to vote delete. Given that there is no policy against the article I do not think it should be deleted.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Move to a phrase that is mentioned in the cited articles. Or, alternatively, Keep. After all, we can always improve or move it later. We just need to take it one step at a time.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  The principle is that it shouldn't matter that much what you call it, when you have multiple possibilities. This article is an umbrella article to combine the other articles into. This is perfectly well allowed, even encouraged, by the policies. This call for deletion is completely without merit.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, as unencyclopedic. It can always be created later if encyclopedic coverage becomes possible. Some phrases are topics in and of themselves (e.g., To be, or not to be). This one isn't, as far as I can tell from the sources provided. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  The article does not seem to violate any of the things that wikipedia is not. If it is unencyclopedic, you will need to explain how. I'm personally sure it is indeed encyclopedic in fact.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  None of the sources (or could be) are about the phrase, they only include the phrase, because it is not an encyclopedic topic. You will need to explain how it is encyclopedic when there are no reliable sources about the phrase. I'm personally sure it is indeed unencyclopedic in fact. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Coverage is not encyclopedic presently. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Split the various topics covered, and then delete this page. Note that the page does not discuss the phrase take it one step at a time. The section "Project Management" should be merged to Project management. A new page could be created for Kill a Turk and rest if there are reliable sources to establish notability. "Cow cow" should be transwikied to Wiktionary, unless well-sourced encyclopedic content can be added, in which case it could be a page. Cnilep (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  So, unlike the instructions in WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary you want to move synonymous terms apart in the encyclopedia? The wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles are on a topic not on a phrase. Clearly these phrases are all the same topic, and hence are properly to be placed in the same article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• My point is that the article does not have one topic, it has two or three, depending on how you count them. The lead section refers to "a common idea that it's important to do things in a particular order," and this is picked up again in the section "Project management". The other two sections, however, describe "a common Hebrew / Israeli slang expression" (Cow cow) and "a common Israeli saying" (Kill a Turk and rest). If this is to be on the topic of time management, these quasi-philological sections do not belong. Cnilep (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or Transwiki if Wiktionary wants it. An odd combination of dictionary definitions of phrases and a how-to guide. Unfortunately, neither of those is appropriate for Wikipedia. Powers ^T 15:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  Are these definitions not different words for the same thing though? If they are the same, then they are one topic and should be found in one article. That's how the wikipedia works.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  Sure, assuming it's a notable, encyclopedic topic. There's nothing encyclopedic to say about any of these phrases. Besides, they're organized as if they all had different meanings: "'One step at a time' means such-and-such", "'cow cow' means blah blah blah", "'Kill a Turk and rest' means this and that...". Powers ^T 17:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You're not arguing that they're different, you're saying that a stub article isn't particularly well laid out, and that calls for deletion? Uh huh. I must have missed that guideline. I think we knew that, otherwise it wouldn't be a stub article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please explain which bit is supposed to be a how-to. None of it is a how-to.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  The Project Management section is the one to which I was referring, although maybe it's less of a how-to and more trivial information that doesn't actually say anything useful. Powers ^T 17:55, 10 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 00:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Reece Wooldridge

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

The Article does not present any argument for the subject's notability. Article was created by an IP, was never edited, and does not cite any sources. All in all it looks like a promotional article for a sales person Wefa (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete via CSD A7; no credible assertion of notability. In addition, it actually looks like the article was created by User:Pilagroup, which is an apparent conflict of interest. Noir (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per Noir. RP459 (talk) 19:26, 3 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fab Four of Indian cricket

Fab Four of Indian cricket (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pointless article, totally POV, All original research Abeer.ag (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Although the article is unsourced, the term is definitely widely used. However, that doesn't mean that an article is required, this doesn't exactly rank in the same league as The Invincibles. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - ugh, "The above quartet is a group of batsmen who have ruled the world stage for almost one and a half decades"? Most of that time they weren't even #1 in the Test rankings... Kill it: between WP:N, WP:NEO, WP:OR I'm not convinced there's anything really to be salvaged here. AllynJ (talk | contribs)
• Keep. Plenty of reliable sources found by Google News. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - There's even more the Fab Five, which is just as much an arbitrary grouping. [12] Abeer.ag (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. Since when has 29 been greater than 115? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment. I'm sorry, I just looked at the graph and got excited. Abeer.ag (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NPOV, and anyway there is nothing here which cannot be included in one of the individual player articles. Note also the one reference on the page, which is actually an article about them, er, not being so fab after all. Nice irony that the two items in the "other quartets" section are more commonly grouped than these, though. EJBH (talk) 09:45, 5 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, as hoax DGG (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Raja Saadat Khan

Raja Saadat Khan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a hoax. No reference exists for a person under this name who has won the Victoria Cross. All recipients of the Victoria Cross are listed in the London Gazette and this person has no listing, he has no listing in a well-used reference work regarding VCs, Max Arthur's Symbols of courage. There is no listing in the National Archives, no web references to suggest this might be an alternative name. The user who created this has not responded to concerns though he has continued to edit. Note user created two articles: this and Yar Mohammad Khan. Also see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:MILHIST#Are there any Victoria Cross experts out there? Woody (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Article is a hoax - no reshaping has taken place and no credible sources. Speedy Delete--WikiKing2012 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete VC holders are well documented. This cannot be legitimate. Gwinva (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I believe that this article should be deleted because I can find no mention of this name in relation to being a Victoria Cross recipient. As per Yar Mohammad Khan I have spent hours looking for information (I do not take deleting articles of this nature lightly as if he is a true recipient the subject is worthy of a mention in Wikipedia), however, I could find no mention in the National Archives VC register, nor could I find anything related in a Google or Google books search. I have asked the creator to provide proper verifiable sources (not just the throw away general references already included, but page numbers and direct links, e.g. to the London Gazette), however, they have not responded and have not improved the article to allay my concerns. Given that many people have done a lot of hard work correlating information on VC recipients both in the National Archives and here on wikipedia (and elsewhere) I believe that if this subject were a true recipient (or an alternative name of one) it would be documented some where. As it is not, I feel that all we can do is delete the article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom David Underdown (talk) 11:28, 4 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, as hoax DGG (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yar Mohammad Khan

