Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 16

From Global Warming Art

The following page is a local copy of the Wikipedia page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 16. (more info)

< 15 September 17 September >
Guide to deletion
Centralized discussion
Treffpunkt.svg
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive • talk • edit • history • watch

Contents
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Theosophy. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Chain, Planetary

Chain, Planetary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Chain, Planetary" – news · books · scholar · images)

Non-notable terminology apparently invented by Blavatsky. If it is of any value it can be a simple mention on Blavatsky's lengthy biographical page rather than its own article. It is not necessary to turn every fanciful concept, model or theory from Blavatsky's books into articles unless there are significant third party sources that make them notable. In this case they do not. Ash (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge and Redirect to Theosophy. Article asserts that it is relevant to this, so it seems like the most logical place to put it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Theosophy. The article refers to a concept that Helen Blavatsky called a "planetary chain", with the theory that there are seven Earths, the one we live on and six others in six other dimensional planes, or something like that. Until someone can explain it a little better, no need to spin out into a separate page. Appropriately, after a merger and redirect, this article will continue to exist in something similar to another dimension, one that can be accessed by crossing over into the history of the redirect term. Mandsford (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry to pile on, but Merge and Redirect to Theosophy seems logical to me. There does not seem to be independent notability for this sub-topic, as opposed to, say, chakras. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 17 September 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 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Generation Α

Generation Α (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Generation Α" – news · books · scholar · images)

Prod contested without explanation. Term suggested by one author. No hint about how the suggestion was received, or whether or not it was received at all. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - unless additional citations are added showing this as a term in use by more than one author. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - CRYSTAL. (Please note, I am not the author, I just kicked it out of Generation Z (which is also an OR SYN mess)) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 17 September 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 13:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Othen

Christopher Othen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Christopher Othen" – news · books · scholar · images)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO. This is one Part of a history of Spam and self promotion by this author on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Christopher_Othen_spam. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I'm not certain this was intended as deliberate product placement, although the author has posted a lot of new articles from people associated with Reportage Press that makes me wonder. However, it doesn't really matter. Out of the two sources, one is his agent's site, which isn't independent. The other is a review from the Irish Times, and if there were more articles like this, I'd keep it. However, a quick glance at GNews suggests this is the only article. If this article does stay, this article and the article on the book need merging into one. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not that important a book that it should have its own article. Personally, I regard the 2 book review requirement for books as rather weak for serious non fiction, and would argue that the WP:N rule that being notable does not require that there be a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete -- A one book author. The subject of his book is notable, but the book itself (also subject to AFD here) is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 18 September 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. Black Kite 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Franco's International Brigades: Foreign Volunteers and Fascist Dictators in the Spanish Civil War

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Franco's International Brigades: Foreign Volunteers and Fascist Dictators in the Spanish Civil War
Franco's International Brigades: Foreign Volunteers and Fascist Dictators in the Spanish Civil War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Franco's International Brigades: Foreign Volunteers and Fascist Dictators in the Spanish Civil War" – news · books · scholar · images)

Recently published book, no evidence of notability. This is one Part of a history of Spam and self promotion by this author on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Christopher_Othen_spam Hu12 (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    • No one is criticizing its trendiness or lack thereof. If you can find some decent reviews of it, or proof of its being cited (other than in WP articles), please present that--that would be good grounds for reconsidering. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      • It's listed with some public libraries and see this review. You can try Google and check out the 1,600+ entries, many of which are plugs, but with some more reviews. Maybe it hasn't been reviewed in the USA; please forgive those of us who live elsewhere.Red Hurley (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, but it is the subject that is notable, not a book about it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete no indication that this book qhs any particular notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Is WP the right forum for book reviews, for that is what this is? What we need is an article on the subject, not an article on the book. I would suggest that the article should be merged with articles on the Irish Brigade (Spanish Civil War), and whatever other flanagist interational brigades there may have been. The book will be a WP:RS for those articles, but I doubt we need an article on the book itself. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 18 September 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 13:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

André Aciman

André Aciman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "André Aciman" – news · books · scholar · images)

Request by subject because it fails as a biography and is doing more harm than good. Fails wp:PROF and wp:AUTHOR, tho see talk page for editors who disagree. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-16t22:19z 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Article would normally survive AfD as subject's works have been given full-length reviews in major publications (LA Times, The Guardian), and the subject has received a reasonable amount of note. No view on the competing tensions between what (despite coverage) is relatively minor notability and privacy considerations. Bongomatic 22:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Unquestionably meets three criteria: WP:PROF--Distinguished professor at CUNY; WP:CREATIVE, NYT SIgnificant book of the year and another award WP:BIO: Sufficient sourcing about him in to meet GNG. How that makes for minor notability I do not know. What his privacy requirements may be I do not know either, since the article seem exceptionally matter of fact. the only remotely personal information is taken from a published interview he gave. Let's face it, if the NYT gives you an article, and multiple major papers give you reviews of your books, and people give you significant awards, you'll be in Wikipedia. What the OTRS request is about is something I have no access to. If there is some factor I do not understand , anyone who does know what it is invited to email me in confidence. Its time we removed the rule that subjects preferences can be accepted, if it produces nonsense like this. A public career, and nothing to be ashamed of in the least. An assertion of privacy is absurd: those who want to be unknown usually don't try to publish their memoirs. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "Distinguished Professor" was added but the ref doesn't mention it. I don't see what's being referred to in WP:CREATIVE/wp:AUTHOR; or wp:bio since the only major wp:rs is an unlinked NYT mention (not a biographical article) of a minor award (there are however NYT refs mentioned in the talk page tho no information is sourced to them yet). The worldcat source also doesn't mention the information it's referencing. The OTRS ticket is about unsourced and incorrect information not being noticed and removed. Encyclopedically notable articles would probably have had the incorrect information deleted without the person having to try to delete it themselves several times (and having their edits reverted despite wp:burden), and eventually having to email the foundation to get rid of it. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-17t11:53z
      what information in the article is is asserted to be incorrect? DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      Subject; influences; influenced; family; photo; incorrect, poor, or no sources. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-17t21:47z
      the source for distinguished professor is his official bio at the university, a suitable source for the purpose. [1] DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      The reference was pointing elsewhere - I've fixed it, but I haven't touched the 850 bit. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-17t21:47z
  • Keep. I agree completely with DGG, including the puzzlement about what was so offending here. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree with DGG. The sourcing that is in the article right now does not demonstrate that Aciman meets the GNG. Remember the requirement that sources must be independent of the subject: the CUNY profile, the "meet the author" piece, the Wesleyan article based on interviewing the subject, and Aciman's memoir itself don't count. Likewise, the NY Times opinion pieces written by, not about, Aciman, which got Shamwow so excited on the article's talk page, are useless here. As Jeandre suggests, DGG is also wrong when he says the New York Times "gave" Aciman an article. I am looking at that reference now, and it is a list of Whiting award winners that says nothing about Aciman beyond that. No doubt the award is a fine achievement, but notability is not achievement. Finally, book reviews would help to write a Wikipedia article about the respective books, not necessarily about Aciman.

    The bottom line is that without independent sources that are actually about Aciman, it is not possible to write a neutral article here. Indeed, the article essentially amounts to a resume for Aciman hosted on Wikipedia, subject to original-research embellishments like "his novel is in over 850 Worldcat libraries". A list of books he wrote and a recounting of his career path and achievements is the stuff of resumes, not encyclopedia articles. Drmies, perhaps that is what offends Aciman. Let Aciman decide on his own what to put on his CV. Let CUNY host a webpage highlighting his achievements. But a Wikipedia article requires significant, independent coverage of him.

    I recommend that participants in this afd read Nil Einne's well-researched, thoughtful comment on the article's talk page. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Is it possible that DGG meant to refer to this, Aciman, Andre (2004-06-16). "Sailing to Byzantium by Way of Ithaca". The New York Sun: p. 1. , a 2000+ word lecture by Aciman on James Joyce, Bloomsday 2004? Drmies (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
      • No, I see it now; it's this--Aciman, André (2009-06-08). "The Exodus Obama Forgot to Mention". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/opinion/09aciman.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=aciman&st=cse. Retrieved 2009-09-21. . An op-ed piece in the New York Times. Sounds notable. I've been adding stuff to the article and cleaning up the references but I'm going to stop (after adding a review from the NYT of Call Me By Your Name): there is a huge amount of reliable sources for anyone who is willing to look. The MLA database actually lists four articles in literary journals about his work, and that, for a living author, is not bad. I mean, this discussion is getting ridiculous. Any editor who looks at the article will see that with a couple of books, published by major presses and reviewed in major papers, this subject as notable at least as an author. To the IP who spent so much time throwing nit-picked policy at DGG: enough already, it's not convincing. A resounding keep for this article that even in its history, as far as I have seen, has nothing that disparages the subject. I can't believe we've spent so much time on this. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I have added the four hits from the MLA to the talk page, for future reference. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
that it is in over 850 worldcat libraries is specifically sourced, and not OR. The official web page at a university is a proper source for noncontroversial bio. WP:CREATIVE is an alternate to WP:BIO. so is WP:PROF. Further sources than those that demonstrate the achievements are not required. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The worldcat source doesn't mention 850. Until someone specifically challenges the University sources, I think they're okay. How does he qualify for anything in wp:CREATIVE or wp:PROF? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-17t21:47z
WorldCat Identities is the source for holdings of all his books "Out of Egypt : a memoir by André Aciman( Book )

17 editions published between 1994 and 2007 in English and held by 863 libraries worldwide " and "Call me by your name by André Aciman( Book ) 5 editions published between 2007 and 2009 in English and held by 961 libraries worldwide " absolutely solid evidence (my 850 figure did not include all the possible editions). DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

      • (@ DGG) My concern is not with verifiability but neutrality. NPOV requires "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." So where are the disinterested sources on Aciman? Without those, a neutral article is not possible. Using CUNY's webpage as a source already makes the article resume-like, and the over-850 factoid only exacerbates the problem (it is a Wikipedia editor's own observation of Aciman's achievement, which should go on his CV--if he wants it there). Wp:prof's criteria are quite malleable (Jeandre seems to doubt they apply here) and in any event are a poor proxy for the gold standard at wp:n. Disregard the gold standard if you want in other cases, but in a BLP, especially where the subject has requested deletion, Wikipedia should meet that standard. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, not marginal notability at all, easily passes GNG. If subject has concerns, he is welcome to make them clear on the talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Which of the sources qualify per wp:GNG? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t10:43z
      • Many of the 312 results from the GNews search linked above would work just fine. Sure, for some of those he is the author, but for many he is not. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Lots of sources out there, hundreds of gnews, gbooks hits. Among other points, reviews of his books qualify him under WP:AUTHOR, and are perfectly acceptable as sources for an article on him. As the most famous book is a memoir, biographical detail (from reviews) is not lacking and privacy concerns are thus minimal.John Z (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • How does he qualify for anything in WP:AUTHOR? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t10:43z
      • WP:Author #3 - "... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Answering 160..., although neutral sourcing is not necessary, as we work all the time to present non-neutral sources and views neutrally, these reviews are reasonably neutral sources.John Z (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, looks OK to me. Is there no process for asking the complainant on the OTRS ticket whether he/she now withdraws the objection? - Pointillist (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Subject again asked for it to be deleted on 2009-09-17 after the prod was undone. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t10:43z
  • Keep -- I believe the precedent for considering requests by the subject of the article to have the article deleted is that the request is only considered when the individual in question is on the boundary of notability. My understanding is that when a person is clearly a public figure, worthy of coverage, a request from the principal to have their article removed is politely declined. Achman is clearly notable, so this request we are told he made should be politely declined. Geo Swan (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd like to ask whether those who deal with OTRS tickets shouldn't feel free to use their own judgment on requests for the deletion of articles by clearly notable individuals, and skip the step of initiating an {{afd}}, and simply tell them, "sorry, we only consider requests for the deletion of articles from individuals who haven't chosen to become public figures." They could leave a note on the article's talk page however. Geo Swan (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Most of the time we do, and then point to policies why it can/can't be deleted; but no sources support keeping the article per WP:CREATIVE/wp:AUTHOR, wp:bio, or wp:GNG. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t10:43z
        the prizes don't support it? DGG ( talk ) 14:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Geo Swan: as per Jeandré, we do not always make an automatic AFD for these. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
        • That is good to know. I started an article about an author who was an expert on counter-terrorism, a law professor at the Coast Guard Academy -- and and also an active NCIS agent. A month or so later I found the article had been silently deleted. The administrator who deleted it told me he or she did so in response to an OTRS ticket from the subject of the article. The subject of the article had told him or her that he didn't have any problems with the article being inaccurate -- he just didn't want to be covered by the wikipedia. The administrator told me that their interpretation of the mandate of those who process OTRS tickets is that they were authorized to delete articles, on sight, and without informing those who had worked on the article, in response to an OTRS ticket -- when they thought the subject of the article was of marginal notability. So, was this administrator misinterpreting the OTRS rules? Geo Swan (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Aciman is not really notable for his professorial career but as a novelist/writer. His memoir Out of Egypt was reviewed in The New York Times[2][3] as well as his novel Call Me by Your Name[4]. Additionally, see his recent op-ed published in the Times[5]. This alone shows that this individual is QUITE notable.ShamWow (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • See 160's comment above. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t10:43z
  • Keep. Subject is too distinguished a public figure not to have an entry in WP. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC).
  • Comment. Please remove the WorldCat count ("850 WorldCat libraries") from the article. Inclusion of bibliometrics (WorldCat counts, citation counts of research articles, etc.) is bad form for a whole bunch of reasons, including giving the perception that proponents are "trying too hard" to establish notability and that these numbers constantly change, requiring some amount of vigilance in manually checking/updating them at perhaps very frequent intervals. In short, you might say that bibliometrics are not particularly "encyclopedic" and it is arguably a bad precedent to start making them a regular part of articles. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC).
    • I've removed the WorldCat count - Pointillist (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. That said, it would seem the subject is notable. Others have already found that there are plentiful sources, but his title/position at the CUNY satisfies WP:PROF #5 – person holds ... "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education, and would alone be sufficient. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC).
    • I was wrong, he does qualify per the wp:PROF guideline. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-18t20:21z
      • Heartfelt congratulations, Jeandré du Toit, for jumping that hurdle. Can the AfD now be closed on that basis? - Pointillist (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
        • /raises hand, offers objection./ Wp:prof is a collection of purely formal (as opposed to functional) criteria. They have nothing to say about whether a neutral article can actually be written here. The latter question is dispositive.

          So, getting back to discussing that more relevant question: you said above the article "looks OK" even now. Would you like to elaborate on why you think an article based on non-neutral sources is appropriate for Wikipedia? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

          • AFAIK both the New York Times and http://www.marinij.com/ are reliable sources, aren't they? The dispositive question was addressed to Jeandré du Toit on the basis that s/he was the AfD nominator and I thought there was a process for the nom to close. If I'm in error in either respect please do explain: I have no axe to grind. - Pointillist (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
            • I didn't think you had an ax to grind. I genuinely wanted you to clarify your earlier comment. To respond on that issue: No New York Times article has yet been produced, here, that is actually about Aciman. And the Marin piece is an interview and thus not independent. I already discussed these and other purported sources in my comment above. As for the procedural issue, an afd can only be closed early if the nom has changed his mind and no one else is arguing to delete. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Thanks for explaining. Well, right now there are 12 !votes to keep and apparently no !votes to delete (unless you intend yours of 16:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC) to be a !vote—you might want to clarify that). I haven't !voted but I expect he will turn out to be sufficiently notable under Wikipedia:Notability (academics) anyway. That seems to be the conclusion the nominator reached, too. - Pointillist (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Aciman is a major American writer. The hundreds of reviews of his books contain ample information to produce a neutral article, even if no further material is available....While privacy concerns *may* be a legitimate basis for removing an article on a marginally notable figure, Aciman--who willfully holds himself out to the public in numerous books, articles, essays, etc--isn't remotely a close call. (And if we accede here, what do we do when Thomas Pynchon or JD Salinger demand deletion for privacy concerns?) Vartanza (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Prominent gay writer.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. major author from major publisher. 9000 google hits for his IMAGE. (i dont like to use google hits as a gauge, but for an author and academic thats significant). Whoever is privy to subjects request for article deletion can hopefully coordinate with him on removing any controversial material thats not properly sourced. And a reminder, we are not voting, but presenting material for a decision to be made. there is some argument that sources are not neutral. lets get real: there are no truly neutral sources anywhere, for anything other than fully established math, physics, chemistry, astronomy (and even there, instititional bias towards established science...). the new york times reports on what it wants to print, with some subtle bias. book reviewers want to sell copies of their publication containing the reviews. interviewers have feelings about their subjects, and often choose people they want to interview, who they like (and sometimes hate). we are striving for relative neutrality, and trying to find the most neutral sources, or balance different pov's. i had a friend who invented an engine using shape memory alloy. to get a particular grant, it needed to be reviewed and evaluated by experts. ALL the experts in the field were his competitors, so he had great difficulty getting a neutral evaluation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with you that no source is truly neutral in that sense. But I would like to see independent sources as per wp:independent sources. And I agree with you that a neutral article comes from balancing different pov's. My point is that without independent sources, it is not possible to accomplish this. The problem here is that there we have only the pov of Aciman and his employer, so how is it possible to balance different pov's? I should perhaps clarify that (in my view) the interview fails the independence criterion, not because the interviewer is biased, but because the source of the facts presented in the interview is, of course, Aciman himself--obviously not an independent source. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, passes WP:GNG. Notable people have articles; if problems arise with them, you fix the article, rather than deleting it. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • You may want to fill in the blanks: "Passes wp:gng because _____." "Fix the article by doing the following things: A.____, B.____, and C._____."

      Just a suggestion. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

      • And you may stop badgering those who disagree with you. Also just a suggestion. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Comment. Folks, this line debate is superfluous. It's clear that he passes on WP:PROF #5 alone because of his "Distinguished Professor" title at CUNY. Continue debating if you like, but the closing admin will give a "keep" verdict on this one. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:32, 22 September 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! 16:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

List of video game mascots

List of video game mascots (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "List of video game mascots" – news · books · scholar · images)

This is mainly original research based upon personal opinions of what makes a mascot. The ones that can be sourced are very few in number. TTN (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

*Delete/Categorize-ify - totally unworkable as a list. Delete it and make it into a category.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Delete upon further inspection, I am convinced that this information gives no value to the encyclopedia as category either. Delete.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Problem is there is a category: Cat:Video game mascots. If we axe the list should the cat take a dive too?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't understand your jive talking, but yes, the category should be sent on the midnight train to Georgia. "Video game mascot" is way too nebulous of an idea.--Blargh29 (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
          • As per my vote below, yes, the category should go too. "Video game mascot" is an undefined term and therefore a list (or category) that purports to state what is or is not a video game mascot is unhelpful and innately unverifiable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep if Retro Hippie can source most of it. or Merge it to List of mascots#Computer and video game mascots. We do need to better define what a "Video game mascot" is though. Does Charizard count as a mascot? "Charizard is also the version mascot of Pokémon Red and FireRed versions, and makes an appearance on the boxarts of Pokémon Stadium, Pokémon Ranger, Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Red Rescue Team, and Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Sky." Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep A legitimate spinoff from List of mascots, easily sourced as described by Blake, and well-organized table. Articles about video games and characters on video games are also of "no value to the encyclopedia" in my opinion, but if we have to have such things, then we have to have a means of finding them as well. Some people rely on categories to locate garbage, most people prefer lists to do so, but we usually have both WP:CLN. The table is a legitimate navigational aid that does things that a category cannot. Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, video games do not have mascots; these are characters or brands. Abductive (reasoning) 05:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - even for someone interested in researching video game characters, I'm not sure what value this brings. "Video game mascot" is a highly debatable undefined term. The article is a sublist of the total list of videogame characters which doesn't make it easier to understand the topic in any meaningful way. There's no defined criteria for whether things belong on this list or not - there is, for example, no Videogame Mascots Authority to derive a list from, no "total sales achieved" number for characters to pass, no survey that ranks characters on how far they've penetrated the public awareness. The current list often confuses the ideas of "furry anthropomorphic star of an unsuccessful mid 90s platforming game" with "main character of a popular game" and "main character of an ongoing franchise whose image is heavily used in promotional media". It's just meaningless. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The problem is not that the topic is indiscriminant or trivial but rather that it is undefined in reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:CLN: "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems"
    --Tothwolf (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:CLN is an editing guideline, and does not trump the WP:V policy, which this article fails. We cannot even verify that these are mascots, nor what mascots might mean in terms of video games. Abductive (reasoning) 09:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I am sure that if this article stays, someone could dig around some places and find sources for each character saying they are a mascot. I just think the term needs to be defined. For example, Pikachu and Jigglypuff are mascots of the series, while Charizard is a mascot of 2 games and is on boxart of many many games and products. So, does Charizard qualify? Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:36, 24 September 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 13:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Testing for echo

Testing for echo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Testing for echo" – news · books · scholar · images)

Delete. Fails wp:music. only sources is a myspace page Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, one of a million bands with an EP and a MySpace page and nothing to satisfy WP:MUSIC. --Stormie (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 21 September 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 13:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

H.E. Waheed Waheedullah

H.E. Waheed Waheedullah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "H.E. Waheed Waheedullah" – news · books · scholar · images)