Yar Mohammad Khan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a hoax. No reference exists for a person under this name who has won the Victoria Cross. All recipients of the Victoria Cross are listed in the London Gazette and this person has no listing, he has no listing in a well-used reference work regarding VCs, Max Arthur's Symbols of courage. There is no listing in the National Archives, no web references to suggest this might be an alternative name. The user who created this has not responded to concerns though he has continued to edit. Note user created two articles: this and Raja Saadat Khan. Also see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:MILHIST#Are there any Victoria Cross experts out there? Woody (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete VC holders are well documented. This cannot be legitimate. Gwinva (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: There is some mention of a Yar Mohammad Khan when doing a search on Google books and elsewhere but not in relation to being a VC recipient. I have spent many hours trying to find something and have poured through the National Archives VC register and can not find this man. Based on this and the input that the nominator has made at the discussion mentioned above, I believe that this article should be deleted. It is either the undocumented alternative name for a VC recipient or a hoax. Given that the creator has not taken on board the comments that I left on their talk page asking for verifiable sources I feel that in the best interests of the integrity of the project and the hard work that many contributors performed in building up the database of VC recipients (not to mention the disservice that fake recipients do to those that a actual recipients) that this article should be deleted. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• delete per nom David Underdown (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Ironholds (talk) 13:23, 4 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 seems to suggest that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sunnybrook Park

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

This article may talk about a big park, but it doesn't show importance about the topic. Jeremjay24 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The ground was a venue for first class cricket matches, although the host board doesn't consider it to be a first class venue. The article mixes up two separate grounds and has to be cleaned up. According to Cricekt Archive and Cricinfo, TCSCC and Sunnybrook Park are not the same. However, getting an AfD started in three minutes is not the best idea. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ahh well... The creator didn't edit the page until now. :/ Jeremjay24 (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, having just rewritten it to establish it is a first-class ground (according to CricketArchive at least [13], and I trust CA more than most). I dare say something Geoffrey Boycott said on TMS this afternoon may have something to do with the confusion mentioned above... — AMBerry (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per AMBerry's clarification. Boycs and his mum seem to be the cause of many a confusion. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. An article about a park, but with only one sentence about the park itself. Hairhorn (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: It is a ground that has hosted the highlest level of cricket in Canada. That seems notable to me. Of course, the article needs expansion if possible. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, sports venues that have hosted competitive international matches are usually notable and there is no evidence that this particular one is less so. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 9 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 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A Dog Named Angel

A Dog Named Angel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research Oscarthecat (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete article creator claiming copyright. noq (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable art work being promoted by its creator. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per RHaworth RP459 (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete original research at best, self promotion at worst. not notable --RadioFan (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete self marketing, not notable, not verifiable Wefa (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:12, 5 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. A confused discussion with no clear outcome as to the reliability of the references or the etymology. Ultimately, being self-published is not reason enough to dismiss the Fekete source, and thus the notability of the topic.  Skomorokh  16:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Biflation

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

patent nonsense. Article claims that biflation is simultaneous inflation and deflation. Inflation and deflation are both concepts which apply to the whole economy. The economy cannot inflate and deflate at the same time. Article says that some parts of the economy inflate while others deflate. This is a misuse of the terms "inflation" and "deflation". Some random refs do not add to the understanding. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - The above statement inflation and deflation cannot occur simultaneously is not true at all. They can, indeed occur simultaneously. The commenter above is referring to “Economic” inflation and deflation not occurring simultaneously. I agree. However, the term ‘Biflation’ refers to “Price” inflation (not economic inflation) which can occur simultaneously. Refer to an 2007 article by Professor Antal E. Fekete, “Can We Have Inflation and Deflation at the Same Time?” Professor Fekete is a full Professor of Mathematics and Economics at the University of Newfoundland. He’s an expert on monetary economics and has served as a consultant to Paul Volker (Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank). In the article he states:

What does it all mean? At minimum it means that we can have inflation cum deflation. I am not referring to stagflation. I refer to the seemingly impossible phenomenon that the money supply inflates and deflates at the same time. The miracle would occur through the devolution of money. This is Alf Field’s admirable phrase to describe the „good money is driven out by bad” syndrome. Electronic dollars driving out FR notes. The more electronic money is created by Helcopter Ben, the more FR notes will be hoarded by banks and financial institutions while passing along electronic dollars as fast as they can. Most disturbing of all is the fact that FR notes will be hoarded by the people, too. If banks

cannot trust one another, why should people trust the banks? Devolution is the revenge of fiat money on its creator, the government. The money supply will split up tectonically into two parts. One part will continue to inflate at an accelerating pace, but the other will deflate. Try as it might, the Federal Reserve will not be able to print paper money in the usual denominations fast enough, especially since the demand for FR notes is global. Regardless of statistical figures showing that the global money supply is increasing at an unprecedented rate, the hand-to-hand money supply may well be shrinking as hoarding demand for FR notes becomes voracious. The economy will be starved of hand-to-hand money. Depression follows deflation as night follows day.

The term "Biflation" has 1,260 hits on Google and is being discussed internationally. Why would you want to delete the term? - Karl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.217.23 (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - I have to agree with 209.107.217.23. There would seem to be a number of ghits with apparently sensible articles on the subject. Ben MacDui 15:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral If registered users with an interest in economics don't think its worth keeping then I don't want to argue with that. Ben MacDui 07:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - The concept seems possible, i.e. that there is inflation in one class of goods, and deflation in another class of goods at the same time. However, except for this one article from the Dallas News, there are no reliable sources showing that the concept is notable. There is no plausible explanation given for how this could happen (the explanation in the article is confused and OR), and no external links to articles giving plausible explanations. Also, a search on google scholar, google news, and google books turn up nothing related to the concept as it is described in the article. (There is a obviously unrelated use in some material science articles.) The Fekete paper cited above, appears to be self-published, and is not about what the concept described in the biflation article, rather it is about a related concept which Fekete calls 'Devolution'. LK (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Appears to be original research. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I read the article by Dr. Antal Fekete. The quoted passage is entitled "Devolution" but the article is titled "Inflation and Deflation Can We have both at the same time". It does support the concept that both can exist simultaneously. It does not mention the term "Biflation" but it seems to describe the concept of Biflation as defined here at Wiki. As a side note, one of my recent graduate macro-economics seminars discussed, among other things the concept of Biflation. Although there was disagreement as to whether such a thing is occurring at present, most agreed that Biflation is a real concept, not yet widely accepted (as are many new economic ideas) and needs to be more widely explored and developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.217.5 (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Kill it with fire, and throw the socks in the wash. Non-notable neologism supported by perverse redefinition of standard terms. —SlamDiego_←T 00:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Doing a Google search for “biflation” which excludes pages with the terms “wikipedia”, “*wiki*”, and “blog” results in just 81 hits, and these remaining hits do not appear to be notable. (They start with a couple at digitalganster.com.) It appears that this term is being kited like a check for which there are no covering funds. —SlamDiego_←T 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: An edit by the Lawrencekhoo An edit by another anon has unfairly made it seem that 209.107.217.23 has attempted to vote twice. —SlamDiego_←T 01:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you look at this version [14], you will see that 209.107.217.23 did vote twice (or perhaps didn't vote at all). I fixed it for him so that he voted once. He has since voted again (perhaps due to being unclear on what to do). I'll leave that for you to fix.(My mistake, that's a different IP) In the future, it would be good if you did your homework before accusing other editors of cheating. LK (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: What 209.107.217.23 did was to express himself twice, and the natural reading was that his second edit was a follow-up comment. Adding a “Keep” in front of that follow-up comment gave it the spurious appearance of an attempt to be a second vote. I did not accuse you of cheating; there are other explanations besides malice for your actions; I noted what you had actually done and what the consequences were. Also, please do not again reformat my comment about your edit as if it is a reply to the comment prior to it. —SlamDiego_←T 08:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment: What I did was to format and wikify the two separate comments, when I realized that they were the same person, I consolidated them. As is clear from the edit history, this was all done within a few minutes. You have accused me of misconduct and now you refuse to apologize. You hide behind obscurantist language, but the conduct and intent is clear. There was no reason for your commment, you picked out an intermediate edit and accused me of misconduct. Taken as a whole my edits wikified the text. You should come clean and apologize. Regardless, this is not the proper place for this argument, if you wish to pursue this matter, we should take this to the civility noticeboard. LK (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC
        • Comment: What you did wasn't simply to format two comments, but to add “Keep” in front of each as if each were a vote. Regardless of whether you did this deliberately or thoughtlessly (and I haven't presented a theory of your motives), that lent an unfair appearance that 209.107.217.23 had attempted to cast two votes. You are not owed an apology for an objective description of what you did and what resulted. The parties owed apologies here are 209.107.217.23 and me. The latter because, contrary to your accusations, I made no claim that you were deliberately unfair. There's nothing obscurantist in my very direct responses to you. —SlamDiego_←T 08:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Off-topic Comment: As is clear from the edit history, what I did was to format and wikify what appeared to be two different votes from two anon IPs, adding keep as it seemed clear that the anon does want to vote. I then noticed that both comments were left by the same IP, so, I consolidated them into one vote. This was all done within a few minutes, before anyone else left any comments. There was no reason for you to leave the comment, "An edit by the Lawrencekhoo has unfairly made it seem that 209.107.217.23 has attempted to vote twice". What you did was to pull out an intermediate edit and then accuse me of misconduct. You have refused to retract this accusation, and refuse to apologize, instead further accusing me of misconduct. You should come clean and admit that your first accusation was a mistake. In any case this is not the correct forum for this, kindly keep this on your talk page where it belongs. LK (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Comment: No, not only is that not clear from the edit history; part of it is falsified by the edit history. I hadn't interpretted these as two separate votes before your edit, but I can accept an assertion that they appeared so to you. But youdidn't consolidate them into one vote; you placed and left a “Keep” in front of each. (It is the edit in which you slapped-on those “Keeps” — which you left in all of your subsequent editing — that I “pulled out”, because that's the edit that presents the two comments as each an attempt to vote.) When you reordered the comments to place the second right after the first, you didn't “consolidate them into one vote”; you left the “Keep” that you had placed in front of each. It stood there until I removed it more than a day later. I stand by exactly what I have said, and I have not denied saying anything that I have said. Your edit created an unfair appearance that 209.107.217.23 had attempted to vote twice. I never claimed that you did this in an attempt to “cheat”; I never claimed that you did this in an attempt to game the system. Nor do I even think that you are actually lying when you accuse me of such claims; instead, I think that you're still barreling ahead thoughtlessly. As to keeping it on my talk page, if you'll not bring it back here, I'll not bring it back here. —SlamDiego_←T 09:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment In the hopes of not completely hijacking this page, I would direct anyone who is still interested in this tirade to look at Slamdiego's talk page here. Thank you, LK (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Off-topic Comment: In case anyone is interested, I have filed a Wikiquette alert on this issue here.
  • Retraction: It is since revealed that Lawrencekhoo in fact removed the second “Keep” that he had applied, and that a second “Keep” was re-added by 98.248.145.188. I therefore apologize to Lawrencekhoo, but reïterate that I never accused him of attempting to cheat or to game the system, nor am I now accusing 98.248.145.188 of attempting to cheat or to game the system. —SlamDiego_←T 10:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - The term 'biflation' is not uncommonly used in China. McCombs School of Business. McComb’s School of Business at the University of Texas-Austin

http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/news/mentions/march05.asp