The claims made about this person in the article sound impressive, but they are not supported by sources that meet WP:RS, and I don't see that such sources exist to write the article properly: there are no news hits, and an author search in GS doesn't produce anything to establish notability as an academic. The article is written by the same person trying to flog The World Water Organization, which I have also nominated for deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. The provided annexed references support this person's notability Rirunmot (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.
    • Comment RE: Rirunmot. Did you click on those references? Because I did click on them and the ONLY thing I saw in those websites are his name in a list of names of people who attended a conference or being part of something. I did not see much relevant information about the person itself to justify his notabiliy...only his name... If the creator does not provide more 3rd party sources that talks about him and not the conferences he attended, I suggest to delete. It does not mean that having his name written in a 50+ page document makes him notable. These are just my thoughts , not here to offend anyone ;)Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 21:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete unless better sources can be found to support a clearer claim of notability. I'm puzzled by this entry. It says "Ambassador" 10 times, without once mentioning what country he's an ambassador for, and to where. Careful digging through the sources show that he was once head of the UN liaison office in Albania, which I guess made him the chief UN staffer in Albania, but arguably does not make him an ambassador. He does not even seem to hold that post anymore, so there's even less reason to perseverate on calling him "Ambassador" over and over. Also, an earlier version of the entry credited him with a doctoral degree from Kennedy-Western University, a school that was never accredited, changed names once and has since shut down. That's hardly his fault, but it strains credibility and makes it that much more important to get good confirmation of the other claims made in the entry. However, the current crop of sources establish only his existence, and the fact that he's held diplomatic posts. No press coverage or anything looking like an unambiguously third party source. Hairhorn (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Unable to find any mention in news articles, unlikely for an ambassador of any kind. The refs support a mid-level rank, not that of a diplomat. Finally, if someone manages to find sources and this turns to be a keep, the article has to be moved to Waheed Waheedullah as he clearly wasn't born with the title of His Excellency. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 22:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed the use of H.E. and commented on the talkpage just before reading your valid point per Wikipedia:NAMEPEOPLE. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment To Nominator, Nomoskedasticity, if you have AfD this article and the World Water Organisation article, perhaps you can also AfD Harold HyunSuk Oh and Dr. Elaine Valdov? If Waheed Waheedullah is not "notable" than they too are not notable as they are both part of WWO and those two articles are created by the same user (Shannon.barnes) and their references are not that useful too... Thanks. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 23:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see only hot air. A multitude of grandiose but vague statements; any kind of notability is not supported by reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Joelenine. I think your comment about removing all is unjust. Please notice updates being made to each bio and the WWO page each day as I get the web based references to justify their notability. Shannon.barnes (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete in view of revelations above. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC).
  • Delete. Alternatively, nominate for the Nobel Peace Prize. --Crusio (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - there is no evidence of notability. No sources writing about him. Having his name mentioned in documents and listed as a conference speaker is not sufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 21 September 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. close to being an A7/A1 candidate JForget 13:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wzebra

Wzebra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Wzebra" – news · books · scholar · images)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, no assertion of notability, Google turns up nothing but listings. --Stormie (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - it isn't completely devoid of any notice as it gets a mention in this Computimes Malaysia article but it is not the main subject of the article and the coverage consists of 4 sentences. This is not enough to establish notability for this software. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Non-admin closure.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  01:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic)

Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic)" – news · books · scholar · images)

Seems like a great guy and all, but how is he notable? I'm not seeing it. This isn't even a matter of BLP1E. It's a matter of BLP0E. Joke doesn't work when there's a death date. My bad. Guy fails WP:GNG. Lara 20:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

He got an obituary in The Times [6], . Brown had a huge presence online.-Dhodges (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. Also got an obit in The Boston Globe [7]. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 00:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: As mentioned by Dhodges and Moxfyre above, had major obits in major newspapers in two countries. A google books search shows that he has been mentioned in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Bike Maintenance and Repair and in Bicycling magazine at least 3 times. J04n(talk page) 01:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: This man is almost a deity in the cycling community, and his informational pages and editorials on http://www.sheldonbrown.com/ from the Harris Cyclery are the starting point for any research on bicycle mechanics.
  • Keep: He was an important part of the on-line cycling scene, outspoken and well known. His cycle mechanics articles were used by many as reference, and he is a published author. As said above, obituaries in major papers demonstrate that he was notable. Thaf (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - apparently very notable within the cycling community. It would be good to find some reliable sources about him during his life though - an article sourced purely from obituaries looks a bit like a memorial. Robofish (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • STRONG Keep - Very prominent authority in fixed gear bicycles, especially messengers in any metro area, his current website is somewhat of a bible to anyone entering the field. Plus awesome beard.
  • Strong Keep - As noted by Dhodges and Moxfyre, Brown rated obits in major newspapers -- one in Boston, the other in London. His encyclopedic bicycle-repair information site is still the best starting point (and often ending point) for do-it-yourself bike mechanics. Moreover, as The Times put it, "because of the selfless use to which he put the internet, regret at his death has been felt across the world....The website he built, sheldonbrown.com, has attracted millions." Indeed, I came to this discussion by way of his site; I was looking up derailleur adjustment, got to wandering about the site, and soon wanted to know more about this guy who knew so much and had such interesting opinions, and my next stop was Wikipedia. If I hadn't found this article on WP, I would have felt compelled to write it myself. (Jmkelly)
  • Keep - He was hugely influential in the bike world during his life. We have also referenced him on many wikipedia bicycle articles, enough that readers who are not familiar with him may find the existence of an article about him helpful. --Keithonearth (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I know this article wont be deleted, but he seems to be non notable --NotedGrant Talk 08:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Brown was an authority widely respected in the bicycle community (not just fixed-gear afficianados), and a pioneer internet publisher, with an extensive amount of material that will be consulted for years. As noted by others here, obits appeared in multiple major newspapers, not just in his hometown Boston Globe. Articles about him had appeared in other publications during his life, including a profile in Bicycling magazine.
  • Keep Notable in the serious cycling fraternity. His online articles and technical reference manual are very helpful for those who want to know a bit more about bicylce components etc. Murray Langton (talk) 20:55, 22 September 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 13:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

TERM: PANTHER-ED

TERM: PANTHER-ED (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "TERM: PANTHER-ED" – news · books · scholar · images)

This is an unsourced neologism; Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang, and is not for words made up one day. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 16 September 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 13:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

M.U.G.E.N

M.U.G.E.N (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "M.U.G.E.N" – news · books · scholar · images)

This program doesn't assert notability and it is full of original research. It is currently supported by primary sources and a fansite, and any mentions in actual sources are likely to be very trivial. TTN (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's cropped up in some sources but mostly as a trivial "Hey check out this YouTube video" (Kotaku, Wired, Washington Post). There's a slightly better article at Cinema Blend, but reading it now is kind of laughable. Not enough to substantiate an article, IMO. Nifboy (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep there are a huge number of Google hits for this game... so it seems to be very popular. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per 76.66.196.139. Coverage is broad enough, and whether it's "Check out this YouTube video" coverage or not, major gaming news sites have covered the game. The article needs a major overhaul, not a deletion. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Teancum. More than enough coverage to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Search before trying to delete something instead of having us do all the work as usual. Vodello (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Those can't actually be used for anything. "Sometimes people post videos of fights on Youtube.[1][2][3]" doesn't really do much in the area of significant coverage. TTN (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The last two sources are more than just posting YouTube videos; they give significant coverage. That coupled with the fact that the other sources mention the game helps it satisfy WP:N and WP:V. --Teancum (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You don't just satisfy WP:N by throwing sources out there. If they cannot be used within the article to actually show that the topic has signifcant coverage, they're useless. How can the other two be used to do anything besides say that videos are posted on Youtube or the fact that it was updated after a long period of inactivity? They're rather useless. TTN (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Here are two sites that independently review MUGEN. http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=7485169&publicUserId=5532875 and http://pcgamereview.net/freegames/mugen/mugen_review.html. I hope this article gets kept because someone has taken the time to write an article. And we should help contribute to it, not remove it instantly. Kendric Apple (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Um...both of those sources are kinda bad. The first is a random blog, and the second is talking out of its rear: "Mugen has an online mode against other players, which is the main mode that most people pick when playing Mugen." <- This is flat out false: Mugen has no online capabilities, which has been one of the biggest issues people have had with it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I hope this article gets kept because someone has taken the time to write an article. -- that's about the least valid 'keep' reason ever. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or redirect - Games Radar has 3 paragraphs on why it is one of the wierdest fighting games ever. As this is the only significant coverage I've found so far, I have no objection to a redirect to a broader article such as List of fighting games. Marasmusine (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Seriously? MUGEN? Not notable? ffs just delete every god damn article that isn't GA/FA and be done with it. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep MUGEN is well known in fighting game circles. --Pichu0102 (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is a joke. Put it on some other wiki that doesn't care about legitimacy. 90% of the sources are youtube videos of fan-content for crying out loud. AirPhforce (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep You can't take the Mugen down without also taking down every other video game. And every movie and book and poem and play while you're at it. It's literature just like any other video game or movie or book and deserves its own article. The proof of it is in the very existence of the article. People have constructed it and people read it. It's useful and people want this article. Deleting this article goes against the very purpose of Wikipedia. 206.225.143.51 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Teancum's findings. I think there's more than sufficient notability established here. MuZemike 22:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Abstain I feel I've had too much involvement with the subject itself to really say anything one way or another here, but I will say that the article needs the reset button hit on it and to be rebuilt from the ground up. Whether or not notability is sufficient is one thing, but the article is for the most part unsalvageable in this incarnation.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    I also support starting the article from scratch, and may even have the time to help with this. Marasmusine (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for cleanup The various sources found in this AFD more than adequately demonstrate noteability. Jtrainor (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and redo the page from scratch The whole article shouldn't be deleted but there are some links that aren't useful to the topic itself. Vyx's link to his brokenmugenhr is just.....stupid and need to be deleted. And the whole page should be rewritten so it would be easier to read. Blackgaia02 (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for cleanup per Teancum and Jtrainor. I myself have also been hounding and working on this article for a long while, but have only had real time to sort out petty discussions about the article such as links and what-not. Looking at it as a whole again, it does deserve either a clean up or a re-write, but the argument of notability has been brought up in the past and it was agreed upon that it is notable enough to warrant an article. The qualifications of such might have changed, but unlike some users here I don't spend all my free time on Wikipedia anymore. Blacklist (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable game; has Washington Post article [8] about it. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 20:59, 22 September 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 per CSD A7. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomcon

Nomcon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Nomcon" – news · books · scholar · images)

First-time future event, notability not evident, no WP:GHITS for {+nomcon +ireland +anime}. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • And that I was why I already had a speedy tag on it ;) De728631 (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • As I replied to you offline, you evidently got the speedy tag in there while I was in the middle of filing for Afd! —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:38, 16 September 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 13:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Five Killers

The Five Killers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "The Five Killers" – news · books · scholar · images)

I originally deproded this because I thought there was WP:RS for this, anime, but after a more extensive search, there indeed doesn't seem to be any WP:RS for this anime, nor any info on what happened to the project (according to the unreliable sources, it seems it was planned to have been made over 2 years ago). Feinoha Talk, My master 17:48, 16 September 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. If you're going to create a list based on a premise, and that premise isn't reliably defined or sourced, then the article can never be anything more than original research. Having said that, this information may be useful in the creation of a different article - some ideas have been floated below - so please contact me if userfication is required. Black Kite 21:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

List of U.S. and Canadian box office bombs

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of U.S. box office bombs Articles for deletion/List of U.S. box office bombs (2nd nomination)
List of U.S. and Canadian box office bombs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "List of U.S. and Canadian box office bombs" – news · books · scholar · images)

The article List of U.S. and Canadian box office bombs is a pointless and stupid article. This list is just a list of films that have failed in comparison to the budget in the DOMESTIC market(US and Canada). US FILMS are made for and with the INTERNATIONAL MARKET in mind. Frequently films do not break even just by the US market, but subsequently break even, and then make profit as they get distributed throughout the world. Its like having a list of musicians who have failed in the domestic market. This article is completely pointless, because films are sold throughout the world and the goal is to make a profit after international release. Thus this article merely says what films failed in the US market, when the budget of these films are budgeted with all markets in mind. I see no point to this article what so ever, i am not contesting the research of this article to which previous people have nominated it up for deletion for, but the mere irrelevance and unnotability of the article. Can someone please help me with nominated this article for deletion.

This article is like saying that the 3rd pirates of Caribbean film only just managed to avoid being a failure in the domestic market, because it costed 300 million, and only made back 309 million in the US/CANADA(domestic market), thus the film only just managed to succeed. NO. WRONG!!!!!! The film did amazingly well in the domestic market. AMAZINGLY WELL. IT BEAT THE BUDGET AND THE INTERNATIONAL MONEY HASN'T EVEN BEEN COUNTED!!!!!!!! thats an amazing feat. once international money is counted in, 960 million dollars total gross of the film.[9]. Hence, I hope you can now see that the film didn't 'just succeed' in the us domestic market, but actually did really well, because the studio new it would make money overseas, and budgeted the film accordingly. This article just takes a stupid 'USA is the entire world' view.

delete. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the explanation paragraph needs a little re-write, but it's sourced and if any film makes less than 100% of its budget at the US box office then it usually will be seen as a failure, even if that figure is 99%. But the scope is for the US box office, so I have no problem. I would suggest that IAmTheCoinMan turns off his caps lock and rations his use of exclamation points. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Darrenhusted. Sourcing was noted as an issue in a previous AfD, and this one certainly could do with better sourcing--from more, different sources, for starters--but that's a matter of editing. Box office bomb is a defined term in our 'pedia, so an article that would list them makes sense. I don't understand this stuff about At World's End--is that a hypothetical like example? Darrenhusted had some advice for the nominator, to which I would add that calling things "stupid" is not likely to sway many editors your way. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I was also confused by that example, as The Golden Compass is the highest budget on the list and if POTC:AWE made $309m off a budget of $300m then it would have made 103% of its budget, and couldn't be a flop. However if any film had a budget of $300m and made only $294m then it could be seen as a failure because the budgets leave out P&A, which is usually about 10% on top of the budget. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Argh! You're using our own article on Box office bomb as the source of the definition?! I looked at that article, and there's no source for the definition, so I've stuck "citation needed" all over the lead. Fences&Windows 23:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Quote: "if any film makes less than 100% of its budget at the US box office then it usually will be seen as a failure, even if that figure is 99%." No. That is your merely your opinion, International markets play a massive role in grosses, and if you look at the gross distribution, most of the higher films get at least 40% of their money from overseas markets.

Read 'Fences and windows' comment below. He has a good strong argument explaing the reason this needs to be deleted. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Totally irredeemable. The decision of Wikipedia editors to define a box-office bomb as they do is based entirely on a single source, Box-Office Mojo, which isn't a reliable source. Another source used as an external link, the Boston Globe, defines box-office bombs by their international takings. The decision to only include US and Canadian films and define their success only by their US and Canadian box-office sales is horribly parochial, and the definition of a box-office bomb is very subjective. Is a film that is successful like the Golden Compass but which had a huge budget and made most of its money outside the US really a "bomb"? If a film with a stupidly big budget fails to make a profit but tops the box office list, is that a bomb or just a reason to fire the producers? Is a bomb defined by not breaking even, or is it defined by nobody wanting to see it? Zyzzyx Road is supposed to be the top bomb of all time, but it was deliberately only shown on one screen for six days. Fences&Windows 23:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per 'fences and windows'. if the definition of box office bomb given was multiply, reliably sourced, and if the article name was more precise (list of north american film releases with theatrical revenue less than production costs), maybe. but it appears that the definition of box office bomb may be irredeemable. I favor deleting lists with subjective inclusion criteria, and thought this may be one of those. the inclusion criteria, however, are precise (thank you for that), but the problem is greater than that. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete this list as written because it gives excessively undue weight to one marginal source's definition, which appears to be highly questionable. It would be possible to have a similar list where each film was cited to a reliable source calling it a box office bomb or financial failure or something similar. The external links section of this article would be a good place to start. *** Crotalus *** 15:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep There is a need for a sortable table of films where the total expenses exceeded the total revenue. However, I agree with CoinMan and Fencewindows that there are problems with the entries on the list, particularly in comparing the total expense against domestic revenue (U.S. and Canada) rather than total revenue. And I see no reason to include "foreign films", where we're comparing Euros spent "over there" to dollars earned "over here", since the point is that this purports to be about films made in North America. Finally, although I have no problem with defining a bomb, what's a "Canadian film"? Does that include something filmed in Vancouver or Toronto for mass marketing far beyond Canada, such as Superman II? Why do the U.S. and Canada need to be merged for a film list? Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment The U.S. and Canada are merged because the headline "domestic" box office receipts (in both Box Office Mojo and the daily papers) are the combined U.S.-Canadian total for the film. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Precisely. For decades, the Americans have included Canadian receipts in their "domestic" revenues, much to the annoyance of Canadians, who then have this predominantly-US box office ranking shoved back in our faces, as though it has some sort of relevance for us. Varlaam (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: It might seem like this article would would work but there is an insurmountable problem with it in that there is no commonly accepted definition of box office bomb. An attempt to create such a definition for the purposes of the article would constitute original research. The de facto standard currently being used, that domestic box office is less than 60% of production budget, is an arbitrary cutoff with no bases in a reliable source. Even accepting a definition that might seem reasonable is fought with difficulty. Finances in the film industry are enormously complex and are often not completely above board. In addition to production costs, marketing and and distribution costs account for a large percentage of the actual investment in a movie. In addition to domestic box office, foreign markets, DVD sales, merchandising etc. are significant revenue streams. The article only lists production cost and domestic box office and as Mandsford pointed out this seems arbitrary, but there is a good reason for it in that these numbers are often all that are available publicly; studios tend to hide the remaining numbers. So the actual profit or loss for a given movie is impossible to determine here. Given all this, the determination of whether a movie is a 'bomb' ultimately comes down to a matter of of opinion. This isn't necessarily fatal though, opinions can be obtained from notable sources or by reliable poling then they may used in an article (e.g. Films considered the greatest ever). In this case however, notable sources such was well known movie critics rarely go on the record to call a movie a bomb or equivalent term, and sites such as Box Office Mojo give financial data only, leaving the interpretation to user. There are many lists of worst movies that may be quoted, but there don't seem to be many lists of biggest bombs out there and what there is comes from dubious sources. (I think the reason for this is that reliable sources come up against the problems listed above.) In short, while the topic may be interesting or deserving of coverage, there is simply no objective way to make the determination for inclusion on the list that's implied by the article name. This may not seem very important but keep in mind that many movies are subject to POV based attacks (e.g. political documentaries), so inclusion of exclusion of a movie on this list could be politically motivated and lead to accusations of Wikipedia being politically biased. Given the actual criteria for inclusion and the fact that no further conclusions can be drawn, the name of the article should really be "List of movies whose domestic box office does not exceed 60% of its estimated production budget". This exactly describes the article but with this title it's obvious that it's an arbitrarily defined list that does not pass WP:IINFO. There are few notable bombs, but these are already represented in Box office bomb. I know this comment is very long, but this article has already gone through two AfD's and I'm trying to anticipate the arguments that were given then. This is not a simple issue and I believe that the reason the AfD's did not result in deletion before is that the people participating in those debates did not fully understand or appreciate the problems inherent in this article. I've have been an active editor of this page recently, but only to bring it to the standard of not being an embarrassment to Wikipedia by removing blatant OR and unwarranted conclusions.--RDBury (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Fences&Windows and RDBury. Sourcing and scope are both deal-breakers, and while sourcing could conceivably be improved, the inappropriate scope is insurmountable. Horologium (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite and move to List of worldwide box office bombs and only do films that failed to outgross their budget worldwide. Matty-chan (talk)
  • Weak keep Box office bombs are certainly notable enough even in the context of US/Canada takings alone. However I would take out all the rows of non-yellow or red coloured movies to increase the relevance. 203.31.52.137 (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, precedent of significant discussion of lists of box office bombs in independent reliable secondary sources, including books [10], news, [11] [12], scholarly sources [13]. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
There are some problems with your cites. Most of them don't have lists, since you only searched for "box office bombs". Secondly, the criteria are not consistent; most of the Google News archive searches discuss how movies which don't do well in theaters do very well in the home video market, which begs the question of whether or not they are bombs. There is also the age issue to consider; some of those references date back to the 1980s or earlier, which limits their usefulness in a list more than 20 years after the fact. Also, three of the five citations in Google News discuss Asian movies in Asia, which are explicitly excluded from the criteria for this list; the two remaining ones use the term without discussing it, although one of them actually links to the Wikipedia article box office bomb as a reference. Some widely known bombs such as Fantasia, Tora, Tora, Tora, Bringing Up Baby, and Leonard Part 6 are missing from the list, which indicates that it is incomplete, and there are other issues with the criteria for the list that cannot be solved simply by adding more references. (See the talk page for the on-again, off-again history of Waterworld on this list; it did exceptionally well outside the U.S. and Canada. The scope of the article is probably inappropriate for a global project.) There's nothing word with an article on the concept, but this list is a different animal altogether. Horologium (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Horologium above. The problem is any definition precise enough to support a well sourced list is not widely used. Thus either the criteria for inclusion or the list members must be original research. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:32, 23 September 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 Deleted w/ a pinch 'o salt (with no prejudice to unsalting in a few years if they do meet WP:N) per G7. Skier Dude (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Broadway (band)

Broadway (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Broadway (band)" – news · books · scholar · images)
Kingdoms (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This band and its album were speedy-deleted a few days ago, having been input as part of a promotional campaign by their "artist management label", see WP:COIN#User:Mcarter13, Artery Foundation and their clients, but here they are back again, and as the author is arguing against speedy deletion on the talk page I bring them here. The band have released this one album, which "never charted on the Billboard 200, or any of Billboard's charts, but is popular among reviewers". They are currently on tour as a supporting act. This does not meet the notability standard of WP:MUSICBIO. JohnCD (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete both Fails to demonstrate notability per WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt both – This seems a pretty clear-cut case. Rees11 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 18:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 18:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - The label is continuing to use Wikipedia to promote the band in order to make it notable, which is backward. The band shouldn't be on Wikipedia until it is already notable. -- Atama頭 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete both and salt: per nom. Joe Chill (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Can't believe I'm saying this (as the author), but after noticing everything I did wrong with creating this article so soon before they got notable, I have to go with delete both. I really think this should be deleted after noticing all of the faults. I apologize, for I didn't notice the amount of previous deletions from both articles. I'll be sure to check more thoroughly next time, especially for lack of notability.Krazycev13 (talk) 01:39, 17 September 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 13:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tina Wu

Tina Wu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Tina Wu" – news · books · scholar · images)

This person does not seem to be notable. The most notable thing is that she was a reality TV contestant but I don't think we need an article on every single one of these and looking at the show's article shows that only one other person has an article. The page was likely created as a WP:AUTO and seems rather like a vanity article. See also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Youtea_and_related_articles Smartse (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Article clearly fails to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete – not notable as far as I can tell. Rees11 (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Agree with the above comments. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 17:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Agree with the above, and I'd also like to note that the assertions of notability in the article are weak. Reality show contestant, mentioned among 200 people in a Time Magazine article (which is unverified so far), co-founder of 2 non-notable organizations (one charity, one for-profit), and membership in a student medical association. -- Atama頭 05:02, 17 September 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 13:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

La Frontera (Shakira Album)

La Frontera (Shakira Album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "La Frontera (Shakira Album)" – news · books · scholar · images)

No sources support this as an album release. "La Frontera" is the name of a Shakira song that has already been released, so Google searching is a bit tricky. However, it seems highly unlikely that a new album would come out next year named after a song released last year. WP:CRYSTAL at best, hoax at worst. —Kww(talk) 16:51, 16 September 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 13:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Crazy Blind Date