Business in China Causes ‘Biflation’ in USA
The Dallas Morning News, The Kansas City Star, March 13-31, 2005
Although China is heralded for benefiting Americans by producing low-cost consumer goods, consumption practices in China may actually cause other commodity prices to rise, experts say, resulting in “biflation.” While shoes and shirts made in China cost less, gasoline, electricity and maybe even houses in the U.S. cost more as a result of consumption in China. For example, last year, China accounted for 40 percent of the increase in global consumption of oil. This higher demand, of course, drives prices higher worldwide. As China becomes the world’s leading consuming nation, Michael Brandl, a lecturer of finance at McCombs, sees dangerous signs of a Chinese asset bubble. “Real estate prices have gone through the roof,” he said. “At the same time, China has poorly run banks with lots of non-performing loans.” A similar situation in Thailand created a financial crisis in Asia from 1997-1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.145.188 (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: That's a very different definition than that provided in an earlier comment. This clash of definitions illustrates that this isn't a notable term; we just have a small number of authors slapping-together the same portmanteau when they want to be cute. —SlamDiego_←T 02:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment And all of those instances (in the Dallas Morning News and Kansas City Star [15]) seem to stem from a coinage by a Chinese guy named Weijian Shan, which means it is a neologism. The word seems to have had separate unrelated etymologies, but all appear to be neologisms that have not yet gained widespread acceptance/usage. Strikehold (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Term has certainly been used, but it is a neologism used for different concepts, none of which seem to have gained enough traction to achieve notability individually. Strikehold (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:27, 3 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 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Biofascism

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

POV, seems like an attempt to do "guilt by association" and possibly POV pushing by defining a blanket term, especially since the editor that created the article simultaneously broadened the definition of biologism in that article. An oline search indicates that "biofascism" has been used as a derogatory term, but under this article's definition it's more of a neologism. References are not up to RS standard for an issue such as this. (BTW, the article was a PROD supportedx2 before it was deprodded. Tomas e (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism, and a barely coherent entry. WTF is "totalitarian organic politics"? (The reference for "totalitarian organic politics" is a letter to a media arts organization. Huh?). I see some Google hits, but most of them are misnomers or equally unclear neologisms. There is a taint of po-mo academia in this entry, this is a crowd extremely loose with neologisms. Say what you mean, people. Hairhorn (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This article is frankly silly. There may be some small number of trendy academics employing the term "biofascism," but it is still a ludicrous term. To suggest that discrimination on the basis of biological characteristics is innate to fascism, and innately fascistic in and of itself (which seems to be the entire point of this brief, and very poorly sourced article) is ahistorical in the extreme. America practiced an extensive regime of White supremacy as recently as, say, 1962, but was the USA really a (bio)fascist state in '62? Come on! KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as poorly-referenced neologism. Articles on neologisms have to meet a higher standard of notability - they have to show that the word in question is notable and widely used enough to deserve its own article. Here, I don't think that's the case - while the term 'biofascism' has been thrown around a bit as a political epithet, it doesn't seem to have any clear meaning in particular. Perhaps this could be merged or redirected somewhere, but it's not even clear where it should be merged to! (We do have an article on ecofascism, but that one is rather better referenced than this one, and anyway it doesn't seem to be quite the same concept.) Robofish (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• delete Non-notable neologism. Google returns a total of 770 hits, mainly blogs. I can't find much in the way of reliable sourcing using the term. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete --- neologism.Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism used to push a POV. --Loremaster (talk) 04:27, 5 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 23:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Carol Gould

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

This whole page looks like a dressed up resume. It's full of unverified value statements which may well have been written by the subject, or the subject's mother! —Preceding unsigned comment added by English roG (talk • contribs) 2009/07/29 22:24:21

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

— English roG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Nominated by an SPA with no unrelated edits, no bona fide arguments made for deletion, subject appears notable enough. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Passes WP:BIO. 19:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and send to cleanup. Yes, the article is a mess, but the subject is notable, article can be improved with a little wiki-love, and AfD is not for cleanup. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and get citations. Clean the external links.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 23:30, 9 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) 07:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

David Logan (playwright)

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

Non-notable spam. This article was started and maintained by sockpuppets from Brisbane (where David Logan hails), suggesting incredibly bad faith COI. The addition of David Logan references to all mention of Dracula in wikipedia suggests a concerted spamming attempt. Best have all of it taken off wikipedia. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note Twinkle tried notifying the people who've actively maintained this article, but I think as they've all been banned, it encountered a bug.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The ISBNs and play/book names draw a pretty clear zilch on google. The author is published by something called Brisbane Dramatic Arts Company, and I can't find that company publishing anything else than his writings, suggesting that Brisbane Dramatic Arts Company is Mr. Loagan's laser printer. Not a single reliable source or evidence of notability in sight. Nice doggy (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. I also agree there are COI/vanity issues. Please note when Googling that there are a couple of David Logans who are likely notable and get a lot of g-hits, including John David Logan a very notable award-winning Hollywood writer and playwright. However, IMHO this particular David Logan is not notable as a playwright, historian, novelist, director, teacher or an academic. The article has been tagged multiple times by different editors for article issues (notability, sources etc) but each time socks repeatedly remove the tags without comment and without resolving any of the identified issues, so I think it's best that this is going through AFD. Sarah 01:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Sarah. Orderinchaos 10:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I am really amazed at what appears to be a very libellous attack on the repuation of a respected academic and writer. I wonder how many of the above editors have ever bothered to read anything that Dr. Logan has written or just engage in vindictive libellous attacks? Dr. Logan's works are in university libraries and schools. He has also lectured at international congresses.

User talk:Alerox75 17:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC) — Alerox75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• You may have the wrong David Logan. Could you provide us with details of these congresses?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete None of his books are in either WorldCat, the australian National Library, or the union catalog of australian public libraries. DGG (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

correction--because the name is very common, I searched only for the works indicated in the article as particularly notable, and failed to find them. I see from what follows there are some, but I do not see that they are at all notable. DGG (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a very serious situation developing here where a number of editors are seriously maligning Dr. Logan with gross inaccuracies.

A search of the following catalogues produces these results on Dr. Logan's publications: State Library of Queensland where he is listed as a significant writer for Queensland. There are 10 works listed:

http://onesearch.slq.qld.gov.au/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?ct=facet&fctN=facet_creator&fctV=Logan%2c+D&fn=search&ct=search&vid=SLQ&indx=1&dum=true&vl(freeText0)=David%20Logan&srt=rank&vl(D45500790UI0)=any&vl(1UI0)=contains&vl(73443712UI1)=all_items&frbg=&tab=default_tab&mode=Basic&scp.scps=scope%3A(slq_digitool)%2Cscope%3A(SLQ)

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Search/Home?lookfor=David+Logan&type=author&limits=format%3ABook&submit=Find

Dr. Logan's works are listed clearly at the National Library of Australia.

Libraries Australia website: http://www.librariesaustralia.nla.gov.au

Also list Dr. Logan's works as does WorldCat. We're All In This Together http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=isbn%3A9780980456349

All other publications are listed.

[[User talk: davidcs73, 09:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcs73 (talk • contribs) — Davidcs73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It would seem there is a very serious miscarriage of justice happening here to libel and malign Dr. Logan. I would suggest it stops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcs73 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC) — Davidcs73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This edit [16] demonstrates that Davidcs73 edits from an identical IP range and location to the Finneganw/Aussiebrisguy sockpuppeteer. DrKiernan (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Finneganw/Davidcs/Aussiebrisguy etc, editors and admins have been flagging this article as having issues and not meeting Wikipedia's policies since you created it three years ago but you've resisted any attempt to try to address issues and have engaged socks to protect it in your preferred form. The bottom line is as they stand these articles don't conform with notability guidelines or the verifiability and biographies of living people policies and unless they are brought in line with policy and guideline they can't stay here. Having books held by the NLA does not make the book or author notable. Please read the notability guidelines, particularly Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (books) which will help you address concerns about notability. Please look particularly at the "criteria" section and then please explain under which criteria this teacher and his book, characters etc qualify under Wikipedia's criteria as "notable" academic, book, characters etc. I understand this isn't a great experience and we can blank this discussion at the end if you feel maligned but we need to address and resolve the issues surrounding this subject which you have been blatantly pushing on Wikipedia for several years now. I'm afraid at this stage it looks like trying to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. If that's not the case then we would certainly welcome you addressing concerns about these articles. Sarah 16:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that both Davidcs and Alerox, both users created only to talk about this topic, have magically made a mistake about which David Logan we are talking about. If you're sockpuppets, which I think you are, take a good look at yourself, David. Wikipedia is global. People here are from all over the world. Is this debate the kind of publicity you want? Remember that this discussion is preserved forever.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately the influx of blatant socks is pretty consistent with the past history of this user. Sarah 16:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Logan's publications are very close to self-published. When you Google "Brisbane Dramatic Arts Company" it only seems to bring up references to Logan's books, which this Arts Company apparently published. [17] It's very strange and there doesn't seem to be such an Arts Company outside Logan's books. That's something he's going to need to address if he wants to argue that they're notable books. Sarah 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. DrKiernan (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• As somebody who knows of the work of Australian writers, I have had the pleasure of reading different plays and novels. I have read many such works. Dr. Logan and others write well. Wikipedia does well to have an entry on Australian writers. Dr Logan is a respected educator and writer. I find it strange therefore to see an attempt being made to discredit him by wanting to remove information about him that is there for the benefit of others. That is after all what Wikipedia is there for so others can benefit. Removing information greatly harms us all. I can only put this attempt down to the fact that some very ignorant people have very little to do with their time and obtain pleasure from injuring the reputation of others. I find this an appalling practice that needs to be condemned. I have seen this sort of thing attempted by disaffected people with severe social problems. It would appear that there are a few of them here commenting on this page. They really should get a life.