Crazy Blind Date (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another unremarkable on-line dating site. Not exactly a new idea or a ground-breaking service. I feel it fails all Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 16:05, 16 September 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. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Academic probation

Academic probation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Academic probation" – news · books · scholar · images)

Unreferenced for nearly three years, fails WP:V. Another user removed the PROD without making any attempt to improve the article. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • It's clearly sourceable and a key college term Keep Secret account 16:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: Not sure that it needs a reference, one of those 'common knowlege' type subjects. Would be nice to have a statement like "For example, the University of [X] places a student on academic probation when their GPA falls below 2.0." and then cite the University's web page. There would be a stronger case for Keep if there were more material, as it is it could might just as well be moved to Wiktionary. There seem to be several links to this page and probably may more that could link to it, e.g. Wilson Homer Elkins.--RDBury (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve - Vartanza (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The subject is clearly verifiable, however, the article in its current state does not meet WP:V. Location (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason for deleting Rirunmot (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 16:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment. Twinkle only completed part II of the nomination process. I have completed it. ascidian | talk-to-me 16:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just Googled the term and found lots of references that could back up the information here. Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - a term used by every college and university for which I was a student or employee. This can be sourced easily. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, the subject is more than a dictionary definition. As this book source shows, the topic is the subject of scholarly analysis. For example, what is the fate of students put on probation? Do differing policies help or harm the student? Are transfer students more screwed than native students when put on probation? This could be a FA-class article. Abductive (reasoning) 11:32, 18 September 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. It seems to me that those who argue that this article fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:109PAPERS have a better argument in this case, though DGG does have a valid point in saying "Which events then are appropriate for separate articles? I think we need to return to the basic principle that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a collection of fragments, and therefore we shouldn't write in a fragmentary manner. Therefore, we should be relatively limited here, including only those that are known very widely as separate events." Overall, I felt that these arguments were stronger than the keep arguments, which were mainly that the article met the general notability guideline, and that was enough for inclusion. NW (Talk) 20:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush pretzel incident

George W. Bush pretzel incident (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "George W. Bush pretzel incident" – news · books · scholar · images)

A clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Excessive coverage of a trivial, but embarrassing, incident that happened to a living person is in violation of the spirit of WP:BLP. Yes, it was reported in newspapers at the time, but there is no evidence of any long-term notability. If this article continues to remain, it opens the door for a million different "incident" articles that blow aspects of someone's life way out of proportion. *** Crotalus *** 16:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. Make it a blurb under Bush. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not really an event notable enough to have an article of its own. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge with the article on dubya. Notable incident, but doesn't deserve its own article as much as say, the Jimmy Carter Rabbit incident, or whatever thats called. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nobody could argue that this has "historical notability" (see WP:NOT#NEWS) - it's trivia, not even worth a mention in the main article. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Many people, myself included, believe that this incident was a stroke, and that the excuse of choking on a pretzel was a cover-up. Does this count as a conspiracy cover-up? Does this count as very serious medical issue that folks really don't want to deal with? photographs and description of his portable defibrilator he wore, some questions from dailyKOS, similar questions. After watching his performance during the debates with Ann Richards for governor of TX, his performance was darn good. But his later debates and speechs show a steady decline in cognitive ability and speech. Tangurena (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • What you just posted here is original research. Your beliefs about the pretzel incident or about Bush in general are not relevant here, and political blogs are not reliable sources. For what it's worth, I voted the straight Democratic ticket in every election from 2004 onward. *** Crotalus *** 19:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge Clearly notable, the 7 good references already in the article demonstrate that, in addition to the many hits it gets in google. Coverage in reliable secondary sources is how we judge notability, and this recieved a lot of coverage.--Patton123 (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons above. — Mike :  tlk  18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per non-notable, not-news, and it's trivia. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. No hope for this; this is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Google news archive shows continuing coverage of this incident of loss of consciousness by a U.S president in the White House, with 4,400 news hits. The coverage did not stop right up to the present, and it was considered an important incident in his presidency, even by writers in the international press in 2009, also [14], [15] and [16]m randomly selected from many. Edison (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This "news" is so old that I don't remember it. Yoninah (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
To the deleters: Why shouldn't we have an article on this? We have plenty of sources to make a well referenced article.--Patton123 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Think about the mountain of material that has been and will be written about George W. Bush. This event will occupy a very small fraction of that mountain. To have a separate article about it seems to violate WP:UNDUE (I wouldn't mind a few lines in the main article).  JUJUTACULAR  00:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards "delete" on this one myself, but this is a misinterpretation of WP:UNDUE, which discusses the amount of weight an ancillary topic should be given in a main article, not the appropriateness of having articles devoted solely to ancillary topics: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views". cab (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment - as to "Why shouldn't we have an article on this?", see WP:NOHARM. In reply to the claims of lots of news hits, there is a guideline or essay somewhere, but I can't find it, which explains that a trivial matter can catch the attention of the press but the mere number of press-cuttings does not necessarily make it notable, and I think that applies here. JohnCD (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Well yeah, I agree with what you're saying (re: WP:NOHARM and WP:NOTNEWS), but I just don't see how WP:UNDUE comes into the picture --- WP:UNDUE can be an argument against a merge, but it's not really an argument for either keeping or deleting an article. cab (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Please read your own link. That says it's a bad argument if it isn't sourced. This is perfectly cited with a multitude of reliable secondary sources. Also what wikipedia is not basically says don't make ana article about someone for winning the village lottery, this is a famous event.--Patton123 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
"Famous" is not the same as "historically notable". JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The fact that is mentioned in so many newspapers makes it notable. There is no policy that contrdicts that.--Patton123 (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:109PAPERS. JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete No encyclopaedic value. If we have an article on every time some famous chocks on a pretzel or stumbles, it will be of too much space and little values New seeker (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Even at the time that it happened, this was "presidential trivia", in the same category as Gerald Ford falling down a set of stairs, or Jimmy Carter having hemorrhoids, or Bill Clinton's extended guffawing at a press conference with Boris Yeltsin. Worth a mention somewhere, but not its own article. Mandsford (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If it's worth a mention somewhere why are you saying it delete it and not merge it?--Patton123 (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll support merging it to wherever you want to merge it. Mandsford (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge as argued by Patton123. Autarch (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The 'keep' side may say, it is embarrassing, therefore it is notable, and the delete side may say, it is embarrassing, therefore it is trivial. These are both mistakes. The nature of the incident does not affect its notability in these ways. The extensive coverage of a US president, does. 'Pretzels See Also section includes, correctly, imo, Jimmy Carter rabbit incident and George H.W. Bush vomiting incident. I will add also Shoe throwing incident
Undue weight is the Living Persons Protectors' last line of defense; I have seen it many times, and I have come to despise it and those who use it. It has absolutely nothing to do the inclusion within WP of articles about minor events in the lives of living persons. Read it, and you will see; it is concerned with the viewpoints of minorities within articles on larger subjects. "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Is anyone here of the opinion that George W. Bush did not say he choked on a pretzel? Well, then. Anarchangel (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Slightly embarrassing, but not a trivial event. The event is also frequently a touchstone for humor and other references in popular culture, which shows its enduring notability. E.g., a joke in a liberal column in SMU student paper this week about the Bush library ("Pretzels and cocaine will be flowing freely in the visitor center for all to enjoy.")[17], a conservative blog today bemoaning the lack of MSM coverage of ACORN [18]. --Milowent (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Minor trival event that does not even warrant a mention in the main article on President Bush. Mathieas (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it should be at least linked then! (It is mentioned in Choking). The shoe incident isn't in there either. .--Milowent (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but "I've never heard of it" is not a reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a good thing I included a comment, and then some reasoning ... because just because it happened to someone famous isn't a good reason to keep it. By this reasoning, virtually anything that happens to an American president would qualify for a separate article ... Ronald Reagan stops at a McDonalds incident, Michael Dukakis riding in a tank incident, Howard Dean yelling YEEAAH! incident, Gerald Ford tripping down the stairs of Air Force One incidents, Ronald Reagan threatens to nuke the USSR on radio incident ... the list goes on ... these incidents all got temporary coverage in major media ... some of these events may have actually had electoral impact .. and in a few cases live on in the collective unconsciousness of the 40 and over crowd. They still are footnotes to history, not the stuff of entire encyclopedia articles. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - the presence of sources allow the creation of a page but don't mean that we have to have one. In this case, we have a trivial incident with no significant consequences. Mention of the incident can be added to the main article if the editors there consider that this is merited. TerriersFan (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Using my argument from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George H.W. Bush vomiting incident, our actual rules are not of much assistance. As Terriers Fan says, a separate article is certainly justified according the the GNG rules; but, as the WP:N rules say, a separate article is not required for everything justified there.. Not News doesn't apply--very little a president does in public or private will actually qualify for not news, as it will all find its way into history books and biographies, and it all will thus have historical notability. We could technically justify in this manner at least one article for essentially every working day for the executive of each major country. Which events then are appropriate for separate articles? I think we need to return to the basic principle that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a collection of fragments, and therefore we shouldn't write in a fragmentary manner. Therefore, we should be relatively limited here, including only those that are known very widely as separate events. I do not think this event has been shown to be such, --certainly not on an international basis, in contrast with the George H.W. Bush vomiting incident which has much more widespread coverage, & much more actual importance on world opinion. I'm not sure about the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident, whjch would be justified if at all by its role in the re-election campaign. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The way I see it, this is notable due to the fact that it may be interpreted as a particularly bad cover-up story. Not necessarily spawned out of any major necessity, but nonetheless interesting. --Martinor (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep First for formal reasons, there have been 2 nomination and the reason for another nomination is unclear. Second the incident was widely reported in foreign media, including Germany. [19] 83.254.210.47 (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Utterly trivial. Arguments that it is notable because it might be a bad coverup seem to misunderstand the WP meaning of notability. Phiwum (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete; I believe this is exactly the kind of article WP:NOTNEWS perfectly encapsulates. Yes there are plenty of sources, but that's not the only consideration here. Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Very notable incident that was covered very substantially in reliable independent sources and remains significant and relevant in popular culture where it is has been discussed and satirized or years. There is no possible way the encyclopedia is improve by deleting it. A merge, maybe. But why? Need I remind everyone that every Olympic athlete and professional athlete is considered inherently notable? This is so far and away more important, interesting and informative than those articles that it's not even in the same galaxy for comparison. Not every article has to be on an "important" and "serious" subject. They just have to be on notable subjects which this clearly is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - With due respect, that does not follow. U.S. Presidents, like Olympic athletes are inherently notable and worthy of an article. Should the individual accomplishments of Olympic athletes be worthy of an article? .... that is, should there be Usain Bolt wins the Olympic 100 meters, Sergei Bubka pole vaults 20 feet, Jesse Owens wins 4 Olympic gold medals? The people are certainly notable ... no question ... but not every event of their lives, no matter the coverage is notable .... because each of those athletic events would certainly meet the needed coverage for an article .... but we don't write them because while the person is notable, they are smaller in the context of the entire career. I would easily argue that Jesse Owens' four gold medals in 1936 has much greater coverage and historic resonance than Mr. Bush's illness .... yet it is only part of the articles on Mr. Owens and the 1936 Summer Olympics. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Those bits don't need articles because they are already covered and exactly what the articles coverign those subjects are about. But certainly it would be wacko to delete content related to Jesse Owens winning 4 Olympic medals. If it were covered in a stand-alonse article (instead of the biography) we would definitely need to keep it. And it is just as silly to delete this very notable incident since it's not covered elsewhere. If you find a good merge target that's worth discussing, but deleting notable feats and events damages the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep if it had happened to a celebrity and made headlines, it would fail WP:NOTNEWS. As it happened to the US President, it transcends into history Vartanza (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per DGG. I'm impressed with David's reasoning in this and the parallel AfD on the Bush 41 barfing incident. Although they might seem on the surface to be similar kinds of incidents, throwing up on the Japanese Prime Minister in 1992 created an international and widely reported diplomatic incident and therefore should be kept (and I voted to keep there). But this pretzel incident was in private, did not have any serious repercussions and is therefore basically a footnote for Bush 43. Even if they both had the same news coverage, this one isn't sufficiently notable to have a separate article. Adding a mention to the main article on dubya would be sufficient, IMO. Note that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution apparently referred to it as "... a mere hiccup." If sufficient credible and reliable sources arise that make this significantly more notable and verifiable (ie - a stroke, TIA, or something else) than it seems now, then write a new article. But for now, delete per the thrust of the various delete arguments. We don't do WP:OR. — Becksguy (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is so beneath the definition of notable or news that it's absurd. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not amassing a journal of every temporal time slice that's ever been documented. There is still the wider web for that. The only reason this could possibly be notable is if a significant line of notable thought emerges that this was a coverup for something else, which is credible given what seem to be unanswered questions, but so far as I know pure speculation. (In that event, we would re-create an article with the new information, not keep this one until some imagined conspiracy theory congeals.) Choking on one's food while watching a game is simply not notable enough to deserve its own encyclopedia article, no matter who does it and no matter how many snarky hacks decide to recall the incident as if it were meaningful. The DeeDee Meyers quote is hilarious but "it's funny" isn't reason for an article. It does give some perspective though. Would this be an article if it were Prince Charles pretzel incident? How about Britney Spears pretzel incident? Achmadinejad pretzel incident? What about George Washington pretzel incident? Do I understand the justification to be that he is the president and it happened to him and people wrote about it and so it deserves an article? Nnnno. One of the most offensive arguments at Wikipedia is "If I can find something that just might squeak by as WP:RS—I get to make an article!" which is akin to "It's a meme! Jay Leno just quipped about it! Put it in an article!" This is topped only by the martyr-ish "I read it in a blog, sourced to an Op/Ed, so I'm adding it to/making an article even though I know it'll get deleted/AfDed, because now it's forever linked to the subject at Wikipedia through the article history/talk page archive". Increasingly for the last twenty or thirty years, people write about everything the president does, not because it's informing the public about what they need to know to carry out their own civic responsibilities in a democracy but because they have to fill time or come up with a scoop or just want to poke until they can deflate somebody; most of this does not deserve its own encyclopedia article. As to the other incidents to which it is compared, it seems the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident happened during a private moment, similar to the pretzel incident but without the bodily trauma or conspiracy theory, and would be notable only insofar as it would illustrate how the press distorts a story to fit their own larger storyline [Strong Delete or expansion for context]; the George H.W. Bush vomiting incident is somewhat similar although perhaps more notable because it happened in an international forum (again, people vomit when they have a virus; they generally don't vomit at the dinner table or on heads of state, but then, most other people are free to decline a dinner invitation when they're ill) [Weak Delete]; and the Shoe-throwing incident is notable as Bush was in that room to deliver a speech to the press and the thrower was a member of the press who went to jail for the incident—which was intended and not merely inferred to be representative, Bush brought a war and poorly-run military occupation upon the country and expected them to throw flowers, but instead they threw shoes [Strong Keep]. This has nothing to do with whether it's embarrassing, and I am not being partisan here. I have seen people want to delete mentions of legislation passed by a president. There are guidelines on limiting the chartings included in a musical artist discography. We need to maintain certain thresholds for what an encyclopedia shines a spotlight on by giving something its own article, and whether there are two reliable sources or two hundred, this article is neither encyclopedically notable nor useful. Abrazame (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
As to the George Washington pretzel incident, it is a matter of unverifiable and unreliable record that he splintered his dentures while trying to eat a pretzel in 1793. Mandsford (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Ugh. Delete. I compare this (or I guess, contrast it) to George H.W. Bush vomiting incident (which I see is at AfD), an eminently notable incident with enough coverage to demand that it be spun out from the main article and enough breadth of coverage to do so without endangering our POV on the subject. Not so this particular incident. Protonk (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Undoubtedly trivia. Of course noteworthy people such as presidents are going to get coverage on many incidents, but it's not the job of an encyclopedia to document every possible incident that's been covered by the media. Textbook example of WP:NOT#NEWS. Spellcast (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per DGG - not every presidential incident or footnote is worthy of a separate article, but the long-term effects are a good standard. Compare that to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George H.W. Bush vomiting incident, for which I have argued is notable. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE. Topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Also, it is an interesting and noteworthy example and should be expanded to include an analysis and commentary from secondary sources on the White House Medical Unit in action responding to a notable medical patient. Cirt (talk) 14:00, 23 September 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 - however, following a request, I have no problem with a re-nomination here, as I was very close to deleting this for lack of reliable sources.Black Kite 21:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullshido.net

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination)
Bullshido.net (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Bullshido.net" – news · books · scholar · images)

Should be deleted per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:V. The only evidence of mainstream attention for this website is a handful of news articles which cites Samuel Browning's work in debunking David "Race" Bannon. This incident is already mentioned in the Bannon article. My attempts to merge/redirect have been reverted. This article should be deleted and then a protected redirect to David "Race" Bannon created in its place.

The rest of the "citations" are crap, either primary sources to Bullshido itself, or references to other self-published, unreliable websites.

Note: If this discussion is overwhelmed by non-policy-compliant "votes" from Bullshido cultists, I will take it to Deletion Review. It's time to stop allowing policy to be outvoted by small, unrepresentative cliques. *** Crotalus *** 15:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment This discussion was started after an undiscussed redirect without merge here and here --Natet/c 08:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, with a side-note that the nominator may wish to tone down the unnecessarily-strong wording of the nomination. Let's at least start off by assuming good faith on behalf of the participants. But I agree Wikipedia doesn't need this content.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Bullshido is quite a notable organization within the martial arts community.Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep this is just another in a series of pointy nominations and other questionable behavior from the nom. bullshido is a big deal. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If it's such a big deal then how come there are no reliable secondary sources specifically focusing on it? The only reliable sources we have are a few newspaper articles highlighting Samuel Browning's role in debunking David Race Bannon. That rates a mention in the Bannon article — but why does it need its own article? *** Crotalus *** 14:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Reliable sources are present and several other supporting sources that are acceptable but no as good, additional sourcing would be an improvement, but AfD is not for articles that need to be improved. The redirect suggested is a poor choice as the article includes minimal if any information on the site. --Natet/c 08:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Natet/c 08:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Natet/c 08:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Could this possibly be merged with similar articles (Bullshido, McDojo, anything else?) to a new summary article? I'm thinking criticism of martial arts, although that title is a little misleading since it often isn't criticism of martial arts as a whole. Any better ideas? the wub "?!" 09:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I can see the benefit to merging Bullshido & McDojo under another title, I think merging Bullshido.net however would not be as useful, as while it investigates those areas and helped popularise the terms, it would imply they were the only people who did this kind of thing and tie the terms to the site too closely. --Natet/c 11:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, as far as I can tell, this kind of talk is pretty much limited to the Bullshido cult. No reliable sources seem to have deemed any of this worthy of discussion. *** Crotalus *** 15:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you refering to the article or the editors? --Natet/c 08:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • what is the bullshido cult? that sounds like a negative POV. is that why you are trying to get this deleted? because you think it's a cult and you dislike it? Theserialcomma (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep one of the most notable martial arts web sites, and has had a broader impact through fostering discussions on Ashida Kim, traditional martial arts training methods, etc. Once again, another nom. that feels like a WP:POINT violation. JJL (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete The nominator is correct when s/he said that the references in the article are not nontrivial, independent reliable sources that specifically discuss Bullshido.net. I have analyzed and listed the sources in the article as of this revision:
    1. This article from Rocky Mountain News mentions Bullshido.net in passing. The only time this website is referenced in this article is: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years. He dismisses Bannon's story as tortured fiction." This does gives no context about Bullshido.net, save that it is a website and a man named Browning has posted on it to debunk another man's story.
    2. http://realbullshido.blogspot.com/ – Blogspot is not a reliable source. It is a collection of blogs that can be written by anyone who signs up.
    3. http://www.themartialist.com/bullshidofaq.htm is written by Phil Elmore, a man who has been attacked by Bullshido; Elmore writes "The Bullshido.com FAQ incorrectly describes Pax Baculum (and, I suppose, The Martialist and me) as somehow other than "up front about the evidence that exists today."" This is not an neutral article about Bullshido.net. Having read through the article, I have concluded that it is a attack on Bullshido.net. Furthermore and most importantly though, it has not been given the editorial oversight and fact-checking that reliable sources (such as newspapers, magazines, and journals) are given.
    4. http://web.petabox.bibalex.org/web/20060504091905/http://www.ashidakim.com/shitlist.html is the same as the fourth source. It was written by someone who has been attacked by Bullshido.net. It is a personal website by an individual called Ashida Kim (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)) has also not been given the editorial oversight and fact-checking that reliable sources (such as newspapers, magazines, and journals) are given.
    5. The reference that states that Bullshido.net is the "[s]eventh in Alexia category on last view" points to http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category. This link does not lead to anything about Bullshido.net.
    6. This article from Rocky Mountain News does not even mention Bullshido.net.
    7. This article from Interpol.com is the same as #6. It does not even mention Bullshido.net.
    8. http://ashidakim.com/10k.html is from the same source as #4. Not only is it an unreliable source, but it also doesn't even mention Bullshido.net.
    9. This article from The Believer (magazine) does not even mention Bullshido.net.
    10. http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=28Ashida – a link from Bullshido.net cannnot be a neutral, independent reliable source about itself.
    11. http://www.bullshido.org/Ashida_Kim – this is the same as #8.
    12. http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=160 – this is the same as #8.
    13. http://dojopress.com/catalogms2.html – This unreliable source is a catalogue for selling memberships. Even if it were reliable, it would not be a sufficient source because it doesn't mention Bullshido.net.

    I have done much research about this website and have been unable to find any sufficient reliable sources about it. My searches included trawling through several pages of Google results, Google News Archive, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Yahoo!. If this site were truly notable as the above "keep" voters suggest, there should be sufficient sources about it. However, I have been unable to find any.

    I am opposed to the merge suggested above by the wub (talk · contribs). There are absolutely no reliable sources that discuss Bullshido.net. Even the passing mentions from reliable sources (see #1) do not provide enough context to justify a stub.

    I am also opposed to a redirect to David "Race" Bannon. A member of Bullshido.net may have posted information about Bannon, but that does not guarantee that the website should be mentioned in Bannon's article. Having searched through results (using the search term "Banno bullshido.net"), I have been unable to locate any reliable sources that indicate that Bullshido.net played major role in debunking Bannon's claims. The best source about Bullshido.net and Banno that I could find was this article from Rocky Mountain News. The article states: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years." This passing mention that provides little context does not justify a redirect or a merge.