User talk: Alexey-Chernykh 08:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.179.135.223 (talk)

• Delete Not notable, fails WP:AUTHOR. There are several accounts posting here, but no one has provided any evidence that subject satisfies WP:GNG. The academic achievements are fine, but they fail WP:PROF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnuniq (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 August 2009 [18]

note the only books by the David Logan in question at either of the links above are published by the Brisbane Dramatic Arts Company. None of the other works are remotely within his field, and most fall outside any possible date for him to have published. It doesn't indicate any notability at all. Any book by an Australian can be to these libraries if donated. It's getting real world unethical for someone to pass off other people's works as his own. Do we know if there's any way we can check on the truth of his academic credentials? There's enough grounds for suspecting they might be false. The article page is very careful not to mention exactly where his PhD and DLitt come from. Could any of the accounts defending David Logan oblige us? After all, a DLitt is no ordinary degree - it usually is given to esteemed academics - with a long history of publication (in peer-reviewed journals). Which he doesn't appear to have. If he's an academic fraud as well, it might be worth notifying the libraries which hold his books.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Another note. I've done a few searches for "David Logan" and the terms PhD and DLitt and the names of the universities mentioned in his article. Nothing comes up. This may be a genuine case of real-life academic fraud on our hands. (He calls himself "Dr" on a couple of sites).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And another. No evidence to be found of his attendance, let alone his speaking at the International Drama/Theatre and Education Association gathering in Hong Kong. Are we dealing with a kind of Walter Mitty character here? (Or perhaps more like Jeffrey Archer without the money or independent reviews?) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:52, 5 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 01:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dracula's Return

Dracula's Return (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Daria Borisovna Semovsky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Semovsky Palace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Alexander Pavlovich Semovsky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Spam. David Logan's page is also up for deletion as non-notable spam work of sockpuppets. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note This non-notable book has been spammed across wikipedia.

• Delete as absolutely not notable spam. Sarah 02:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Vsevolod, this is a pretty extensive problem and I think it might be best to deal with it in one AFD as our friend has been busy creating a bunch of articles about this book and it's characters etc. Could you please bundle Daria Borisovna Semovsky, Semovsky Palace and Alexander Pavlovich Semovsky. There might be more, I'm still looking but I think as these are all about this book, it would be best to bundle them all together rather than have individual articles for each one. Cheers, Sarah 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, good idea. Er...how do I that? (Or can you do it?)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would do it but I've run out of time for now and have to head off. There's instructions here Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. It's best to do it as soon as possible so the people who review can comment on all of them otherwise it gets a bit tricky, but if you have problems doing it, I will come and help you when I get back or perhaps someone else could kindly help. Also, there's a pre-existing discussion on AN about this user and I've raised this spam issue there Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_ban_on_User:Finneganw_at_Anna_Anderson. I've reverted the most obvious problems of spamming, where he's added his book into very loosely related articles but I think we're going to have to look into this more closely. Cheers, Sarah 03:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bundled. DrKiernan (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't have time to sit down and focus on this.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Totally non-notable. Orderinchaos 10:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Cannot locate this book in any library, US or Australian. DGG (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all Non-notable: no independent third-party coverage. DrKiernan (talk) 08:55, 5 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 01:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Father of the Elder Princess of Saxony

Father of the Elder Princess of Saxony (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research. Oscarthecat (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete article creator claiming copyright and explicitly adding copyright notice. noq (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotion of non-notable art work. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Original research? I like how the supposed father's eyebrows loop down through his mustache. Amazing effects can be done by distorting images. The author cannot put an image on Wikipedia and claim a copyright. Edison (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete self marketing, not notable, not verifiable Wefa (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete appears to be spam at worst and original research at best. not notable--RadioFan (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:23, 5 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. As far as I can tell, no evidence was advanced during this discussion to establish the subject's notability. Thus, I see that consensus is to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

James Quall

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

• This article lacks notability as well as many other issues. Speedy declined so it has been taken to AFD.

• James Quall may not be the most famous celebrity, but he is popular enough to have is own page -User:IDALGHAMTFPD
  • James Quall may be popular in your eyes, but to the rest of the world he is a nobody.keystoneridin! (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    • nobody ok go say that 2 all 891 of his friends on Facebook --IDALGHAMTFPD (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)-
    • Stop this line of arguments at an AfD. If you'd bothered to do WP:BEFORE you'd see the coverage he's received, albeit trivial. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I think that he may just BARELY meet the notability guidelines. Maybe it's a bit iffy, so I will give the benefit of the doubt. As far as number of people on Facebook that are his friends, that should not be used as a measure, as there are people that have articles on Wiki that have less than 891 friends (or fans) on FB. Pax85 (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can provide proper evidence of notability. Facebook, Myspace (or any personal websites maintained by the subject) are not evidence of notability - I'm sure there are plenty obscure teenage girls out there with even more facebook friends than this subject has, but this does not mean we need to have a page about them here. Bonfire of vanities (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • and I should add: the fact that this Wikipedia entry is showing up on page one of a google search is a pretty bad sign... Bonfire of vanities (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. I have no idea what you're trying to imply re: page one of a Google search, but Wikipedia routinely shows up on page one of Google searches for various topics. I.e. the second hit on Barack Obama, after his personal website, is his Wikipedia page. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• None of the number of facebook friends, an evidence-free assertion that he "may just BARELY meet the notability guidelines" nor where Wikipedia appears in web search results for the subject's name, are anything like valid arguments for keeping or deletion, so let's try to get this discussion on track by looking for sources. Any notable contemporary American entertainer would be expected to attract some coverage in sources indexed by Google News, and such a search finds 14 sources mentioning the subject:

• This article published in The New York Times and The Kansas City Star has 42 words about the subject including, "an aspiring comedian who specializes in inadvertently terrible voice impressions".
• This article published by a local branch of The Onion has 67 words including, "laughably awful comedian", and, "too much pride for it to have been deliberately bad".
• Another local Onion chapter has 37 words starting with, "inept impressionist James Quall".
• This syndicated report published in The News & Observer, The Kansas City Star, the Detroit Free Press and the Colorado Daily has 16 words in which they manage to include, "a no-talent celebrity impersonator".
• This article in The Denver Post and Multichannel News is simply a name check.
• The sum total of the subject's coverage in this article in 77 Square is, "and awful resident celebrity impersonator, James Quall, [is] from Wisconsin, a fact that instilled pride and embarrassment in the same instant".
• Another local Onion publication gives a name check.
• as does this student publication.