    The above "keep" votes state that "Bullshido is quite a notable organization within the martial arts community" and "one of the most notable martial arts web sites", but I have been unable to uncover anything to substantiate their claims. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Samuel Browning is an admin of BS.net & put the information up there, the investigation supported and discussed in the supporting members forum. --Natet/c 08:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This may be true, but I have been unable to uncover any reliable sources to substantiate the claim that Bullshido.net played a major role in the investigation of David "Race" Bannon. In fact, there are very few sources that discuss Samuel Browning and Bullshido.net in connection with David "Race" Bannon. Even if there were a valid source, Bullshido.net should not be merged or redirected to David "Race" Bannon. The article about Banning should be about himself; it should not discuss a website that is only tangential to his life. Thus, I believe that this article should be deleted because there are absolutely no reliable sources that provide nontrivial discussion about it. Cunard (talk) 20:47, 21 September 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 13:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Austin Meyer

Austin Meyer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Austin Meyer" – news · books · scholar · images)

Notability. Stumbled here from torrentfreak on a recent news story.. This guy appears to have only ever done one thing. Resonanttoe (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete a google search for "Austin Meyer" -"X-plane" finds no independent coverage about him (although there are lots of other Austin Meyers), showing a lack of independent notability. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Judo112 (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability is questionable. Not much info about him related to what he developed. We know more about his personal life than his accomplishment... Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 17:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 16 September 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 Batgirl. No sure how it should be organized, but feel free to transfer necessary content at Batgirl. I will leave the sub-article with the merge tag on top and whether the merging is complet change the sub-article to a redirect JForget 13:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Batgirl (comic book)

Batgirl (comic book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Batgirl (comic book)" – news · books · scholar · images)

No reason for separate sub-article. Already sufficiently covered in the (excellent) article: Batgirl. New page adds nothing - not sourced - not categorized. Just no reason for it to stay. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree in the Batgirl article it only shows info on Cassandra Cain and practicaly has three sentances talking about Stephanie Brown. So how does it cover this new paragraph? --Schmeater (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Apologies if I overstated it, but I think (in my view, anyhow) it follows from that the the information in the AfD article can easily be included within the primary article rather than its own sub-article. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Batgirl. I have raised concerns at Talk: Batgirl (comic book)#Needed? and more generally here, the emerging feel is that this seems unwise. I think the best bet is to collapse it back into the relevant section. Work on it there and if it seems to demonstrate independent notability then feel free to split it out. Bear in mind that this is the third Batgirl series and you can't just have an article on the most recent so you'll need to assemble resources for all three. Feel free to work on this on your sandbox if you want. (Emperor (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC))
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to batgirl Seems like a harmless article created by an editor who didn't know that we had a main article. Protonk (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like all the info in here added to the Batgirl article under Stephanie Brown if we are going to merge.--Schmeater (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I made this article because I wanted there to be an article about everything in the aftermath of Battle for the Cowl, so if you do delete this article and merge it into Batgirl I would wan't everything at the bottom of the article. I have nothing to say about this article staying. --Schmeater (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I have added information about the previous series and well I hope I've added enough.--Schmeater (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is a reason for the article to stay it is covered properly at the Batgirl article but that focus's too much on the person and not the comic. I wan't this article to focus on the series and not the person as much. --Schmeater (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Batgirl after a good sift. At least one section, "Oracle: The Cure", is not a comic book series titled "Batgirl" and is very out of place here. As for the rest... This almost feels like it wants to be an issue by issue plot summary dumping ground, some thing we don't need. As for porting all of this to Stephanie Brown (comics), I'd say "no". Almost all of it have zero to do with that character. - J Greb (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

* Merge: to Batgirl - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You have my attention Merge To Batgirl so get on with it delete the article! --Schmeater (talk) 22:12, 20 September 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 13:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Dinner with Schmucks

Dinner with Schmucks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Dinner with Schmucks" – news · books · scholar · images)

Contested prod. Movie in pre-production, no cast set in concrete yet. Principal photography has not yet begun, obviously, so now is not the right time for creating this article. Delete without prejudice.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep It'll just have to be created again. Airplaneman talk 19:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Per WP:NFF, we cannot keep an article for that reason alone. The rationale here is that we can't be sure the movie will ever get past the pre-production stage, as there are many seemingly major projects that don't. Such failures rarely become notable, and besides, we can't build an article on rumors as this one is. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 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 13:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Discryptor

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Discryptor Articles for deletion/Discryptor (2nd nomination)
Discryptor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Discryptor" – news · books · scholar · images)

Not notable software - article created purely to promote this commercial software product. Previously nominated via afd and deleted as spam. Further, this article is also confusingly named, as it's practically identical to DiskCryptor - a legitimate article with information on an open source program. Cupids wings (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. I cannot find any notability, and it is unlikely that it has become notable since its last deletion. While there are plenty of Google hits, they are all for generic download sites. Haakon (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete -not notable. The article has whole sections on different cyphers, which would be best moved (if they actually had any useful content not already present) to the relevant block cypher page - which would have the effect of reducing the Discryptor page to practically nothing. Nuwewsco (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Spam article with no actual content that couldn't be moved to a more appropriate place XFireRaidX (talk) 19:55, 16 September 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 13:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Electra Avellan

Electra Avellan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Electra Avellan" – news · books · scholar · images)
Elise Avellan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I'm mainly nominating as per WP:NOTINHERITED. most coverage relates to the fact she is the niece of Robert Rodriguez [20]. I doubt she would have received this third party coverage if she wasn't a niece. so ignoring the fact that she is a niece of someone famous she fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Also nominating twin sister Elise Avellan. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete both one role makes her a WP:CRYSTAL. Furthermore, her bio on es.wiki has recently been deleted Ohconfucius (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Both - Numerous 3rd party – independent – verifiable – creditable sources, as shown here [21], for the young ladies, independent of their Uncle. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 13:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron.
  • Delete both - a single nameless role does not satisfy WP:ENT. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 03:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Both with option to recreate once greater notability is established. Featured extra work on a single studio film doesn't qualify. Couldn't find much information on future roles to verify size or importance. Whitespider23 (talk) 04:52, 23 September 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 and salt. This article borders on being eligible for both A7 and G11, as the band makes no credible case for notability or significance, and couples it with some blatant promotion. ~ mazca talk 19:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Friday band

Friday band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Friday band" – news · books · scholar · images)

User:Rossa mam keeps recreating this page (already been deleted 3 times under A7 Friday(Indie_Band_From_Indonesia) . He's now gone and created a different name for the page. I submit this Afd due to RECREATE AlanI (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - possibly even speedy. Doesn't make any case for notability, and has been recreated at least four times (I saw it created under another name as well). --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete this band is not notable, and has been speedy deleted in the past for the same reason. SALT possibly as well, due to constant recreation. Singularity42 (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 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. lifebaka++ 01:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Rihanna songs

List of Rihanna songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "List of Rihanna songs" – news · books · scholar · images)

This list is redundant with the discography article and offers no sources. Any information not covered in the discography already, can probably be merged there easily. Nergaal (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Only IPs have edited this page so I have no idea whom to notify. Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete It is made redundant by the discography and has no sources. Given that so many bands are more significant than Rihanna, the idea of endless articles listing their songs is the logical out come of keeping this.--Sabrebd (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

  • While you may be correct about the logical outcome, I fail to see why articles listing the songs of notable artists would be a problem. Rlendog (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is not redundant with the discography, since this lists all songs and the discography only lists a few songs. This may be redundant with a category of Rihanna songs, but even if it is the case it would not make this list unnecessary, since lists and categories serve different purposes per WP:CLN and WP:LIST. And, per WP:LSC, even the fact that most of the songs on the list are not notable enough for their own articles would not make this list inappropriate, since that is the purpose of the list. Rlendog (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete We already have Rihanna discography and Category:Rihanna songs, so this list is redundant and pointless. Yilloslime TC 19:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • How is this list redundant with Rihanna discography when most songs are not included in the discography and don't belong in the discography? And why do you suggest Category:Rihanna songs makes this list redundant and pointless, when there is a guideline WP:CLN that says otherwise? Rlendog (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep This article serves a purpose, no other article serves that purpose, and it serves Wikipedia well to have it here. Just leave it be or improve it. There is no purpose to delete it. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 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) 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Metalhead

Metalhead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Metalhead" – news · books · scholar · images)

This article lacks accurate factual information, contains original research, lacks neautrality, contains statements that might be interpreted as personal opinions and encourages highly generalised and unverified stereotypes, some of them negative. For these reasons, I have marked it for deletion. Ngk44 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The term metalhead is a verifiable term used in modern English music conversation. Article is a {refimprove} article. Not an AfD. Fair Deal (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. The article may be bad and in sore need of a rewrite, but the topic of Metalhead is blatantly notable. Yilloslime TC 21:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The article certainly needs work (cleanup, refs), but doesn't need deletion. Random name (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Adding to my vote - I like the idea of renaming the page to "Heavy Metal subculture" with metalhead as a redirect. Random name (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reluctant, conditional and weak Keep. As is the article is crap. Badly written, badly sourced, very POV and feeding on selected sterotypes in particular countries. Even the article name is a nonsense, I've been a metal fan for years and have never heard anyone described as a 'Metalhead'. However, I think a single page on the Heavy Metal subculture is notable and has value, but it should be called somthing encyclopedic with a mention that 'Metalhead' is a collquialism used in certain places. It would then need masses of cleanup. On the basis that deletion is not cleanup, I vote a very weak keep, but I strongly doubt anyone will actually do the work in which case I'm very tempted to say lose it.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It's interesting - people keep saying that this page is poorly cited PoV. While there is definitely some PoV in it, it probably has more cites in it than I would have expected. It's possible that the cites need more context, particularly in terms of locales, but a good part of the stuff in this article is indeed cited. Random name (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
comment. The first six cites, which support the first two paragraphs, are all from the same book and I suspect are parroting that books POV. The parpagraph 'Authenticity' is well cited, but a rather peculiar tangent for such focus. the rest of the article is totally uncited. I particular like the sentance A list of metalhead interests lines up well with the song topics and lyrical content used by metal bands. The interests vary by subgenre, but in general they include horror films, Science fiction, occultism, swords and sorcery-oriented fantasy, European and US history, blood and gore imagery, swords, knives, and firearms, religion, tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption and last but not least death; the act of killing,emotions associated with, and sometimes even the glorification of it. Which is a ludicrously broad statement especialy when its totally uncited.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Lose. I Agree. The article should be named "Metal Subculture" with Metalhead listed as a slang term used to refer to members of the specific social group. That way, the article could be expanded to list and explain the many different types of metal culture (e.g. Goths, folk metal, mainstream metal...) rather than generalising fans of metal under one set stereotype as this article does. However, as I doubt anyone will actually bother to clean up this article, I vote lose it.
I'd be wary of overexpanding the scope of this article; heavy metal as a "subculture" can be said to have some defining characteristics (at least in the context of a given time period and location), but subgroups may be pushing it too far. Random name (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Wether you like it or not, the term exists. End. Iaberis (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment Lots of terms exist, that doesn't mean they are notable enough for a wikipedia article because wikipedia is not a dictionary. All this argument support is having a redirect. Besides, if the notabillity criteria is just about the term existing the article can be trimmed right down to a very brief description of the history and usage of the term, rather than the current sprawling mess that is addressing various random facts about the heavy metal scene, all under a label which is not really encyclopedic and only applies to certain parts of the world.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Interesting to note that the only one of the cites that appears to use the phrase 'Metalheads' is a book with that as the title. All the others seem to use phrases like 'Heavy Metal Fans', which is what I'd expect to be honest.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • From my personal knowledge, "metalhead" was certainly a current and widely-used term in the late 1980s/early 1990s in the United Kingdom. Google searches tell me it doesn't have much currency in the internet age, but that doesn't mean it isn't a plausible search term for someone of my generation. (Damn, I feel old.)

    I think what we have here is a plausible search term but a non-notable subject, so "metalhead" should be a redirect to somewhere. I'd recommend redirect to Heavy metal music until such time as we have a decent article on heavy metal subculture.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

comment my experience is more the 90's in the UK. Don't recall 'metalheads', but phrases like 'metaler' or 'rocker' were common, as was 'mosher' or 'headbanger'. I recall 'rivethead' as well. Of course you also had the 'thrashers', 'glammies', 'grebos', etc, which kinda underlines how daft it is to refer to such a wide genre as one particular colloquial phrase. It would be like putting all of goth sub culture under 'spookykid' :o) --ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
In the US we call them metalheads or, less frequently, headbangers.Yilloslime TC 20:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that's universal accross the whole US. My wife is American and used to work in music industry, including Gutiar Player magazine, and she doesn't consider this to be the main phrase used to describe heavy metal fans. I'm not saying it isn't used, but it quite clearly isn't the only, or even majority, term. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Article needs a clean, not a deletion. Metty 17:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Heavy metal music per S Marshall. The term isn't that notable, and most of the article is either unsourced or a summary of another, main article. It seems a bit redundant to me to identify this one verbal element of the heavy metal subculture and elevate it to article status; whatever is notable about the metalhead is there because a metalhead is part of the heavy metal culture. That the term exists is a good thing but doesn't warrant an article. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
A metalhead is a person, so it seems misguided and inappropriate to redirect on page about a type of person to an article on a type of music. Heavy metal music, metalheads, and heavy metal subculture are 3 different (albeit related) topics, so they're best treated in separate articles. Yes, metalhead could be written, and maybe it would better to rename the page "headbanger" or "heavy metal enthusiast" or something like that, but redirecting to heavy metal music seems like an easy step in the wrong direction. Yilloslime TC 20:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
A metalhead is a fan of heavy metal music. I'm sure you are not calling me misguided, and I don't see what's inappropriate about proposing a merge from the fan-article to the larger article on the subject of which they are a fan--and "metalhead" simply has very little status as a subject in serious publications. The term is mentioned plenty, but where are the reliable sources that actually discuss the entity without constant reference to the heavy metal scene/music? It's easy to imagine hooligans (easily independently notable) not watching the game because they are too busy, but a metalhead who goes to the show and doesn't care about listening to the band? Drmies (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit I hadn't noticed the subculture section in Heavy Metal. So long as the article isn't too long for merging, I'd say a merge probably makes sense. Random name (talk) 09:45, 18 September 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. NW (Talk) 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Live in Japan

Michael Jackson Live in Japan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Michael Jackson Live in Japan" – news · books · scholar · images)

No Source Mclarenaustralia (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Unofficial DVD of poor quality. Frankyboy5 (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep I saw it a few days ago in some stores. I don't know if the quality of that is not enought for being a DVD Aguilac (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete: While this appears to be a legal release (music royalties probably cleared since it's in the mass market), it is made of poor quality amateur video footage. Coupled with the fact that it's by no means official discography, let alone not being officially licensed Jackson merchandise of any other sort, it does not pass notability. Imperatore (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep. The quality may or may not be poor (and actually, it's not "amateur", but taken from a TV broadcast), but either way it doesn't matter. Being official, or "licensed merchandise" is irrelevant. It's available. It is also very notable- along with Nirvana live at Reading, it is one of the most famous bootlegs of recent years. See also Bootleg recording#Commercially_released_bootlegs or The Beatles bootleg recordings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.157 (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tentative Keep - It can't be a bootleg, since it is being sold on numerous legitimate sites, including Amazon.[22] As a non-bootleg DVD release by an extremely notable artist, I have to believe that this is notable (basically applying the WP:NALBUMS criteria). And it gets numerous Google hits, albeit many (though not all) are commercial sites (but that gets to the first point). While the quality may be poor, that in itself does not mean that the DVD is non-notbale. I can be convinced that this is not notable, but none of the delete !votes so far do so. Rlendog (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I believe as a article, it should be deleted (seeing as how there isn't much information abut it anyway). As a non-label, non-artist sanctioned bootleg release, it should be deleted. (There are hundreds of bootleg MJ tour DVDs out there, but it's unknown why this one has receeved so much attention). However, IMO, I would AT LEAST give it a mention on the Bad World Tour page. MaJic (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  • The statement "it's unknown why this one has receeved so much attention" seems to acknowledge that this particular DVD (I suspect that it isn't a bootleg for the reasons above) has received a particularly large amount of attention, which would seem to argue in favor of its notability. Even if it is a bootleg, per WP:NALBUMS, bootlegs are not automatically non-notable and thus deletable. Rlendog (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "unknown why this one has receeved so much attention"?? The attention is because it's taken from a Jackson-authorized TV broadcast, and as such, some versions are of exceptionally good picture quality, thus setting it apart from other bootlegs. The amount of interest has lead to many versions of the concert surfacing: Highline, Crane Crew, Hudson Street, an Italian company, a British company, a Dutch company, a Chinese company, several fan-remastered versions... It's also notable because it was a good performance, and from a historic and record-breaking tour. I find it hard to find examples of other bootlegs that are as worthy of keeping.
    • Just to reiterate some ideas, this would probably classify as a grey market release- not quite a bootleg. The music may or not by cleared with the music publishers, but either way it is by no means licensed merchandise, and is therefore surely not fully legal. Furthermore, the argument that because something appears on Amazon it cannot be at bootleg is ridiculous. Imperatore (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
      • That's as maybe, but if anything, the fact that it's a bootleg that's actually on Amazon could arguably point towards notability. In addition, this proves that although it's been a standard and essential purchase for any Jackson fan in the last 5-10 years, this recording has now moved beyond that, to a status where it's now viable financially for bootleggers to mass-produce it and sell to the general public.
        • I agree with above rebuttal. Imperatore (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, no encyclopaedic value New seeker (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Why is it not notable? Rlendog (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Erroneously nominated; sourced as notable per Rlendog. Irrelevant and even self-contradicting (MaJic, as pointed out by Rlendog) assertions for deletion (in Newseeker's case, a WP:VAGUEWAVE). Please note Imperatore's comment against argument for deletion, given away from the usual place at the margin. Anarchangel (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not meet the wikipedia definition of notability in that no sources available meet WP:RS criteria. No reliable source is cited in the article - only fansites, web-retailers, and youtube. I own a copy of this disc and I must say it is most certainly a bootleg - it is copied from a VHS recording of a TV broadcast from the late 80s - many versions of the disc include some of the original Japanese commericals between songs, and most all versions have a Japanese Pepsi commerical before the song "Bad". WP:NALBUMS states that bootlegs are "in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources" - seeing as how the subject is both a bootleg and not adequately covered by reliable sources I think deletion is the clear answer. Solid State Survivor (talk) 05:21, 18 September 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 13:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Phillip Heggarty

Phillip Heggarty (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Phillip Heggarty" – news · books · scholar · images)

See WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 10:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 18:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 18:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The murder has been referred to as one of the most "notorious" crimes in Cardiff and the south of Wales[23][24] and the perp was one of a relatively small number to receive a whole life tariff, however, the nom is correct in this case in that there has been no widespread or lasting coverage of the perp or the event. Location (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. This has a slightly better claim than the standard WP:NOTNEWS case, but I don't think we should be giving Wikipedia pages to the top 50 most brutal and imprisonable murderers. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems a pretty clear BLP1E. Not a biography, not an encyclopedia article, really. --Stormie (talk) 06:49, 17 September 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 Pulmonary embolism. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria

Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria" – news · books · scholar · images)

One of numerous sets of criteria for the diagnosis or exclusion of pulmonary embolism. No evidence of widespread use. Not individually notable. JFW | T@lk 23:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 21:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It's all about the acronyms in medicine... PERC. Snappy. Fences&Windows 00:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 16 September 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 13:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Radical Extreme

Radical Extreme (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Radical Extreme" – news · books · scholar · images)

I'm concerned about the notability of this article. A quick google of "Radical Extreme (novel)" brought up nothing. Airplaneman talk 16:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete The book is not listed in WorldCat; Amazon has it as an e-book, [26] The publisher is apparently a vanity publisher [27] -- apparently a new vanity publisher, for it is their only book. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 16 September 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 13:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's Where You Take Me

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/That's Where You Take Me Articles for deletion/That's Where You Take Me.jpg Articles for deletion/That's Where You Take Me (2nd nomination)
Articles for deletion/That's Where You Take Me (3rd nomination)
That's Where You Take Me (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article doesn't cite any sources, it fails WP:NSONGS, due to no official charts, no official release and it is not a notable song. And the song wasn't performed anywhere. Most of its content is just speculation and the adequate content can be easily merged to Britney (album). And note that this article has been nominated in the past and the result was delete Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/That's_Where_You_Take_Me. --PlatinumFire 11:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete: If this was deleted before, can't it be speedy-deleted under G4? The issue before is the issue now: there's no source proving it was a single in the Philippines, and that it charted there. SKS (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I've nominated it 4 speedy deletion b4, but no one took the responsibility to delete it. --PlatinumFire 15:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 18:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - Looks like a CSD G4, recreation of deleted material. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - these Britney Spears song articles are out of control. If deleted, this will be about the tenth one just in recent months. Per all reasons above, get rid of this; WP is not a Britney Spears fansite. - eo (talk) 10:59, 23 September 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 13:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Game Of Baam!