Does all this amount to enough notability to keep the article? Perhaps the amount of coverage could just about be said to be enough, but the fact that it is universally negative means that if we are to base the article on the reliable sources that I could find it would violate neutrality policy, which is especially important when dealing with articles about living people. Unless anyone can find any balancing positive coverage I think I'll go with a delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 4 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 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I see thanks to a message on my talk page, that the article that was actually deleted was only a redirect. The article was moved twice during the AFD discussion without being mentionned here. The two other titles will be deleted but in the future please mention the changes and add them to the nomination if necessary. Thanks. --JForget 15:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: Just add another notes - the other entries deleted were List of Khatri Gotras (the actual article with the content) and List of Khatri (Gotras, Clans, Tribes) (another redirect) --JForget 15:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Khatri Gotras and clans

List of Khatri Gotras and clans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

List has no point in existing... Category:Khatri clans is enough. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

delete convert to template style. Antonio López ^(desu) 16:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, no purpose beyond category. Mintrick (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as a category masquerading as a list. Nothing in this list differentiates itself from Category:Khatri clans -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:24, 4 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 23:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Lukes

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers notability test. Oscarthecat (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No third-party sources (or any sources) establishing notability. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions and she has only one minor role. Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor role only, no sources whatsoever. --Crusio (talk) 16:26, 6 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) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mirror Image Art

Mirror Image Art (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research / neologism. Furthermore, creator is claiming copyright on associated pictures he's uploaded on this subject. Oscarthecat (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• redirect to Symmetry#Symmetry in history, religion, and culture as a plausible search term. The current title implies that this is a well known, previously defined movement or classification of art. Google book search doesn't support this however.--RadioFan (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Article is simply one artist promoting his own technique. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Based on sources found so far, fails verifiability and notability. Edison (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete seconded. Looks like part of a self marketing campaign. Should be seen in context with two other AFD discussions, Father of the Elder Princess of Saxony and A Dog Named Angel Wefa (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:11, 5 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 00:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Naomi (Two and a Half Men)

Naomi (Two and a Half Men) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

no indication of why this character needs an article if this character was a guest star, there is no need for this artical. Pedro thy master (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- – —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro thy master (talk • contribs) 20:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Incredibly minor character, not notable. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- – —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro thy master (talk • contribs) 22:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Why is there an article on this character? Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Character appeared in two episodes, not otherwise notable. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Put this in the article Berta (Two and a Half Men), with the introductory sentence "Berta has a daughter who was seen in two and a half episodes of Two and a Half Men". Mandsford (talk) 18:28, 5 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. Those editors in favour of keeping the article failed to show that the topic meets any notability guidelines, or to argue that the notability issue was mitigated by other factors.  Skomorokh  16:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Rhisiart Tal-e-bot

Rhisiart Tal-e-bot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article managed to slip through the net last time (it was deleted from the French and other Wikipedias), but I'm not sure it should have been allowed to stay here. The article is a WP:VANITY article; Cymrukernow the creator and main contributor is Rhisiart Tal-e-bot. Information only he could know fills most of the content of the article. The only sources used in the article for information is a minor pressure group which Tal-e-bot himself writes for (including a personal Yahoo Group). The other information which Tal-e-bot has put in the article in unreferencable, because he is not WP:NOTABLE enough to have such biographical information published in mainstream media sources. He works as a school teacher and has never been elected to any post anywhere in the UK, not even as a village parish councillor failing WP:POLITICIAN in an epic manner. Yorkshirian (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:GNG. This article is, as the nominator correctly asserts, is nothing but a vanity article for its creator. GiantSnowman 15:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I see that the response time is slow, but the article violates most rules here about self-promotion and sociopolitical activism via Wikipedia. Perhaps admins don't take Yorkshirian seriously. After all, he has enough arseholes chewing him a new one that none can be arsed with him. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - User is now blocked indefinitely and a suspected sockpuppet. --Joowwww (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually I blocked him for being disruptive, although he has certainly used multiple socks in the past (but not in this page) Theresa Knott | token threats 23:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - for reasons stated above BritishWatcher (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per previous AfD. COI is not a reason to delete. BigDunc 14:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per previous AfD. The article does indeed have a number of issues which need addressing, but it seems to me to satisfy wikipedia notability requirements. I only came across this because I noticed the rather uncommon name in the Welsh activists category: perhaps if the article had been put in more categories it might have come to the attention of more editors and have been improved by now (I've added the glaringly obvious year and place of birth cats, for starters). Enaidmawr (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: "seems to"? it fails absolutely every single one of our WP:GNG requirements. The only biographical sources are from ones which Tal-e-bot has placed on the internet in his Yahoo and other groups, the rest is just information he himself put in the article which are not in any media source. Complete vanity article of a nobody. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comments Why else would this be acceptable use of Wikipedia, when other political groups are disallowed from hijacking it as a propaganda dispenser? Surely, if this met notability, then there would be independent sources showing this. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep All statements without a reference have been removed, it should conform to WP:BLP. --Joowwww (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Still fails every single point in the WP:GNG, even after culling. Do you have a rationale as to how the article would pass our policies. These are the ones it most specifically fails;

1. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]
2. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2]
3. "Sources,"[3] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4]
4. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —BigDunc 12:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —BigDunc 12:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Even after the cleanup the sources are virtually all to the subject's own website, which doesn't qualify as a reliable, published source. This may be a surmountable problem, and deletion is not a method of cleanup, but as this is a biography of a living person we have another whole can of worms to deal with. Bottom line: if reliable sources can be provided by the close of this AfD, then by all means keep; if not, there's no answer but to delete.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. All references are either self-published or trivial. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:18, 10 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 01:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sony BMG discography