The Game Of Baam! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "The Game Of Baam!" – news · books · scholar · images)

NN Game, fails WP:V, GHITS for this are about multiple games that do not resemble this in any way H8erade (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Adds no value whatsoever, is not notable and, as the nom says, it was made up one day. --Jack | talk page 18:25, 18 September 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 13:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Goalferee

Goalferee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Goalferee" – news · books · scholar · images)

WP:NEO \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Lame attempt by someone to coin a word. Sorry, we don't create new words, publishers do that. Remarkably, only one hit on Google search-- and it's for the Wikipedia article! "Goalferee"%20&sa=N&hl=en&tab=nw. I still haven't figured out what a "goalferee" is supposed to be anyway. Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    I think the creator is trying to refer to the equivalent of a line judge for the goal line. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wp:NEO. (Comment - "diving to the ground without cause": isn't that what a dive is anyway?) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable (and borderline unpronouncable) neologism allegedly coined by users of one insignificant message board -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - this coinage offends me as a student of English Language and Literature! Definitely non notable. GiantSnowman 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

1st point, ' Sorry we dont create words ,publishers do ' wow that's pretty arrogant. I thought words were memes , and language a constantly changing living organism. Glad you put me right on that. Point 2.If there is a term or phrase that you haven't heard it means that it should be deleted? Again the word arrogance seems appropriate. Only one hit on google , yes and that will be the one where I mention this word that has been cropping up IRL for a very recent change in football rules. Im a new user so could you explain to me this procedure where you don't agree with someone and so get to delete their post. What is your title ? Gatekeeper of the Mediocre. Hey theres a new word. Keep-diocre , you think it'll catch on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gearoid Martin (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think there's a good chance that the phrase "Gatekeeper of the Mediocre" will catch on. I (sincerely) like the sound of it. Another editor once gave me the title "Defender of Crap". Mandsford (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Please see this Wikipedia policy page, which states "Articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use." If you can provide reliable sources (see this page for a definition of what that is) that proves that people are using this word, then it might be eligible for an article. Unfortunately just saying "I've heard some people using this word" isn't sufficient. Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable, a clear joke Spiderone 16:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Notability is questionable. No reliable sources/references to support.Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 17:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability; appears to be a hoax/joke. Jogurney (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Adam VanHo

Adam VanHo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Adam VanHo" – news · books · scholar · images)

Prod declined by author. Author is Adamvanhoforjudge (talk - contribs), a glaring conflict of interest. References are divided between primary sources and court documents indicated that he was the judge in various cases. Nothing to indicate notability. Jujutacular talkcontribs 15:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Few independent references, and no news articles coming up in a simple Google search. The office VanHo aspires to also does not seem particularly noteworthy (sub-county level).Cmprince (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - for no notability and conflict of interest issue. Clubmarx (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:40, 16 September 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 12:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hakka Malaysians was redirected already to Malaysian Chinese while Hakka Taiwanese was already redirected to Hakka people. --JForget 12:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hakka Malaysians

Hakka Malaysians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Hakka Malaysians" – news · books · scholar · images)

The page consists primarily of a list of "Famous Hakka Malaysians", along with a brief lead section explaining that Hakka people emigrated to many parts of Southeast Asia during the Ming and Qing periods (presumably from the Guangdong/Fujian area, though this is not specified). The information in this lead section is handled more clearly and comprehensively at the page Hakka people, which includes a section on "Hakkas in Malaysia", as well as several other nation-states. The 'famous people' list appears to be trivia/listcruft; it cites no sources. Note that the "See also" list includes a link to Hakka Chinese, which is in fact a redirect to Hakka (language), and to Hakka Taiwanese, which was created by the same editor at about the same time, and suffers from the same drawbacks. This is an unnecessary content fork from Hakka people.

I am also nominating the following related page because it is also an unnecessary content fork with similar shortcomings:

Hakka Taiwanese (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Cnilep (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep both - Notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, which sources are you referring to? There are no references or external links that I can see at either page. Might you be confusing them with Hakka people, which has more than forty references? Cnilep (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Just ignore it. In all honesty, he uses the same exact phrase for every AfD on an article or subject he likes. GraYoshi2x►talk 22:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Contrary to the "keep both" recommendation above, neither article has any sources at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete both (or all three - the author has repeatedly created a similar article for 'Hakka Chinese', which is a list of Hakka who live in China [edit: now at Hakka Chinese people, which is mostly redundant with Hakka people.]) but for different reasons. There are thousands of ethnicities in the world - let's say 2000 for argument's sake (6000 languages, but some not ethnically distinct). There are 200 nationalities. If we were to be balanced, we would need a separate article for every ethnicity × nationality combination, which would be 200×2000 = 400,000 articles. Even if only 10% of ethnicities had a substantial presence outside their country of origin, that would still be 40,000 articles. Who's going to maintain all of them? Better to have an article on each ethnicity, and then an actual article (not a list of names) only if an ethnicity has played a specific role in the history or culture of a non-native country or region that is not easily covered by our ethnicity, demographics, or history articles. These articles here are all best covered under Hakka people and the demographics of these countries, since the Hakka are a substantial part of the population of all of them. kwami (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There are 200 nationalities. If we were to be balanced, we would need a separate article for every ethnicity × nationality combination, which would be 200×2000 = 400,000 articles ... not that I really support keeping this article, but this argument is specious fear-mongering. We write articles about the notable diaspora communities (i.e. you have scholars and journalists writing books and articles specifically about the fact that there is a "Fooian community in Barland"), and delete articles about the non-notable communities.
This has nothing to do with "being balanced". Most diaspora groups only have a notable presence in a few countries. An extremely small number (Indians, Chinese, Armenians, and maybe a few others) have a notable presence in perhaps dozens of countries. I doubt there is a single group with a notable presence in a hundred or more countries. (Of course, groups may have non-notable presence, but there's no reason whatsoever for that to be included in an encyclopedia). And furthermore most authors don't drill down to the level of the ethno-linguistic group when they write about diaspora populations --- they stick to high-level national groupings, like Pakistani American, not Balochi American, Sindhi American, Seraiki American, etc. The number of these articles we write is limited by the depth to which sources go, and certainly sources haven't written in-depth accounts of 400,000 or even 4,000 groups of "Fooians in Barland". cab (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete/redirect with caveats – First, I could support a piece “list of Famous Hakka’s” which is primarily what this article is. So in other words, Rename. Regarding the delete, in that the main article, Hakka people, already contains subchapters such as; Hakka’s in Fujian - Hakka’s in Sichuan – and etc. There is no need to duplicate our efforts. A simple redirect to the Hakka people would suffice. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 14:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete The topic has non-trivial sources about it, in the form of several books and book chapters [28][29][30]. :But these are almost always in the broader context of Malaysian Chinese. It's extremely hard even for professional anthropologists trying to write these articles, to figure what about their subjects is specifically "Hakka" as opposed to generically "Chinese". And as for the Wikipedia article, we can see it's just degenerated into a "brag list" with no encyclopedic content --- "look at all these important people who are Hakka" (by what definition? Hakka-speaking? One Hakka-speaking grandparent? Surname spelled funny?) So this is better covered in the context of the Malaysian Chinese article. cab (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, that looks like consensus! I pasted the content in the talk page of Hakka people. Hakka Malaysians I rd'd to Malaysian Chinese per the comment above, the others to Hakka people. But I have no preference where they go. kwami (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Antônio Rodrigues dos Santos

Antônio Rodrigues dos Santos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Antônio Rodrigues dos Santos" – news · books · scholar · images)

both Antônio Carlos Rodrigues dos Santos Júnior and Antonio Rodrigues dos Santos are non-notable footballer, fails WP:athlete. They did not made their professional debut at Brazilian Serie A nor Cup level (latter already turn to redirect) Matthew_hk tc 17:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Recreate if & when he becomes notable in the future. GiantSnowman 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - yet to play professional football Spiderone 08:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nom, recreate if he becomes notable. GauchoDude (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Doug Hoffman

Doug Hoffman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Doug Hoffman" – news · books · scholar · images)

This person is not notable by the criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. Hoffman is the candidate of a minor political party with no previous political experience. No other notable criteria are asserted in the article. Cmprince (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • keep no sources mentioned, could not find any on google either. In light of new sources--Patton123 (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete sources have been included, and recent polling data shows that Hoffman is statistically tied with the Democratic Party nominee[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by T0llenz (talk • contribs) 02:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak delete If we follow WP:GNG, there is significant coverage in at least one local paper--if there is another such news article, he meets the requirements. Actually, in any local election, if we carefully look for local sources that may not yet be in Google News, we can probably find them for every serious nominee. I could certainly find them for each of the 4 people running in my city council primary district and many other NYC districts, and certainly for all citywide primary candidates. I don't intend to, for I do not think most of them are notable by any reasonable standard based on accomplishments. We have a choice: redefine notability to include a much wider range of people in local affairs, make a special provision about locally known people regardless of coverage, or greatly alter the GNG to say that no degree of coverage in local papers counts towards notability. The GNG was established before Google News Archive became as broad as it is now--and certainly did not plan for the much greater future scope. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I did a cursory search for online news articles. In about 10 minutes I found four articles from independent sources, which articles provide significant coverage of Hoffman:
  1. Washington Times
  2. Gouverneur Times
  3. The Press Republican
  4. NY Daily News
Each of these sources has a reputation for fact checking. These were easily found, in addition to the already cited articles.
The article does, however, need some cleanup and wikification. Artemis84 (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009. The standard for political candidates, which still makes sense to me, is that to get a standalone biographical article they need to either A) be notable without reference to their candidacies or B) win the election. Until such time, they should be covered in our article on the relevant election(s). GRBerry 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The proposed references support widely notability Rirunmot (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 18:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 18:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep- Borderline on notability, but seems sufficient.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notability is sufficiently established, and supported through independent sources. --Tdl1060 (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep---third party candidates in NY State win a fair number of general elections: see James Buckley and the D.A. in Albany County. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.135 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - for all the reasons set forth above by others. There is national media coverage on this race that relates to the subject of this article. If this article is merged or deleted, the Wikipedia article on the Democratic candidate for the same office--who also has no prior political experience--should, in fairness, also be deleted.208.105.149.80 (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Article reads and provides solid citation for a political candidate with local impact within a US State. Aramova (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. no consensus for deletion JForget 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ley tunnel

Ley tunnel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Ley tunnel" – news · books · scholar · images)

This seems to be basically OR as the phrase 'Ley tunnel' seems to be rarely used - I can find one instance of its use in Google books, the one "ley%20tunnel"&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wp here by Nigel Pennick (3rd down when I looked). The sources that I can check do not mention the phrase although one does mention a tunnel along a ley. My book Ley Lines in Question doesn't mention ley tunnels either. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep The article is sound and appears to take a researched view. It describes a phenomena of mythical tunnels which I am familiar with ... but have never heard a name for it. The problem of the title of the article is a difficult one as I had never heard the phrase. Maybe "Mythical tunnels in the UK" or something similar should be the title, if we can avoid OR issues.

Victuallers (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Comment: A lot of these 'tunnels' are very real, and at least one is described as a drainage conduit. I can see where you are coming from, but retitling itself wouldn't work and I think we'd end up with a very different article. Dougweller (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm taking the liberty of moving this out of Science and Technology to Society. It's more of a folklore and mythology subject than anything else.--RDBury (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep There are certainly enough sources. I'm not sure what the right title should be, but it does seem to be a distinct subject. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • What is a distinct subject? There is no subject called 'ley tunnels', and given that, what is the article about? It isn't just about mythical tunnels. It might be possible to create an article about mythical tunnels, but this isn't it as a number of the tunnels are very real and, as I said, some of the 'tunnels' aren't tunnels at all. Dougweller (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking this might be the start of a decent "Tunnels in Folklore" or "Tunnels in Popular Culture" type article. I do think some rename and refocus is needed, and those are my suggestions. GRBerry 18:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. A possible retitling can be sorted out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The content is enyclopedia, even if the name isn't. Rename to a better title such as Tunnels in folklore, and then keep. -- The Anome (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find it hard to believe that this phenomenon does not have a common English name. In Norwegian it's called a "lønngang" (lønn = "hidden / secret", and gang = passage), Swedish "lönngång". As the article describes, the passages may be real or just a result of rumours / folklore. Still, a well defined subject from what I can tell. decltype (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Question - given that we have an article Secret passage do you still think this article should be kept? Dougweller (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
To me they are different subjects and if you check the articles they cover different material. The Ley tunnels article is about tunnels that appear in folklore, Secret passages is about passages (usually within a building so they can't be called tunnels) that are supposed to be secret. It's kind of a contradiction to combine the two; if something is in folklore then everyone knows about it and if everyone knows about it can't be secret. It's possible that Ley tunnels could be merged with another article but Secret passages isn't it.--RDBury (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
That complicates matters. There is some overlap, and "connection with the more esoteric notions of channels or paths of earth energy" is not really a characteristic of a typical "lønngang". decltype (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, or, if there is any useful content here that's not already in that article, merge with secret passage. That is the common English name for what is described in this article, and the linking of secret passages with ley lines seems like a piece of synthesis that is unsupported by reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 21 September 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 Spaghetti code. JForget 12:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Spaghetti with meatballs (programming)

Spaghetti with meatballs (programming) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Spaghetti with meatballs (programming)" – news · books · scholar · images)

Seems to be a limited neologism with blog-only reference. →AzaToth 19:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete: Per nom. I think I've actually heard this term but at best it should get a mention in Spaghetti code.--RDBury (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge: As above, only merge if it can be cited to Spaghetti code. Jwoodger (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect il should be merged with Spaghetti code and a redirect should be created. Many references exist on the web for it, just google for "spaghetti with meatballs" programming. I also remember having read it in the past. --Pot (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to spaghetti code per Pot. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Spaghetti code, we have a few other forms of pasta code in there already, and this article is not excessively long for a merge. --Stormie (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete the term is unlike "Spaghetti code" unknown within developer circles, I second the nominator's explanation. - 83.254.210.47 (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Spaghetti code. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect Narcotic Drugs to narcotic and delete the rest.. NW (Talk) 20:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

1000 Crime Quiz

1000 Crime Quiz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "1000 Crime Quiz" – news · books · scholar · images)

While the author is a notable person in his field, his books about quiz or popular science do not seem to enjoy a particular notability. Their mentions in the web are either in sites directly related to Prof. Aggrawal or in sites where the books are sold or advertised. Other reasons for and against have emerged in the talk page for 1000 Crime Quiz. (Full disclosure: I had nominated Prof. Aggrawal and his journal for deletion, but the consensus emerged has persuaded me that he and it are notable indeed.) Goochelaar (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the other articles about books by Aggrawal which, like the first one, do not seem notable, while the articles tend to have an advertising slant (large excerpts, bold claims etc.):

1000 Love and Sex Quiz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Some Common Ailments (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The Book of Medicine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Narcotic Drugs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
1000 Biology Quiz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Modern Diagnostics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Health Quiz Book (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Self Assessment and Review of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Goochelaar (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting to Anil would be good for all except Some Common Ailments, The Book of Medicine, Narcotic Drugs, Modern Diagnostics and Health Quiz Book. These titles are so generic that redirecting to Anil would not make sense.Cmprince (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse Cmprince's proposal. It sounds like a good solution. None of these books appear to meet WP:BK. RayTalk 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Cmprince; these are advertisements for a series of non-notable books by a just-about-notable. The articles seem to have have been written by the man himself.  pablohablo. 08:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:FP for reasoning —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testmasterflex (talk • contribs) 23:12, 21 September 2009
    • Comment WP:FP is for Featured Pictures on Wikipedia. It does not apply to this discussion. Cmprince (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
After reading Testmasterflex's talk page, it appears he or she may have been referring to WP:5P. Cmprince (talk) 17:04, 22 September 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 12:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeong San

Jeong San (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Jeong San" – news · books · scholar · images)

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE Spiderone 12:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to John Robie. JForget 12:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

C-Bank

C-Bank (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "C-Bank" – news · books · scholar · images)

Fails our notability policy \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge/Redirect - to John Robie at this time. I was able to find a few references for the company, on its own, as shown here [31]. However, just not enough, at this time, to warrant its own article. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 12:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect per Shoessss. Looks reasonable to me, and John Robie is probably the best target. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:52, 16 September 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 12:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Amanda Vanderbilt

Amanda Vanderbilt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Amanda Vanderbilt" – news · books · scholar · images)

Appears to be a hoax. No references for the article and no associated GHits can be found for achievements listed in article. ttonyb (talk) 06:39, 16 September 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. This individual has clearly received a fair amount of news coverage, but that isn't really the issue here. The main point of contention is whether this is a good example of WP:BLP1E. Cogent arguments are made on both sides, but the fact that neither side seems to have made a great deal of headway convincing the other suggests to me that reasonable people differ here: there is no consensus whether BLP1E is correctly here, and hence no consensus to delete. ~ mazca talk 19:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

James Randall (serial killer)

James Randall (serial killer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "James Randall (serial killer)" – news · books · scholar · images)

Only source is a primary source of the trial document. Text speculates other crimes for which the subject was not convicted or even charged. If someone wants to improve sourcing and content that'd be okay, but as it stands AFD'ing per BLP (back end of New Pages patrol here, little leisure for article rescue and distasteful subject). Durova319 05:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

    • There seems to be an active discussion below, so without unilaterally withdrawing this nomination I'd keep based upon the expansion and additional sources. Durova320 04:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Fair enough. To give credit where credit is due, DustFormsWords has done a great job in sourcing and expanding the piece since its nomination for AFD. I'll give her/him a hand starting tomorrow morning and at the end of two weeks, revisit and express your opinion of what has been done. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 04:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Cool, kudos to DustFormsWords. On the back end of new pages patrol there usually isn't time to do much more than categorize and copyedit. I'm not actually a deletionist or an inclusionist. Was on the fence about whether this constituted a BLP issue. Glad to see it turn into a real article. Durova320 04:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks peoples! I'm not much committed to this article one way or another - never heard of the fellow before coming here - but having stumbled across it by accident it seemed like a challenge to dust it up and make it useful. Here's hoping we keep it but thanks anyway to everyone for their contributions. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - The lone reference isn't sufficient to establish notability. If someone wants to find more and polish this up I'll consider changing my vote but that's up to those who want to keep the article (if anyone does). <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Keep per helpful refs sound by Shoessss. Article does need to be renamed though. Why not move it to Incubator per Jack? <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - The lone reference is to the transcript of the appeal, which clearly establishes he was found guilty of two counts of murder. I think that's sufficiently notable. There's still work that needs to be done around the "allegations" and "suspicions" and more references could probably found, but none of that merits deletion. I've started the work on improving the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment — Move to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/James Randall (serial killer); Wikipedia:Article Incubator needs a test case. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Two murders doesn't normally qualify as a serial killer, so the title may have to change.  pablohablo. 11:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep – There is enough information out there to expand on the piece, as shown here [32]. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 13:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notability established per Shoessss. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - notability from news articles like [33], [34], [35], and [36]. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 14:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: The title of the article is incorrect. While heinous, Randall "only" killed two people. By definition, a serial killer has killed 3 or more people. I'm not sure if anyone else cares, but I thought it was worth pointing out. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I care! Look up.  pablohablo. 15:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Fairness is tough. Yes, even convicted murderers count as BLP subjects. The crimes he has been convicted of are awful enough; let's not make him out as worse than the courts do. If there's adequate sourcing and the inverse-peacock phrasing is eliminated I'll withdraw the nomination. Durova319 15:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment - If you are referring to the term Serial Killer, looking at the references I supplied above, a vast majority of them title Mr. Randall as a Serial Killer. Thanks ShoesssS Talk
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of every ordinary criminal. See WP:NOTNEWS as well. A crime or criminal gets a slash of news coverage, but is not suitable for an encyclopedia unless it has wider consequences, like new laws (such as Megan's Law or the Amber Alert), or secondary coverage like books or movies (such as In Cold Blood). Edison (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - I believe that WP:BLP1E applies here; the event "being caught and convicted." James Randall is a proven double-murderer, not a serial killer.  pablohablo. 21:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment - For the reasons of expediency, let me address the concerns of the last two preceding opinions in chronological order. First, two of the most infamous Serial Killers; Ted Bundy and Kenneth Bianchi never generated new laws or secondary coverage such as a movie on their lives. Being a Serial Killer was considered notable in and of itself. To address the term Serial Killer, as a concern expressed by pabloas not being worthy to be bestowed on Mr. Randall, it seems that the St. Petersburg Times - Worcester Telegram Gazette - Tampa Tribune - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - Miami Herald and Star Tribune, as shown in the above supplied references, have all labeled him as such. Are we qualified to disagree? Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 22:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
CommentWould you please go watch Ted Bundy (film) and the films "The Hillside Strangler" and Rampage: The Hillside Strangler Murders rather than sitting at your keyboard and falsely claiming there are no secondary sources for those murderers? Also note the 950 results at Google Book Search for Ted Bundy and the 682 for the "Hillside Strangler."These murderers are not automatically notable and entitles to an encyclopedia article because they killed more than one person. Edison (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - (I already voted to Keep above, that vote still stands) - I've done further work on improving the article. In summary, two confirmed killings, active police investigation into other deaths, a past rape and kidnapping conviction (which I can't find more about just yet) and a feature on a television show whose mandate is to highlight notable crimes. I don't think WP:BLP1E applies - that would seem to more properly encompass "kid gets stuck up tree" kind of stories. This is a man with a long and significant history of violent crime and one of the comparitively few people in America each year to receive a death sentence (even if it was reversed on appeal). Given that Wikipedia is not paper, it seems best to err on the side of keeping, providing it's properly cited and readable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Also I'm just as happy to remove the "serial killer" references from the article but I'm relatively new and don't know how; someone want to help out? -- DustFormsWords (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
'Further Note - I've done significant additional work on the article, it's now much more substantial than when it was proposed for deletion. Further suggestions for improvement welcome. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment Still not seeing that WP:BIO and WP:N are satisfied. Edison (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment Thanks Edison - but could you explain how you feel they're not satisfied? It's not a "one event" issue - there's a history of multiple serious felonies across different states established. Coverage is from several sources stretching over a period of more than two decades, and given that there are still ongoing investigations into the unsolved Cote case there's likely to be further coverage over years to come. I'm not clear on what would be necessary at this stage to bring the article up to a higher standard of notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Further - specifically re WP:BIO - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Randall has received hundreds of news stories of coverage, with the majority being between 1996 and 2008, from independent secondary sources (largely newspapers), covering (a) the initial disappearance/death of Cote, (b) Randall's assaults/rapes/kidnappings in the 1980s, (c) the deaths of Evans and Pugh, (d) Randall's flight from police and subsequent recapture, (e) his initial trial, (f) his subsequent appeal, and (g) continuing investigations using new evidence to link him to Cote's death. Ten years of news covering multiple crimes against multiple victims is hardly a single event or a flash in the pan. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an archive of news stories. It covers things of historic importance. An index of this would be coverage in secondary sources such as books, or movies, or plays, or societal changes, or legislation. Killing two people and going to prison is not enough to be enshrined forever in encyclopedias. Edison (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
That's an interesting and valid philosophical position, but it's not the notability policy as I read it on either WP:BIO or WP:N. Each of the 100 oldest humans ever to have lived has their own Wikipedia page on no greater notability than their age; very few of these people have been enshrined in books, movies, plays, societal changes or legislation. Randall's had significant news coverage over more than a decade, he's been featured on an international television program, and there are neutral-source allegations, with citations, that strongly connect him with the magic "third murder" that makes him a serial killer, and ongoing investigations making him a person of interest in relation to more than ten other deaths. To put it another way - I don't think it's good logic to say that this would be notable were a movie to be made of it - that's the cult of popular culture talking. Better to say, an otherwise unremarkable movie might become notable by dealing with these real-life events. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, by way of precedent - Carl Eugene Watts - two convictions, plus other unverified admissions, no legislative changes, books or movies, featured on a similar show to Randall. Claremont serial murders - two murders, no established pop culture impact, only book is written by a participant. Robert Charles Browne - two convictions plus subequent confessions, no cultural impact demonstrated Jeffrey Gorton - two convictions, no pop culture impact. Now, it may be that all those should be nominated for deletion too - or on the other hand, it could be that Wikipedia is comfortable with the idea that multiple-murderers with extensive press coverage are notable enough to get a page, even before you take into account ongoing investigations and prior rape and kidnapping convictions. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
That argument is called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and it is not generally considered a powerful one. Looking at previous AFD outcomes, where articles were actually judged as to whether their subjects were of encyclopedic notability or just old news, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilberta Estrada (mother killed 4 daughters and herself, deleted). Edison (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Gilberta Estrada is a single event killer and a closed case, neither of which are applicable here. I note that you (Edison) put forward a (reasonable, thought provoking and well explained) proposed policy Wikipedia:Notability_(news) which failed to gain consensus for being too prescriptive, but that even under that policy Randall falls within the notability criteria by being "the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services. This includes being the subject of (relevantly) documentaries", ie the referenced television piece. Going on to have a secondary argument about what constitutes a documentary and whether documentaries need to meet some level of quality, length or distribution would seem to be taking the debate to an unnecessary level. As always thanks for bringing your experience and intelligence to making Wikipedia such a noteworthy part of the internet! - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Not every serial killer is notable.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Edison. Ironholds (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I was initially going say Delete on the basis of WP:BLP1E, but the thing is, he keeps popping up in the news, tied to different events. In 2007 they're saying maybe he killed this other person[37]; the supreme court ruling in 2000 garnered media attention[38]; then there was his arrest and the trial itself, etc. Yilloslime TC 05:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment James Randall (murderer) looks like it is available as a suitable target for renaming. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:07, 24 September 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. There's been no activity on this debate since Stifle closed this discussion as "no consensus" on the 16th and reverted himself. Therefore, I'm going to go with his call. Any uninvolved user is free to revert this close if he disagrees. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The White Birch (band)

The White Birch (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "The White Birch (band)" – news · books · scholar · images)

I can find no reliable English sources for this band. Their albums have never charted, and the article fails to provide any sourcing whatsoever, so they fail WP:N and WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Although at least one of their albums are available for purchase on import, all the Ghits I found are mainly blogs and their MySpace profile. Everything else that appears to be reliable are articles about the album the band got their name from, not the band itself. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Searched Norwegian charts and certifications under their English & Norwegian name with no hits. Found a biography at sputnikmusic but it's not written by one of their professional writers. J04n(talk page) 01:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's not surprising that a Norwegian indie band doesn't have a great deal of press coverage in English. Nevertheless, I was able to find stuff here and here, and I suspect there's more coverage in Norwegian. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC).
  • KeepComment According to their myspace site [39], they won best video of the year at the Norwegian MTV video awards 2006, and nominated for the Norwegian Grammys[40]. Can anyone find a reliable source for this? Edgepedia (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • There is also an interview here [41] Edgepedia (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Their website was www.thewhitebirch.no, and this no longer exists. However, it's on archive.org. I've found two more interviews here and here. Edgepedia (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • They seem to have had two mainstream albums - Star is just a Sun, this is reviewed by allmusic here, and Come up for Air here. I haven't time to update the article, but I think there's enough for a keep. Edgepedia (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. No evidence that they have charted and the reviews are in publications that are marginal RS. allmusic aims to review as much material as possible and, in my view, doesn't confer notability. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  04:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The English-language sources found are adequate for a keep, and ther will certainly be more coverage in Norwegian.--Michig (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, I did a script closure of this AFD as no consensus, having missed that it was relisted today. I have reverted, and if I missed reverting anything, please feel free to do so. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

DJ Griot

DJ Griot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "DJ Griot" – news · books · scholar · images)

Unremarkable DJ (see WP:NOTABILITY). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per nom. I don't see how he satisfies any criterion of WP:ENTERTAINER. Furthermore, it was created by a single purpose account, and wreaks of COI. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. RP459 (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete COI and the other issues are not enough for deletion but lack of notability certainly is. The one reference given is not a reliable source and is about a DJ Greo, who may or may not be the same as the DJ Griot. Drawn Some (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Fintel (disambiguation)

Fintel (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Fintel (disambiguation)" – news · books · scholar · images)

I was going to CSD this one with {{Db-disambig}}, though that template seems to apply only to "two (2) or fewer topics"; the subject page having three (3). Fintel (disambiguation) should be deleted because there should not be entries without a link, leaving only Fintel. I suppose I could have removed the two non-linked entries then CSD'd, but that is a little too close to gaming the system (though with no ill intentions) for my liking. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. no censensus for deletion JForget 12:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Aufs

Aufs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Aufs" – news · books · scholar · images)

Non-notable fork of barely notable alternative file system, no sources claim notability. Sources are not independent, they are documentation, blogs, forums, manuals. Miami33139 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom RP459 (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, used in slax, Knoppix, Xandros and Arch Linux. That seems to make it notable. And how exacty this arch linux changelog in not "independent"? how is third-party documentation and manuals "not independent". I honestly don't see any reason for deletion --SF007 (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is used by multiple major distros and the sources attest to this. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 21:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the sourcing stays as it is, there's no proof of notability. Inclusion in Linux distros does not mean something is notable by our standards. Fences&Windows 21:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to UnionFS, as it's a version of that filesystem. I can find no reliable source coverage of this. Fences&Windows 21:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I found a number of books that discussed Aufs in a non-trivial manner. [42] [43] [44] and it is also included with Debian Linux [45] which actually has been and continues to be used as one notability indicator for open source software. While I'm not opposed to a merge, I think the books I linked above and others that Google Books turns up is enough to show that this filesystem does indeed meet the notability guideline. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The second and third examples in your list are perfect examples of trivial coverage. One sentence that says the Asus eee PC (which of them?) uses this Aufs is absolutely not a source showing notablity. The first, documenting how Knoppix uses Aufs, is a marginal source. Miami33139 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I do not agree with you and I do not feel these AfD nominations have been in good faith. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
        • "700 and 900 series Linux Eee PCs come installed with a file system known as UnionFS (later Eee PCs use Aufs which is based on UnionFS with some improvements). Asus uses UnionFS and Aufs as part of its F9 recovery system." Two sentences in the documentation of two computers from one mid-level OEM is the very definition of a trivial source!! Miami33139 (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per SF007, Grandmartin11, and Tothwolf. I think it passes WP:N. Don't forget the interwikis, too. --Mokhov (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Interwiki links, as copies of Wikipedia, are not reliable sources to show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 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 12:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Social democratic Centrism

Social democratic Centrism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Social democratic Centrism" – news · books · scholar · images)

There is no concept called Social democratic Centrism and the article provides no sources or footnotes that verify any such concept exists. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong delete this is basically an essay Ohconfucius (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per Ohconfucius. The article is completely OR. --Checco (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Social Centrism

Social Centrism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Social Centrism" – news · books · scholar · images)

There is no concept called Social Centrism and the article provides no sources or footnotes that verify any such concept exists. All the other information in the article is about Centrism, and there already is an article for Centrism. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#Middle schools. NW (Talk) 01:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Lake Stevens Middle School

Lake Stevens Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Lake Stevens Middle School" – news · books · scholar · images)

fails n guidelines  Chzz  ►  02:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Delete: High schools are default notable, middle schools are default not-notable, this is a pretty hard and fast rule. I'd say merge into school district page, but content is minimal. --Milowent (talk) 04:38, 16 September 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. Arguments for keeping the article are almost all irrelevant or non-existant. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Whose Responsible This

Whose Responsible This (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Whose Responsible This" – news · books · scholar · images)

Recently created Internet meme. Plenty of sources, but all of them are either primary or blogs. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, no encyclopaedic value New seeker (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The meme is picking up momentum, there is even a dedicated website now (www.whoseresponsiblethis.com). I suggest we give it some time. Plus, it's hilarious :) PervyPirate (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • A "dedicated source" by this name would inherently qualify as a primary source here, and that would leave the meme without a reliable secondary source. The fact the meme is "picking up momentum" is not enough for this to qualify as notable; it merely means that the meme could become notable enough for an article in the future. In either case, we do not accept articles about stuff that will become notable in the future (no matter how likely) until that future becomes present. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree obviously that speculation shouldn't play a part in this decision per WP:CRYSTAL. But over the course of roughly 24 hours, three more secondary sources have already popped up, as I've posted below. Friginator (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I think everyone agrees with you there. But the meme has already generated enough sources to be considered notable. There isn't any good reason to delete the article in my opinion. Wikipedia is intended to provide helpful information based on established material, which is what an article like this does. Deleting an article like this one with no critical flaws is unconstructive. Friginator (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I love TR dearly (and comment there regularly), but I'm not convinced there are enough reliable sources to warrant an article at this time. We don't document memes as they're picking up momentum, we document them after they've become established. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete No valid sources for notability claims. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete One non-primary source is not enough to establish as a notable meme. Note, recommend redoing a Google News search before closing in 7 days to determine if it has gained anything (as it seems to be relatively recent), but I suspect this is too niche to really build on. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Like I said above, there are now a few more non-primary sources just a day later. In addition to cleaning up the article, I've recently added links to a page detailing the meme on Comedy Central's website, as well as links to articles about the meme from Know Your Meme, Manolith and Kombo, a gaming website. Friginator (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete When it really becomes a notable meme, you can recreate the page and even complain about the disbelief of those who caused the first version to be removed. Fbergo (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Several valid sources from different websites, not just primary sources. Improving the article would be more constructive than deletion. I would also suggest that we give it some time. Friginator (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - someome made a typo last week. Whoop-de-do. No reliable sources testifying to the notability of this. Memes come and go. Few stick around, and even fewer are worth writing about. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh... it was a lot more than just some random person making a typo. (the person is what you would call the best of the best). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - fluff, with suspicions of attempts at some kind of viral marketing. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
There's not any solid evidence or reason for that. Speculation and suspicion shouldn't play a part in this discussion. Friginator (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • KeepThis has become a full-blown meme, and is starting to inspire spin-offs and secondary effects.MWShort (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • My head says delete but my heart says keep. If it makes any difference it has a mention in the mainstream media. AniMatedraw 07:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • After this debate is closed, I think a way forward for those who want to keep this article might be to write an article on Topless Robot. It is a blog of some note, and the story surrounding the meme would fit in quite nicely in an overall discussion of the blog. AniMatedraw 20:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - stop trying to control Wikipedia you information Stasi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinkent (talk • contribs)
  • Keep- Avast there ya landlubbers,I votes we keep it. Sochwa (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm a fan of Topless Robot, and their FFF, but this does not currently meet the standards, and arguments that "it is building steam" are irrelevant. If it ever gets covered by external notable sources, then it could be resubmitted for inclusion. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The article clearly meets the standards for notablility. Guardian.co.uk, the National Post, Kombo.com, Manolith.com and Comedy Central's website all have pages detailing it. People are selling t-shirts on several websites. There are various YouTube videos. It has its own website unaffiliated with Topless Robot. It's aknowledged as a meme on "Know Your Meme." All of this obviously qualifies the article per WP:MEMES. Friginator (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep: since when does wikipedia have such high standards?

  • Keep Has secondary sources: The Guardian, National Post, Comedy Central. Picking up steam; probably more sources before this closes. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 20:33, 22 September 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 Not a snowball's chance. (non admin closure) C.U.T.K.D T | C 08:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Kings of New York: A Year Among the Geeks, Oddballs and Geniuses Who Make Up America's Top High-School Chess Team

The Kings of New York: A Year Among the Geeks, Oddballs and Geniuses Who Make Up America's Top High-School Chess Team (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "The Kings of New York: A Year Among the Geeks, Oddballs and Geniuses Who Make Up America's Top High-School Chess Team" – news · books · scholar · images)

Appears to fail WP:BK... Was prod'd, but prod was removed... I can find a handful of reviews, but little more... Adolphus79 (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong keep - insufficient research carried out before nomination; easily meets WP:BK, criterion 1. Major reviews include [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] etc Also The Kings of New York has won the Quill Award for the best sports book of 2007.[60]TerriersFan (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - ideally some of the wealth of sources cited by TerriersFan with full review of the book (nytimes, etc) need to be added to article. --Milowent (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Those reviews are enough to shown notability of any book, and the award proves it yet further. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 16 September 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. DS (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Shelbash

Shelbash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Shelbash" – news · books · scholar · images)

Apparently a drink which was created in July 2009. Aside from the obvious argument that Wikipedia is not for things that were just made-up, there's no sign of notability here. Brought to AfD as a prod was removed. Bfigura (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator, for the reasons above. --Bfigura (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Indeed this article is nothing but a bad case of WP:NOR or even worse a WP:HOAX. Anyone can make up the name of a drink, heck I can right now. But does that make it notable? No way!! -Marcusmax(speak) 02:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anything more is a waste of breath. There should be a speedy category for made-up shit. Hey Marcus, how's it going? Long time no see--let's have a Shelbash together! Drmies (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: delete it before the shelbash hangover ends for the creator. --Milowent (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Leslie Bailey

Leslie Bailey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Leslie Bailey" – news · books · scholar · images)

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 01:42, 16 September 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 Sarah Lawrence College. NW (Talk) 00:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Lawrence College campus

Sarah Lawrence College campus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Sarah Lawrence College campus" – news · books · scholar · images)

Non-notable; there is nothing significant about the architecture, nothing notable seems to have happened here. Seems to be Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING for the school. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Sarah Lawrence College. tedder (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. It is entirely normal to cover the campuses of university or colleges. It is an editorial decision as to whether to include the information in the main page or a subsidiary article. Sources are available on a number of the buildings and there is no evidence that the nominator has searched for them per WP:BEFORE. I agree that the page needs a thorough-going clean to remove promotional content but that, again, is an editorial matter. Better to follow the procedure in WP:MM I suggest. TerriersFan (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: This article did not have an AfD template and was not listed at AfD. I have added the template and listed it under 16 September. --Orlady (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge to Sarah Lawrence College. I have been involved with this article in the past and I am aware of numerous long-standing issues with unsourced and promotional content. I've looked for sources in the past, without much success. The topic can be handled effectively in the main article for the college, absent the unsourced trivial details. --Orlady (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Merge. Honestly, we can't have separate articles on college campuses, even ones as pretty as this one. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:11, 19 September 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. NW (Talk) 00:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WECAN at West Virginia University

WECAN at West Virginia University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "WECAN at West Virginia University" – news · books · scholar · images)

Non-notable program at a single university. This reads like a self-published brochure, but I can't find copies online. All of the references are either self-published, or generic links that make no mention of the subject of the article. Zero hits on Google news, no reliable sources in Google as a whole. Maybe a single paragraph in the West Virginia University article, but not the whole mess. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. According to the article's talk page, it "is written for an English 305 course project." Not exactly a conflict of interest, but ultimately it comes off more like a PR piece about how the campus saves energy than an encyclopedic article, especially due to the lack of any external sources indicating if their work is particularly notable in the grand scheme of such programs. --Kinu t/c 02:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. --Blargh29 (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Someone should explain this to the folks who have contributed. It appears they put a lot of time into it. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. With some guidance these folks could be great contributors.--Blargh29 (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Friendly note given - I wrote them a happy and cheerful list of suggestions. I'm not certain how they will repair the article given that it manages to violate WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V which (if memory serves) are the Holy Trinity of "thou shalt nots" here. But no harm in being nice. Manning (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Its nice don't get me wrong, well written, factual etc. but it is also an essay and wikipedia is not a place to write personal essays. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Kinu. Ironholds (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Not encyclopedia content. Netalarmtalk 03:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete--per all above! This is not the kind of thing that is notable, until there is some major coverage, and then only after a total rewrite. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • SNOW Delete the more rapidly the better. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, no encyclopaedic value, self-promotion New seeker (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kinu, per WP:NOTSOAPBOX as an opinion piece, WP:NOTWEBHOST as a class essay. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:35, 17 September 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 12:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic Masters

Cosmic Masters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Cosmic Masters" – news · books · scholar · images)

Apart from a rare mention on Google News based on the odd doubtful website, there are no real articles on Google News. The article has been based on a handful of self published sources, mainly a few personal websites and consequently appears to fail the guidance of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Ash (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, it seems to be a disarranged collection of miscellaneous information.--//Microcell// 18:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The concept of "Cosmic Masters" is also widely used in science fiction, such as in Dr. Who, who is regarded as one of the Time Lords, a group of Cosmic Masters who are able to manipulate time and space. Keraunos (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
(comment) Actually a decent Google News search like this one, shows 22 articles of which only 8 are since 2000. The only articles of relevance shown are actually about the Aetherius Society which already looks sufficient without this further article which, if anyone was bothered to wade through it, anything of value that was not unnecessary duplication could be merged back into that article. Saying there are 15,200 references, when actually the vast majority of these would be random word matches, is rather exaggerating the matter.—Ash (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm changing my vote to Delete. There is no using having an article separate from the Aetherius Society article if I am not to be allowed to utilize the websites and books I need as references to write a comprehensive article. Might as well just forget it. Keraunos (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is an utter piece of shit, but the concept seems to be a valid, notable one. There do seem to be reliable sources which discuss the concept. The existance of the article is not an endorsement that there are cosmic masters, but the concept seems like a real, notable one and based on the number of sources, I think a good article could be written about it. This article is NOT it, but deletion is not clean-up. I see no reason why a dedicated editor could not rewrite this using the sources out there. --Jayron32 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The concept at the moment appears to be to pluck every mention of the words "Cosmic Masters" off the internet (especially the popular culture section) regardless of shifting context. If the concept is as used by the Aetherius Society (which is already an overly lengthy Wikipedia entry considering it is entirely based on the "revelations" of a London taxicab driver), then the concept can be covered there without creating this redundant page.—Ash (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

* Merge with Aetherius Society article if the intent is to discuss this aspect of their cosmology. If the concept being described is more generalized than that, there are already articles like Ascended master which address it. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Skomorokh  01:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I've decided to change my position. This article appears to be a simple content fork from the Aetherius Society article and seems to serve no other purpose than to act as a potential platform for the continuation of that forking. The very little information that is contained here is already present in the Aetherius article IMO. The article thus fails WP:NOTE in that it fails to show why its subject is demonstrably different from an existing article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. This would appear to be the Aetherius Society's mildly UFO-ized version of ascended masters, and as such might be worth a brief mention on that page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete As per Smerdis of Tlon's argument.Simonm223 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 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 12:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

BRitic

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/BRitic Articles for deletion/BRitic (2nd nomination)
BRitic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "BRitic" – news · books · scholar · images)

Article fails WP:GNG. Completely lacking substantial third party coverage. Previous AfD ended in no consensus, a year to find additional sources is more than enough time. Non notable subject that fails basic notabiluty guidelines. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as non-notable. The only sources I can find that are not currently cited on the page appear to be based on Wikipedia. (There are currently two sources on the page by the same author, Richard Lung, and one passing mention in a description of 'ESP alfabet'.) Cnilep (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm also unable to find proper reliable sources; I'm happy to recommend Keep if those sources are found. I'm also concerned that, despite the drama of the previous AFD, there was very little work done between now and then. The Diff from 23 July 2008 to Today is telling; no sources were added at all. Does that mean they don't exist? It's unclear, but I can't find them - and can't Keep the article without them. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
“ also many leaflets on Britic. A limited number of these are available from myself (and possibly others who corresponded with Dr Deans). One such leaflet is from Sir David Eccles' fine speech to the Commonwealth and American Clubs of Rome, in support of Britic, when he was Minister of Education. After the House of Lords debate on 'The Simplification of the English Language' on 28 January 1981 Reg was pleased with replies from Lord Eccles, Lord Boyle, Lord Simon and Lord Tweeddale, who wrote a long letter "in perfekt Britic". In debate, judging from quotes Reg sent me, the latter two spoke with magnificent forthrightness. Baroness Young made the point that spelling reformers are not in reasonable agreement that can be acted on. Dr Everingham of Brisbane wrote about Britic in The Australian Medical Journal, 17 December 1960; he is known to the world's spelling reformers for making 30 September 'spelling day', when he became Australian Minister of Health. ”
There are undoubtedly more sources about Britic, even though most of them are offline. This topic is notable and should not be deleted. Cunard (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • One self published website is not sufficient to meet the general notability guideline. If there is "significant coverage" as you suggest, then please find the sources and add them to the article. The fact is, the article lacks the necessary reliable sources, has been tagged as such for an entire year, and yet no additional sources have been added. In its present state, the article fails WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The Spelling Society is not a self-published source; it is a reliable source. The quote I linked to above proves that there are plenty of offline sources about this topic. This article should not be deleted because those sources prove that it passes WP:N. I cannot add these sources to the article because I do not have access to them. Hopefully, an editor in the future can expand and source this article with the sources in the quote above. Wikipedia has no deadline. Cunard (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
An entire year is more than enough time to acquire these "reliable sources" and add them to the article. The absence of such additions suggests that either they do not establish notability for the subject or they are not reliable sources. The fact is that the article is currently lacking sufficient coverage in reliable third party sources and so fails to meet WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
With my quote above, I have proven that sources exist for Britic: "Dr Everingham of Brisbane wrote about Britic in The Australian Medical Journal, 17 December 1960." This, in addition to this reliable source, which is already in the article, proves that Britic passes WP:N. Coverage in multiple reliable sources guarantees that this article should be kept. I do not have access to the Australian Medical Journal, but other editors might. Again, there is no dealine. Maybe the article will be improved in five years or ten years. Once sources are proven to exist, the article should not be deleted. Deleting this article will hinder the ability of future editors to improve this topic. Cunard (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Two articles is hardly "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". One article cannot be accessed and so cannot be evaluated - is the article actually about Britic or is it just a trivial mention? This is important, as if it is the latter, then that is not classed as "coverage in an independent source". As for the Spelling Society, I have trouble accepting that they are either reliable or independent. There may be no deadline for Wikipedia, but in its present state, the article fails WP:GNG. If the only sources that exist are the two you mention, then I struggle to accept that this qualifies as significant coverage. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
A third reliable source is proven by this sentence from the quote above: "One such leaflet is from Sir David Eccles' fine speech to the Commonwealth and American Clubs of Rome, in support of Britic, when he was Minister of Education." This quote indicates that that speech provides significant coverage about Britic. I view the Spelling Society as a reliable source because it "publishes leaflets, newsletters, journals, books and bulletins to promote spelling reform of the English language." This is indicative of an editorial board that fact-checks these publications. After re-reading the Spelling Society article, I cannot see how Richard Lung, the author, is a proponent of Britic. He does not have a COI with Britic.