Sony BMG discography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sony BMG (2004-2008) was one of the big four music companies globally, with dozens of record label operations in the US and UK, and with local repertoire right across the globe. The company "Sony BMG", through its many label groups and record labels, released 1/4 of the world's music in its existence. I don't see how this page can meaningfully capture the ginormous scope that is Sony BMG. Album pages are classified under their respective labels and label categories. This page also starts in the 80s when it wasn't until 2004 that the company was formed as "Sony BMG", and so I automatically removed the few listings under the 80s and 90s. Moreover 90% of the random listings appear to have no connection to the Sony or BMG labels, in fact, other unrelated companies are indicated in brackets. Therefore this page is completely bogus and is an act of deception/vandalism. Imperatore (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. Indiscriminate list, would be far too large to maintain, no sources. This was created by the same user who also created Atlantic Records discography, a narrow, clumsy, rap-centric list that was maybe 5% complete and would've been browser-crashingly long if finished. There is also no precedent for such lists to even exist, as they'd be far too wide in scope — should we include Robin Lee's Black Velvet album, released in 1990 and so obscure that Allmusic doesn't even have the track list for it? What about the Zac Brown Band's The Foundation, which is only distributed by Atlantic? This one is probably even worse than the Atlantic one, as Sony BMG owns about eight trillion labels. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. There are hundreds of releases by Sony BMG and a list of them is not very useful. A category already exists for this type of information. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as impossibly long and uncompletable. Hairhorn (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete TenPoundHammer makes a good argument, and given the example of similar previous lists this should be removed. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Misleading and terminally incomplete; and even if comprehensively completed would be pretty useless as a source of information. ~ mazca ^talk 16:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Label discographies are for labels, not distributors or parent companies. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:24, 3 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 Nomination Withdrawn. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Marshall (disambiguation)

Wayne Marshall (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominate for deletion Unnecessary page as there is already a hatnote to Wayne Marshall (DJ) at the primary page (Wayne Marshall. Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Marshall (conductor) is not the primary page. The deejay is just as notable as conductor is. So I oppose, cause where should Wayne Marshall redirect? Readers might be looking for either of two. Netrat (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

CommentThe primary page is the one at Wayne Marshall, with no parentheses. What do you mean, where should Wayne Marshall redirect? It doesn't need to redirect anywhere, it's an article about the conductor and should stay as it is. The fact that the conductor is at the primary page shows that he is considered to be more notable than the DJ. They may be looking for either of two, but if they type in Wayne Marshall and they want the DJ, then there's a hatnote at the top of the page linking directly to the DJ. The alternative, as it was, was someone would type in Wayne Marshall looking for the DJ, go to conductor's article which is at Wayne Marshall, click on hatnote to disambiguation page, and then click on link to DJ, taking them longer. Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean Wayne Marshall should redirect to Wayne Marshall (disambiguation) since niether of musicians are much more notable than the other. Netrat (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the conductor is at the primary page shows that he is considered to be more notable than the DJ. - considered by whom? Anyway, he is not. The only reason why the conductor is at the primary page is because his entry was written earlier. Netrat (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is with internal links to Wayne Marshall page from other articles. Readers are likely to get the wrong article. Netrat (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I see you've now moved the disambiguation page to the primary page, without any discussion or consultation - that isn't recommended. If you go to Wayne Marshall and then What links here, you'll see that a list of articles which are probably pointing to the wrong target now; please correct this as you should do after moving a page and initiate a discussion on conductor's page and link to it on DJ's page to the issue of comparative notability as DJ has mentions in only 2 other articles, evidence will need to be put forward. Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Withdraw nomination while mess is sorted at the two pages. Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just checked this, and you know what? No Wikipedia articles link to Wayne Marshall (conductor). Only userpages and wikipedia projects pages. On the other hand, there actually are links to Wayne Marshall (deejay) from real articles, such as records by Sean Paul and Jamie Foxx where he's featured. Netrat (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed all links that linked to Wayne Marshall. 9 articles link to conductor and 12 articles link to deejay. Anyone still thinks the conductor is the primary entry? I won't object deleting Wayne Marshall (disambiguation) if its contents is moved to Wayne Marshall. Netrat (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep the disambiguation page. Wayne Marshall should be directed there. Neither entry is clearly primary. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:39, 3 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 01:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Amefurashi

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

Long-term uncited. I am not sure this creature even exists, as a google search seems biased toward an unrelated work with a similar name. Mintrick (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't have enough info to really identify the subject. Seems fictional but doesn't state such. Unsourced. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 17:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm not sure whether this is a hoax or a confused description of creatures in some computer game, but there are no sources and I find none, so per WP:V it should go. JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment With seven versions and "hept" I'd bet this has nothing to do with traditional Japanese folklore. Jujutacular and JohnCD were probably right in suspecting it's a character in some fictional work such as a manga, anime or video game. Unless it's a significant character or, against odds, genuine folklore, delete. Fg2 (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, as it is impossible to identify the veracity of the article. --DAJF (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree, that "hept" + "ggg" looks not at all like attributes of traditional lore. I'm not finding anything to clarify the situation, so unless someone has Japanese material to explicate and verify, delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Amefurashi means Aplysiomorpha in Japanese. There's no mention about any legendary creature in the ja:アメフラシ article. Oda Mari (talk) 14:19, 5 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. After analyzing the agruments of both sides, I think there is no consensus to keep or delete this article. AdjustShift (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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