The quote: "Dr Everingham of Brisbane wrote about Britic in The Australian Medical Journal, 17 December 1960." proves that Britic has received significant coverage in The Australian Medical Journal.

In total, there are at least three reliable sources that cover this topic. Three sources are "significant coverage". Even though we do not have access to all three sources, the source that we can access verifies that there are at least two additional sources about this topic. Deleting this article will be net negative for Wikipedia. If this article is deleted, future editors who have access to the sources I mentioned above cannot improve this article. Cunard (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The point of requiring reliable sources is to verify the content of articles. If we understand sources to exist or have existed, yet can't verify their content, I don't think we can call them reliable for purposes of WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources or rely upon them as significant coverage for purposes of WP:Notability#General notability guideline. Cnilep (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. A source must be able to be evaluated in order to be considered. At present, the source(s) cannot be accessed, and so they cannot be used to verify content in the article and thus cannot be included in the article. For this reason, as I have repeatedly stated, the article fails WP:GNG. Assuming these sources to be reliable and to establish notability of Britic is an assumption that we cannot make. If the subject does turn out to be notable, then the deleted article can be restored in future, as the required sources are made available - however I do not see this happening. Furthermore, an apparent promotional leaflet that you refer to as the third source does not in my mind meet the necessary criteria for reliable sources. Again, we would need access to this in order to evaluate its suitability. The lack of substantial edits to the article in the past year suggests that the topic simply isn't that notable and thus will not necessarily be a big loss to wikipedia as you suggest. Wikipedia aims to include only reliably sourced material. This article is simply not reliably sourced. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. No independent third party sources even so much as mention this proposed spelling system. Abductive (reasoning) 01:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Skomorokh  01:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There does not seem to be a compelling argument to keep this article. Claims that there are sufficient reliable sources are unsupported. Surely it is time to get rid of this article. It is not reliably sourced and has had over a year in which this problem could be addressed. The lack of any significant contribution in this time surely demonstrates the failure of this topic to meet even the most basic notability requirements. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:34, 22 September 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

List of 7400 series integrated circuits

List of 7400 series integrated circuits (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "List of 7400 series integrated circuits" – news · books · scholar · images)

This is a fairly indiscriminate list of digital integrated circuits which happen to have "74" in their part numbers. Wikipedia is not a parts catalog. Wtshymanski (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - I don't know much about this topic, however this 7400 series seems like a pretty significant part of computer chip history. Its nothing I have any interest in but for someone who is interested in a topic like computer engineering, micro engineering or like studies this is may be a fascinating subject. I know I will be challanged for this next comment but according to Wikipedia article traffic data this article is visited by about 200-300 ips a day. My honest opinion is keep -Marcusmax(speak) 02:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • For anyone interested in it, there is a topic on the series already at 7400 series. TJ Spyke 04:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment the nominator appears to be misrepresenting the list. There is an *article* on the 7400 series - 7400 series - so this is not a random collection. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Response to comment the article 7400 series is about the small-scale TTL integrated circuits. However the list as its stands now is a random collection of TTL, CMOS,HCMOS, and whatever. The talk page even discusses adding some programmable logic. There's no unity, and 5 minutes with a TI databook shows many omissions in the list. One might as well make a list from the Mc Master Carr catalog of nuts and bolts. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Did you read the entire 7400 series article? CMOS, HCMOS, etc. are listed under 7400 series derivative families. The 74* numbering remains standard for the pin-compatible (usually) part #s, with additional indicators for logic family and, as mentioned under the part numbering scheme section. Practically all the listed parts are made in multiple logic families, and are still manufactured (There's a number of companies in Russia that make them in the older logic families for use in legacy devices). This stuff was covered extensively in the digital logic classes I took in college (SIAST, Computer Engineering Technology program) just last year, so it is very much still relevant. Also, omissions are a reason to expand, not delete. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Response to response your response only lists cleanup issues. If they are not part of the 7400 series as outlined in the introduction as to what the contents of the list should be, they can simply be removed. If the list is incomplete, tag it with a {{listdev}}. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
More on cleanup - so what do we keep? All the chips that were in the Texas Instruments TTL Handbook as of 1973 or ? And why? I've never understood the purpose of this list - a 2009 surface-mount HCMOS 3.3 volt 8-wide bilateral bus driver has nothing to do with a 1979 era 7400 quad 2-input NAND bipolar full-power 5 volt part, their only association is that they are both "digital ICs" and hapen to share a "74" somewhere in the part number. And a list of function names and part numbers to me seems of low utilty - if you actually want design information, you need pinouts and specifications, which is properly the subject of manufactuer's data sheets,not a "general" encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Random list of cruft, I can't think of anyone who would be interested in this. TJ Spyke 04:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep, but... I see two points worth following up in the comments of those who wish to delete the list:
  • the question of what the list should not try to do is important; I think those (like myself) who actually find the list useful have a feeling for what should and should not be in it, but perhaps it should be codified somehow. I particularly think it must not try to be a selection guide (but could link to such things), but should list the basenumbers of what is not some "random" list of ICs (it should not include a uA741 for an obvious example!).
  • the usefulness of the list might be improved by arranging the devices by type (since a simple browser search can find a device by number), and I gave an example of such a table in the discussion page for the list. But I admit that such tables make less sense for devices other than gates. One of the valuable uses of the list, compared with an online supplier's catalog, which I'd still use when appropriate) is that the whole range of devices, old and new, is listed in one place and it is easy to find what I want by looking or searching - that cannot be said to be true with google searches (finds lots of junk) or looking at old thick manufacturers' manuals (probably miss some devices, and physically difficult to search - especially if you have to trot off to a library and look through several manuals). Besides, the purpose of Wiki, surely, is to provide online encyclopaedic content. A really good encyclopaedia should mention these historically-important, widely-used chips but (of course) not try to list every manufacturer's list of capacitors, IC sockets or that sort of thing!
So I think the page should be kept, it certainly could be tidied or slightly reorganised, which would be helped by discussion from those who value the page... and some writing down of what it should and should not do. I do not think a page should be deleted because some people don't see why others find it useful.Maitchy (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep looks like a notable addition to the main 7400 series article. Gives a detailed view of what this very important chip family in fact contains. Both historical and practical importance, analogous to the List of AMD Athlon 64 microprocessors and similar others. --Pot (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not a "Random list of cruft." The 7400 series are well known and used often in studying electrical engineering. I am interested in this list and it is different than the 7400 series article. In the field of electrical engineering, these parts are notable and there are some that are well known enough that people recognize the part by the number alone.Grizzlefuz (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a list of parts - however - it is of historical and practical importance.--Speedevil (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a wonderful reference, i am studying electrical engineering and refer to it often, so for all the students out there , please keep --konan107 17:14 16 September 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC).
  • Strong keep The 7400 series was the first broadly accepted IC family and standardized digital logic for decades. The entire minicomputer era revolved around it. This list is almost as significant to the history of electronics as List of works by William Shakespeare is to English literature. Any problems with the current list should be fixed, of course, and I'd like to see date of introduction added, preferably as a table, so one could see what were the original parts and how the family grew. (I remember when the '245 was introduced. It replaced two ICs used multiple times in bus circuits and was such a big win that supplies were rationed and shipments were hijacked and sold on the black market.) The article certainly belongs here. --agr (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The 74-series logic has been around since the early 1970s, and as pointed out above, the entire minicomputer era revolved around it. And until much later ( when FPGA's came along ) they were still used for simple logic in low-volume peripheral devices where an ASIC wouldnt be cost-effective. They are still used by prototypers, hobbyists, and students, and AFAIK they are still sold at every Radio Shack. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Not, as the nominator describes it, an "indiscriminate list of digital integrated circuits which happen to have "74" in their part numbers". The article lists members of the 7400 series, not simply ICs with "74" in their part number. Adambro (talk) 16:02, 19 September 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. If anyone wants to take on the responsibility of salvaging the content for use elsewhere, I'm happy to userfy on request.  Skomorokh  00:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Afterschool, Out of School Time (OST), Extended Day

Afterschool, Out of School Time (OST), Extended Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Afterschool, Out of School Time (OST), Extended Day" – news · books · scholar · images)

Either an excerpt from a student essay or from a website, can't decide which, but it does seem rather promotional -- leaning towards promotional, since the article was created by User:Afterschool.edu (who also removed the prod after providing three external links in lieu of references). Ir's an original research essay about how afterschool activities are important, but it's not an encyclopedia article, nor do I think it can be one. ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Original research piece. Reads like a personal essay rather than a reference article. After PROD, author added three references, one of which was to the author's own organization's home page; another to the home page of the Newspaper Association of America, which doesn't seem to be an inherently authoritative source of information on afterschool programs, nor does the word "school" appear anywhere on that page; and the third, which I've deleted, was the name of some person. No objective, third-party reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Source material, original work, misguided use of wikipedia at best. The creator(s) of the article probably do have the knowledge base to help improve articles like Extended day program and After-school activity with cites if they tried.--Milowent (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Any worthwhile material here could be added to After-school activity.--RDBury (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge any useable information from this essay into Extended day program and After-school activity -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge with After-school activity. The current title of the article is a major roadblock to usability. These other alternative names can be added as a parenthetical to that article, but a user would never type all three in sequence separated by commas. I can't see any difference in intended scope between this article and After-school activity. Racepacket (talk) 12:29, 9 September 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 Unification Church. NW (Talk) 04:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Unification Church antisemitism controversy

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Unification Church antisemitism controversy (2nd nomination)
Unification Church antisemitism controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Unification Church antisemitism controversy" – news · books · scholar · images)

This article was recently nominated for deletion and I voted to keep. (I am a Unification Church member BTW.) Since then it has been an object of contention and the focus of the article has been narrowed down so that it is mainly about one incident. Information about the Unification Church's support for Israel and the Jewish community has been removed, as well as information on Jewish support for the UC. I don't think there is enough for a stand alone article anymore and discussions are underway to merge the information to other articles. I thought it was a good idea to nominate for deletion a second time as well. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  • If discussions are underway to merge the info, why not just do that first? An AfD seems premature in this case. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Since it was recently nominated and voted to be kept I thought it would give it a second chance rather than just taking it away by merging.Steve Dufour (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge (preferred) or keep: the material is sufficiently well-sourced to meet WP:GNG, but is sufficiently short that a merge to Unification Church would be appropriate per WP:MERGE#Rationale #1 'Text'. If kept, it should probably be renamed to 'Unification Church and antisemitism', as there is no single "controversy". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that. Unless I missed something none of the sources used the word "controversy." Borock (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would note that we have simultaneously, a 'requested move', a 'merger proposal' (to American Jewish Committee) & an AfD on this article, all currently open, all initiated by Steve Dufour, and none of them (as of the time of this comment) supported by anybody else. This would appear to be abuse of process and/or forum shopping. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I supported the article, and voted to keep, when there seemed to be a possibility for both sides of the "controversy" to be presented.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete — we have way too many articles of the form "Group X and anti-Semitism" and most of them are heavily POV. *** Crotalus *** 21:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment:' Hrafn's account of the facts appears accurate, even if I dispute his conclusion. Deletion means that the material must be removed from the encyclopedia, which is probably not what Steve wants. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Unification Church. The information in this article is important; however the article has serious problems, mainly original research and POV fork. I nominated it for deletion the first time. Borock (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It was created in August 2002 by a Unification Church member. Of what could it possibly be a "POV fork"? And what "original research" is left in the article? Jayjg (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Mostly when two things are put together, like "Unification Church" and "antisemitism", that is considered original research on WP. The information is about the Unification Church and should be on that main article, not segregated to a POV fork - regardless of who did that. Is the Unfication Church mentioned in any other articles on antisemitism? If not it is a clue that the topic is only notable relative to the Unification Church. Borock (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Only because you cherry-picked the tiny UC mention out of the dozens of items in the ADL chronology on the JDL, for inclusion in the latter's article. There's no indication that the JDL especially targeted the UC, so I've removed it. Nor is that an 'article on antisemitism', but rather on Jewish chauvinism. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The JDL, although a criminal, terrorist organization as you correctly pointed out, says that its purpose is to fight antisemitism "by any means necessary." So it is related to antisemitism. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Just checked and they say "whatever" not "any." The original expression was in French, although Malcolm X made it popular. He himself did not follow it since there were many means he did not use. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That makes it an article on the violent response to antisemitism, which is at best only peripherally on the topic of antisemitism itself. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I also made a few other changes to their article since it had some serious BLP problems. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article is of lasting importance. While some Jews like the UC and cooperate with it, others condemn it because of the linkage between the Holocaust and Indemnity (Unification Church) that Rev. Moon has made. (Note: information about this issue is scattered and fragmented - there are nearly a half dozen different places in WP where it's mentioned. Consolidating all these into (a) one article or (b) one main article with one or more child articles using the {{main}} template would help.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you please list these "half dozen different places in WP where it's mentioned"? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • From the silence, I will take it that there is in fact no "nearly a half dozen different places" and no "scattered and fragmented" information needing "consolidating". Thus, per WP:MERGE, the situation is that this "page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it … makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic", i.e. Unification Church. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    1. That's not what my silence means. I'm still hoping you will help me locate those places. You yourself have written on multiple article talk pages about this. I wish you would work more in the spirit of WP:TEAMWORK, because it is not possible for any of us by himself to produce a comprehensive and neutral article about such a controversial subject as the antisemitism charges against the Unification Church.
    2. I have been trying to accommodate opposing views, even when they are repugnant to me or even downright silly, because of my dedication to the founding principle of this encyclopedia. WP does not exalt an objective view or a consensus view; rather, the "neutral point of view" policy requires that each view be presented fairly, without picking any of them as valid or invalid. We simply report that A said B about C.
    3. As a church opponent, you would naturally be more familiar with opposing views, while I as a church supporter and member am more familiar with the church's own views. We can help each other to create a comprehensive, balanced and (above all) neutral article by filling in the gaps wherever they exist.
    4. So, rather than deleting views that promote the "other side" we should each diligently search for the sources from which those views ultimately stem. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Brutal rebuttal:
  1. Making factual claims for which you have no evidence is at best truthiness, at worst lying. Either way, it has no place on an AfD. Expecting those who dispute your claims to find the fact to back them up is totally unreasonable (and puts them in the impossible position of trying to prove that these "places" don't exist).
  2. I would suggest you read WP:WEIGHT again. It states "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." (My emphasis) This means that you have to find reliable sources first.
  3. I am not a "church opponent". I am an "opponent" of your attempts to create large amounts of material on the UC that are neither verifiable to reliable to sources nor notable (and generally nowhere near neutral to boot). I do this even for articles whose viewpoints I do share.
  4. So stop trying to get others to do your work for you, get off your arse, and find some reliable sources to substantiate the views that you want to include in articles.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 23:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Skomorokh  00:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to main article. This looks like a POV fork. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to stereotype. I haven't gone for a merge here, because of the amount of OR in here. But there may be something sourced that could be merged here or elsewhere, so retaining the edit history. Black Kite 20:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

List of autostereotypes by nation

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of autostereotypes by nation (2nd nomination)
List of autostereotypes by nation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "List of autostereotypes by nation" – news · books · scholar · images)

Wikipedia is not a battleground.
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda.
Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.
Wikipeditor (talk) 2009-09-09

  • Weak delete. Whoever made this list must be a troll or a racist. The concept of national autostereotypes (or nations' self images) is probably better discussed in an article than in an add-your-own list inviting what are essentially chauvinistic statements like “Most A think they are B”. It should be difficult to find reputable sources to support such autostereotypes allegedly held by specific nations; and there probably are none for unsourced allegations in the stubby introduction such as “denying outsiders' ability to fully understand the concept” or alleged untranslatability claims. Some content may be correct but unverifiable (I am of course never talking about statements like “Most A are B”, but about “Most A think they are B”), and “[i]f no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article” (from WP:Verifiability). To summarize: I'd like to see everything removed that cannot be sourced, and for any remaining content (e.g. this) to be moved to National autostereotype, or, since the term “autostereotype” seems to be uncommon in English (used in [61][62][63]), perhaps National self-image. Wikipeditor (talk) 2009-09-09
  • Strong Delete unsourced, probably violates original research rule. its also simply useless as a WP article. If someday, 100 ethnic groups are surveyed and give a single autostereotype, sure, that would be good. America: freedom loving, independent, nation of immigrants, isolationist, melting pot, red and blue states, democrat vs republican, leader of the free world, world police, world scapegoat. which is it? would americans choose one of these over others, by a simple majority? wouldnt you have to list all over that got over a certain percent vote? I dont think ive ever heard of a poll asking this. and the poll itself would be biased, as it would have to use this kind of language, which is horribly biased, thus we could NOT report the results of the poll as fact, only whether the poll was done, and reactions to it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Pure case of original research. I tried to PROD this article previously, but it was contested. I'm glad to see it finally went to AFD, it was on my to-do list, but kept getting pushed back. Warrior4321 02:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I didn't find the article offensive, however what little information it contains could be merged to autostereotype. Borock (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Autostereotype redirects to this article only :). It should be moved to stereotype instead. Warrior4321 02:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete unoffensive but ultimately original research. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - this could be rescued, with citations, in the ordinary course of editing. It even lists examples, such as sisu, and that too was saved from deletion. Alternately, merge with stereotype. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment I think that I understand what the author is aiming for. But it looks like the point is to try to link to other Wikipedia articles about concepts within one ethnic group that are impossible to explain to someone outside the group, or even to translate; cases where "You'd have to have been born in ______ to understand" (such as sehnsucht, which apparently you'd have to be born in Germany to understand). I don't think it'll work, mostly because these are ideas that, by definition, can't be understood by a single editor. Of course, maybe he or she really is a racist troll -- another concept that is impossible to explain. Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • merge into Ethnic stereotype, which is a miserable stub. This is an awkwardly-titled article, but its content is perfectly legitimate and should have been merged into ethnic stereotype a long time ago. I am sorry, I can't believe the stuff that ends up on AfD recently. People should read up on what AfD is supposed to be about some time. The "rationale" given by Wikipeditor (talk · contribs) doesn't hold any water even if interpreted charitably. I am not aware of any SOAPing or BATTLEGROUNDing going on at this article. Indeed, it has been completely neglected. The ethnic WP:BATTLE is not taking place at articles about ethnic nationalism, it is taking place at completely unrelated articles on ancient history. See Talk:Urartu and Talk:Illyrians to get a taste. Now see Talk:List of autostereotypes by nation and then explain how WP:SOAP applies here. --dab (𒁳) 13:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Skomorokh  00:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge I am truly surprised by the depth of disdain for this article evidenced above; the article quite obviously has no axe to grind, although its information is deeply flawed (Merry old England instead of 'nation of animal lovers', 'nation of slackers', 'aloof' and 'suck at all sports except football and cricket') (thinking about it, this is probably some version of 'blame the messenger' or the phenomenon that policemen encounter when they attempt to break up wife-battering, where the wife joins the husband in beating off the perceived intruders; "no one gets to say that about my husband but me", sort of thing. So I will probably be a target for that as well, but 'oh well'). Anarchangel (talk) 01:32, 18 September 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 Gordon Gano. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Zena Von Heppinstall

Zena Von Heppinstall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Zena Von Heppinstall" – news · books · scholar · images)

fails WP:MUSIC. Regardless of the importance of her band, she was in one musical project, and does not merit an article. Ironholds (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to Gordon Gano, specifically the section that touches on The Mercy Seat. The subject nor the band she was in are notable outside the context of Gano, however, her name is a plausible search term. I've already merged the content. Location (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Decent arguments for both merging and keeping so that should be handled with a standard "mergeto" request with further discussion on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert K. G. Temple

Robert K. G. Temple (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Robert K. G. Temple" – news · books · scholar · images)

Does not meet WP:BIO, WP:GNG or WP:PROF Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • This article should be kept. Temple's book was the subject of a classic debunking by Carl Sagan and if you're patient you can find plenty of articles through Google News showing that his ideas, while far out on the fringe of scholarship, are part of the popular consciousness. --TS 12:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment It has been 9 days since the prod tag was removed and at that time I said I'd wait a while for interested parties to add references to this stub. Not even one reference was added. I have heard arguments saying he is referenced here or cited there but nobody has actually included any new information on the article itself. If good references exist they should be in the article. If they don't the article should be Deleted. If the article can not be improved it should be removed.Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging and redirecting to a notable article would certainly be an acceptable solution.Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 10 September 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) 00:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - While Internet research finds little direct WP:N evidence for Temple his book, which was a presentation of his research/ideas/beliefs, received widespread coverage and critcism. He is known as the author of The Sirius Mystery and is associated with it to the point of writing defenses such as the one in Fate magazine (Oct 1980). I believe this article is a good case for WP:ignore all rules when it comes to a strict interpretation of WP:N or WP:PEOPLE. The article presents his academic credentials and other biographic detail that would likely be inappropriate as a section of The Sirius Mystery. As it is, he likely meets WP:PROF item 1 given that authors such as Carl Sagan included a criticism, and debunking of Temple's work in a general audience book and another author spend a full chapter criticizing Temple's workThe_Sirius_Mystery#cite_note-5 --Marc Kupper|talk 11:40, 19 September 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 Moors murders. NW (Talk) 00:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ian Brady

Ian Brady (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Ian Brady" – news · books · scholar · images)

Ian Brady is notable only for the Moors murders, and with the recent development of that article there's no longer any need for this one. Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating the following article as well, under the same rationale:

Myra Hindley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Merge with redirects to Moors Murders: As Malleus points out, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley are notable for the murders and the coverage of them in reliable sources relates to said murders. Now the main article is well developed, it makes sense to merge anything salvageable into the article on the murders and make the other two redirects. Nev1 (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and re-direct (redirect to remain - not be deleted obviously) Per nominator, WP:BLP1E, precedent on these things (e.g. Ian Huntley), and the substantial work at the main article. Pedro :  Chat  22:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merger seems reasonable: "Hindley wakes and says: 'Wherever he has gone, I have gone' ", and that is to Moors Murders. --Milowent (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge per all above. Brady, Hindley and the Moors murders are indissociable, and should be merged. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Parrot of Doom (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Both were regularly in the news for decades after their crimes, and the saga of whether or not Hindley should be released needs to be covered. A merge is possible, but this would leave a very large article if it was done without losing a lot of content, so separate articles seems the best approach. --Michig (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC) In addition, Hindley has been the subject of significant works that deal with her as an individual: [64], [65], [66], [67]. --Michig (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The saga of Hindley's campaigns for release are already covered better in the Moors murders article. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge There's a lot of duplication between the articles. If the Moors Murders article did get too big in the future it could always be split up again. Richerman (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Myra Hindley, undecided about Ian Brady - Moors murders is certainly a great article, but I think some of the material there more properly belongs in a biography of Ian Brady or Myra Hindley. From a cursory look, there is material in both of the biographical articles that is not (and in my view should not be) included in Moors murders. It would be inapproriate for Moors murders to include a discussion of Hindley's iconic mugshot or of the painting by Marcus Harvey, or of Brady's book The Gates of Janus, but they can be discussed in an encyclopedic article about the individuals. On that basis, I think there is room for all three articles, with appropriate cross-references. There is some force in the WP:BLP1E argument for Ian Brady, but Myra Hindley has been dead for nearly 7 years. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The difficulty, I think, is that it's not possible to understand the motivations behind the murders without understanding Brady and Hindley's backgrounds, so a great deal of biographical information has to be included in the article on the murders, perhaps particularly in Hindley's case. The question I'd be asking myself is this: "Would anyone looking up an article on Myra Hindley be expecting to see a regular biography or an account of her role in the murders?" The only other thing she's famous for is the length of her incarceration and the high-profile attempts to have her released, both of which are also related to the murders. There's relatively very little to say about Brady unrelated to the murders anyway, as unlike Hindley he's never campaigned for his freedom and reportedly just wants to be allowed to die. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree that there are difficulties here. My perfect solution would be, I think, a brief summmary of both of their backgrounds in Moors murders (with cross reference to the biographical articles), then a full description of the crimes, trial and incarceration, and finally a brief exposition of the peripheral biographical details. Simultaneously, the biographical articles would have a more detailed explanation of their background, a brief summary of their crimes (with cross reference to the main article) and then more detail on their later life and wider influence. There would necessarily be overlap between the articles, but they would put emphasis in different places, in accordance with summary style (although this is not stricly a "main topic/subarticle" situation). My principal concern with merging them all together is that important details could be lost. Anyway, enough from me. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - highly notable individual who is continuously featured in the news in extraordinary fashion. Tom Green (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • When was she last in the news? What was she extraordinary for? Besides, nobody is suggesting that the material is lost, simply moved to somewhere more appropriate. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You are proposing that it's deleted, that's the purpose of AFD. If you want to propose a move or a merge, this isn't the place.--Michig (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Please read what I said in the nomination. I'm proposing that the article is deleted, not the material, as the topic is already better covered here. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The Moors Murders article doesn't contain all of the detail from the Myra Hindley article, nor should it as much of it is better covered in a separate article. If the Hindley article is deleted, this information will be lost. In response to your question about when Hindley was last in the news, the answer is this month, and Brady less than a week ago [68].--Michig (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Certainly it would be a crying shame to lose those ever so useful and relevant trivia sections. Not. And "this month" hardly qualifies as "continuously featured in the news", not in my book at least. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • For more evidence that Myra Hindley is constantly in the news see her mention in this recent article [69]. On a personal level I feel that she has cultural relevancy as an iconic British serial killer. --82.35.224.205 (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I'm mystified by the allegation that "If the Hindley article is deleted, this information will be lost". If there is good quality (and I'm agreeing with Malleus here about the trvia) material then it can, and will, be moved and preserved in Moor Murders. There is, after all, no such thing as delete and merge. Pedro :  Chat  14:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The article(s) have been nominated for deletion, not merging. The Marcus Harvey painting and the controversy surrounding it belongs in an article about Myra Hindley, and is currently not mentioned in Moors Murders. If, as proposed, this article is deleted, how will that then get merged into the article that's left? If the nom is proposing that the content is not deleted but merged somewhere else (which wouldn't even delete the article as it would simply be redirected), why on earth is this at AFD? A merge discussion before merging would have been a better approach.--Michig (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Because we don't have a popular venue for "Merge and redirect". Yes, merges can be talked about on various talk pages. Malleus is simply centralsing a debate that would end up on many different article talk pages, and lose impetus because of it. I entirely agree with this use of "AFD" as a streamline in this instance. Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed, Wikipedia:Articles for discussion – and it is a discussion that's needed rather than deletion here – is a redirect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. This has allowed a wider range of opinions on the matter to be taken into account than a talk page discussion would have. Of the 60 people who watch the Moors murders article, most of the discussion on the article's talk page about the direction of the article and progress was between two editors. There wasn't much interest and I think this was a perfectly reasonable way to attract more people to the discussion. Nev1 (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The painting should be described in the Marcus Harvey article, as indeed it is. What is the purpose of duplicating all of this information over at least four articles? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge into Moors murders per rationale in the nom. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Growshop

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Growshop Articles for deletion/Growshop (2nd nomination)
Growshop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Growshop" – news · books · scholar · images)

Growshop is a brand name and a Dutch term; there is no evidence of notability for the term in English common use apart from as a brand name and so this article fails wp:MADEUP. There are many articles in Google News using the word "Grow Shop" but this is invariably for "Grow Shop Limited", a company name or articles in Dutch rather than English (example search for most recent articles [70]). I recommend deletion rather than merge to Smart shop to avoid any confusion about the validity of this term. There has been some further editing since the last AFD and associated discussion on the article talk page but no valid sources have been found or provided. Note about last AFD: this closed on 2 September 2009 with a decision to redirect at which point a sysop blanked the page but it was recreated 2 days later by an anon IP. —Ash (talk) 11:32, 9 September 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) 00:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete This article violates WP:NOTE in that it fails to demonstrate how its subject is in any way different from the existing article headshop. IMO if we simply add the words "and cultivation" after the word "consumption" to the first line in the headshop article, we're basically on the way to covering off the same territory, without a need for this article to exist at all. If the editor who created (and continues to support) the existence of the growshop article is willing to abandon it to deletion and focus on editing and improving the headshop article, perhaps a lot of the current apparent animosity can be set aside. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:00, 16 September 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. NW (Talk) 00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Kolah Ghermezi

Kolah Ghermezi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Kolah Ghermezi" – news · books · scholar · images)

Contested prod. Article is about a fictional character created by now-indef'd block-evading sockpuppet. Only sources cited are youtube videos. No Gnews hit whatsoever. No indication that this can pass WP:GNG. Tim Song (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete I looked at this when the article was first created, and didn't find much out there. There appears to be a few IMDB entries but that doesn't count. Perhaps the Iranians here can chime in with good secondary sources proving notability; otherwise, I agree with the nomination. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:12, 13 September 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) 00:13, 16 September 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. I note that both sides were somewhat lacking in terms of the strength of arguments advanced, but consensus seems to be leaning towards "keep". –Juliancolton | Talk 03:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

1950s in music

1950s in music (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "1950s in music" – news · books · scholar · images)

This list overlaps Timeline of musical events. There are also pages for each "Year in Music." Unnecessary list. Leoniceno (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Leoniceno (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Jeremy (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment If we propose this article for deletion, the whole series of articles with names "XXXXs in music" would have to be proposed. the articles in this series on the 60s, 70s and 80s are all unreferenced. of course band names in articles link to articles which hopefully show the decade they worked in. I question the quality of all these articles, but im not sure we should try to delete them all. We should either quickly close this discusson as keep and tag this and all the articles based on their quality, or open up the discussion on the whole series, either here or at a project page.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I see no reason why we are unable to discuss these individually. Your argument seems like a classic example of WP:ALLORNOTHING, which in general, is not very strong. I agree that a large number of these are not good articles, but that doesn't compel us to close this one as a keep when consensus appears to be pointing the other way. Regards, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I see your point. i would argue that articles on the musical tradition of a decade should start around 1950 or 1960, with the postwar rise of mass popular culture and tv in us and worldwide. I would be inclined to put content of articles prior to 50s or 60s in the articles on each year, and have articles on the decades start with either 50 or 60. there is a common perception that decades have measureable qualities, which is not true, but is so widely held that it can be sourced here. i bet it started happening more around this time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:36, 10 September 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) 00:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

*Keep: Great concept but needs work - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Notable topic that could be expanded to book length if necessary. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as for the other articles in the series. The existence of a whole group of parallel articles is a good argument, as I understand Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. It's usually not a good idea to remove one article in a series. In a series of XX in year or decade or century articles, a well established major part of Wikipedia it is necessary to use a sequence of fixed periods, in order to avoid erratic coverage. Of course this may not correspond to particulat major movements, which is why we also have articles on those movements. Looking at WorldCat, I notice over 5,000 books on 1950s in something or other [71] dsp the general concept is certainly valid. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC) DGG ( talk )
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Avital Ash

Avital Ash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Avital Ash" – news · books · scholar · images)

Non-notable actor lacking GHits of substance and with no GNEWS. A number of small TV appearances and music videos under her belt. An unreleased movie in the works. Appears to fail WP:ENT. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:46, 9 September 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) 00:08, 16 September 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. , "without prejudice against a merge should local consensus so decide."[72] NW (Talk) 04:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Resistance Tour

The Resistance Tour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "The Resistance Tour" – news · books · scholar · images)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Seaside Rendezvous, I fail to see how a live tour, and an upcoming one at that, is notable. U-Mos (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Live tours are numerous on Wikipedia, and are extremely notable as a promotion tool. Plus, the article will expand much further as the tour commences and grows. Future events are also common. Absolutely no need for nomination!! Andre666 (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Definitely Keep - I can't even believe it was up for nomination. Wikipedia is for the people and articles that are of interest and hugely significant, like this one. It is an article people will want to read and get a lot of use out of - that surely is the main priority in creating an article. It's an encyclopedia's job to provide a definitive and comprehsive account of all aspects of fields of interest - so for Muse that would include albums, singles, tours, media appearances, legacy, members - everything!! The truth is that Muse are among the absolute top European bands along with the likes of Coldplay, Oasis and U2 and they all have numerous pages on their tours (and none of it could be described in the vain of "just because other stuff exists does not mean this is notable" - it is all notable and relevant) - you would be removing something of primary interest and for what?, some Wikipedia policies that are either either unknown to most or uncomprehensible and certainly very unnecessary. Also the references are accurate and many too so what is the problem? Officially Mr X (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My argument is actually a lack of policy. I had a look, and could not see any guidelines on gigs/tours anywhere. Therefore I concluded they should probably not have articles except in very notable circumstances. As for the bands you mentioned above, I'd say this is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. I am not familiar with any of these bands' presences on Wikipedia, but I just had a quick look at Oasis and I think there are far too many tour articles there as well. U-Mos (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
For this article, having the tour dates in there is pure trivia but I think there is enough verifiable material out there to expand the article otherwise. In general where to draw the line is going to be tricky. There are some tours that are definitely notable (The Wall Tour and The Beatles' 1964 world tour come to mind) and some are definitely not. Whatever the policy is there are going to be plenty of fans who are going to try creating articles about every aspect of their favorite band, so really it comes down to which battles do you want to fight.--RDBury (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Note At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Seaside Rendezvous, the idea of merging that article into this one has come up. This could possibly assist the notability of both subjects. U-Mos (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 16 September 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) 13:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Global Risk Management

Global Risk Management (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Global Risk Management" – news · books · scholar · images)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:COMPANY: a Google News search reveals no hits on this company, as such it does not have sufficient coverage to pass WP:COMPANY RP459 (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


To quote wikipedia itself, "neutrality trumps popularity." As mentioned previously, the Google News search fails to reveal a lot of trade media sources that are subscription-based (particularly common in the maritime business). A regular Google web search reveals a number of these in regards to the company in question. Google News search also omits non-English language news items about this company -- which is, after all, based in Denmark.

"Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none..." from [the Search Engline Test page]

In order to establish notability, I've continued to add more "Notes" to the page. It now includes verifiable sources such as Denmark's national news agency, several national newspapers, and non-subscription trade media websites in English and Danish. I've chosen a spread of dates, from 2006 to today (Bunker Index is one of several daily online bunker sites that carry Global Risk Management oil price assessments. Unfortunately, the others are subscription based).

A word about the Danish sources: A number of the sources I've included are articles by national newspapers using Global Risk Management for quotes and analysis on shifts in the oil price. I think that adds even more weight to the notability of the company. If in doubt, perhaps it might be useful to call in a Scandinavian editor to verify the notability of the Danish sources.

A word about procedure: Shouldn't there have been some form of discussion about the reasons for my dePROD (I think that's the right term) before referral to a general discussion? The debate seems to be moving rather quickly towards "userfying" the article without anybody discussing the validity of my article sources and notability. Can we discuss notability beyond Google News search results?

I'm a newcomer to this, so could somebody give me feedback to this reply i.e. is it posted in the right place, and in the right manner.

Thanks. Dkeditor (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Should I also add a statement to support the article's inclusion on Wikipedia's public pages? If so, here goes.

This company passes WP:COMPANY as it is "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", as reflected on the Global Risk Management page. Hope that helps.

Thanks. Dkeditor (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment The above was posted also to my user page here and I replied to it there prior to noticing that it was here also. FYI I was only replying to the comment with regards to procedure and why I sent this to AFD. RP459 (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a fuel price risk management business - in other words, it's unlikely that anyone not needing the services of such a business would have any reason to have heard of it. References supplied are either press releases announcing the opening of office, or general articles about fuel prices that do not have this business as their chief subject. As such it fails the organizations notability guideline, and probably does not have a showing of minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks Smerdis for showing an interest and giving your opinion. I think your argument for deletion can be divided into two parts. The first is inherent obscurity, the second is depth of coverage.

Inherent obscurity argument: With all respect, I think your first point may be based on supposition and possibly qualifies as "subjective importance" WP:UNKNOWNHERE. Following your line of logic could ultimately exclude any line of business as inherantly obscure, with the exception of potential customers. Imagine, if you will, the following argument: "This is a luxury hotel business - in other words, it's unlikely that anyone not needing the services of such a business would have any reason to have heard of it." I tend to agree with the conclusion at WP:UNKNOWNHERE: "This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions."

Depth of coverage argument: To your credit, you have presented another argument so as not to leave the first one on its own. And I believe you may have a valid point. If I have understood the thrust of your argument correctly, it is the depth of coverage that you find to be a problem with the sources, rather than the reliability or independence of the sources themselves. First of all, you mentioned the "References" (inline citations). and I wonder whether you may have overlooked the "Notes" (mostly links to English-language shipping sites and Danish media -- and all intended to establish notability). Let's look at both.

The references provide (1)the context of the company's ownership, (2 and 3)independent articles underlining the importance of fuel price risk strategy in the airline business (4)verification of the company's airline trade group membership, and (5)verification of the company's expansion into Asia, via the company website's news page.

The notes are divided into English and Danish sources. The English sources are (1)an international bunkering (ship fuel) website for whom Global Risk Management provides daily oil price/trend analyses, and (2 and 3)articles featuring Global Risk Management in the world's largest bunkering trade group's magazine. Both sources surely suggest credibility and recognition within the international shipping industry. The Danish sources include articles from a national broadsheet (broadly akin to Britain's The Independent) and the national business daily (broadly akin to Britain's Financial Times). Both newspapers reference Global Risk Management in articles covering oil price news. Both newspapers have a combined readership of over 300,000 in a country of 5 million.

One other note also points to the national business daily -- listing Global Risk Management as the 2nd fastest growing company in central Denmark. Remaining in the region, two other notes point to profile articles in that region's largest newspaper (circulation 60,000). There are also two notes pointing to trade publications -- the Danish maritime industry group lifting a company press release, the other a logistics trade paper profiling the company.

In conclusion, I'd argue that there is significant coverage of the company in the bunker industry (the company also provides the daily oil price analysis on the world's largest bunker/oil trading website -- the subscription-based "Bunkerworld"). I'd also argue that in Denmark, the company is notable enough for national newspapers to reference them without having to explain what they do or where they are based. I think it may be fair to assume that news editors at Danish national newspapers (as well as editors at the national news agency) are also compelled to use notable sources rather than non-notable sources. And finally, even if the depth of coverage still falls short of being "substantial", I think multiple independent sources have been cited to establish notability (as suggested in the Primary Criteria section of WP:COMPANY). Thanks. Dkeditor (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment After reading the above I am having a hard time with your assertion here in regards to this edit [73]that you are not in a WP:COI. RP459 (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for your further input RP459, but does an assumption of bad faith suddenly belong in this discussion? "Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!"(from WP:NEWBIES). I think it would be more helpful to have a discussion about the article's compliance with WP:Company and how best to reach a consensus. To show good faith and a willingness to compromise, I've rewritten parts of the article after reading Smerdis of Tlön's comments (see above). The article now includes more inline citations as suggested in WP:BURDEN.
  • Do the changes improve the article?
  • Have I successfully demonstrated that Google News hits (the original reason for suggesting deletion) is an invalid argument against this company's notability (see "Notability" at WP:GOOGLETEST)?
  • Does the article adequately satisfy the 5 points listed at WP:GNG
  • Do you think it would help to invite more editors to join the discussion?
  • Let's discuss ; )

Thanks. Dkeditor (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Thanks Darrenhusted. Any chance of adding a bit more meat to the discussion by being a little more specific i.e. why you think it fails WP:COMPANY. Deletion guidelines suggest that we always explain our reasoning "... in a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy. WP:GD "This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered.". Thanks Dkeditor (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete (or Userfication if req.) - WHAT makes this company notable? Are they the larges, the first, offer a unique solution. If the Article told us that it would pass WP:COMPANY, but as it stands it does not. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete It is possible that the parent company is notable, " United Shipping & Trading Company (USTC), one of Denmark's largest companies " but not this division. At least one of the Danish sources talks about it only as a division of the parent [74] I am somewhat influence by the failure to find it mentioned in the Reuters & NYTimes articles proposed as references, which talk only about the general concept of airlines' hedging oil futures. I apologize for not checking all the sources, but when I check 3 on an unfamiliar subject and find all 3 of them totally unconvincing,and when its clear others are merely quoting it as a source, I've seen enough to make an evaluation. . DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment Thanks very much Exit2DOS and DGG for your interest and useful feedback. Re uniqueness, I think you have a good point Exit2DOS. The company does offer something unique, but I think it's understated in the article - probably because I was too keen to avoid breaching the NPOV guideline. The company is unique in offering independent fuel price risk management i.e. free from the obligations imposed by large financial institutuions (standardized hedging instruments) and major oil companies (having to buy specific brands of oil). Perhaps I should have made that clearer in the article. Re sources, I think you too have a good point DGG. The Reuters and NY Times articles are only cited to give readers some background to airline fuel hedging and to supply some context. They are not there to lend notability to Global Risk Management per se. The notability (I believe) comes from Danish national and regional newspapers cited, plus the trade magazines and trade websites. Admittedly, Global Risk Management may not be the primary focus of most of the articles cited, but the fact that Danish national and regional newspapers have chosen the company to bolster their own articles strongly suggests notability -- at least in Denmark. In addition, I'd have to point out that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."WP:GNG. I think the articles sourced represent more than just trivial coverage, examples of which are described in WP:COMPANY as "...newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories. Thanks again for your helpful feedback. Dkeditor (talk) 07:54, 23 September 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. Ohconfucious hits the nail on the head policywise here. Consensus seems to be there is nothing to indicate that he might pass notability standards at the moment. NW (Talk) 00:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Brand (Film Director)

Andrew Brand (Film Director) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Andrew Brand (Film Director)" – news · books · scholar · images)
Notability is asserted per "Andrew was commissioned to write and direct his 1st short film, "To his knees he fell" through the prestigious UK Film Council and EMMI funded DV Shorts Scheme. This went on to screening Internationally and was also short-listed for the 'Forteen Times Award' as part of the London Short Film Festival." Thus, A7 does not apply.

However, I have been unable to find any significant coverage in multiple reliable sources about this individual. I found this link from BBC; however, it is not a secondary source because the page is a member profile. A Google News Archive search for him and his "internationally-screening" film, To his knees he fell, return no sources. Neither does a Google search.

Furthermore, the creator of this article, Roodles79 (talk · contribs), wrote on the talk page of this article: "This is a article write about myself as a british writer/director. All information in the article is correct and written by me." This article should be deleted for failing WP:BIO and WP:V. Cunard (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. One of the sources is a personal website, the second may proof notability. Needs a lot of work. Rirunmot (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Gonna say keep per WP:POTENTIAL. After further research into the positive recognition of his works, I believe there is enough available to allow the article to properly assert and source this filmmaker's notability. And yes... if no one else gets to it, I will likely fix the article myself. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If you could provide direct links to news articles or filmographies that prove that Andrew Brand is notable and/or passes WP:ENT, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I'd disagree with it being with potential. It's more like WP:CRYSTAL, as the subject has only directed 3 short films, whose notability is also in doubt. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

PHD Virtual Technologies

PHD Virtual Technologies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "PHD Virtual Technologies" – news · books · scholar · images)

No indication of notability. Also written in promotional manner, which makes it seem like spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ospalh placed a speedy deletion tag on the article under CSD G11.

Dank removed this speedy tag, stating "Downshifting from "speedy deletion" to a 7-day waiting period. The two references undercut rather than support the idea that this company is notable. If better references can be added within the next 7 days, then remove this tag and I'll have another look." Then, less than 5 hours later, 83.67.93.30 made an edit for which the edit summary was "updated references", but in fact made no changes to references: the only change made in that edit was the removal of the prod tag. In fact no references have been added or changed at any time from when the PROD tag was placed to now. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Added additional information about this years VMworld awards for top virtialization software companies, which PHD were a part of. This should support that the company is notable in the field as it is one of the top 10 in the industry. Please could you remove the speedy del tag also as this should no longer be required. --RedTrack (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no speedy delete tag at the date of the above post: it had been removed over 3 months before (29 April) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed Tag. Dank could you please have another look at the entry now and provide feedback. Cheers --RedTrack (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove the tag until the discussion is closed. An AfD is to create consensus, which is hard to do if the tag is taken away. Hairhorn (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Nearly all the references in the article are to press releases from the company. I don't see any reliable sources. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Er... I removed the tag from the article because "Dank" who added it said "If better references can be added within the next 7 days, then remove this tag and I'll have another look" so I added references and deleted the tag "as requested", then waited for him to have "another look". As for the "reliable sources"... If you "look" at the references there are blogs, news releases.... what constitutes reliable? I'd think that if a big news agency like Reuters picks up on it then it would be "reliable". Are you looking for purely forum posts etc? Please let me know "what constitues a reliable source" and I'll add them as I'm sure there will be lots of content out there. Thanks. --RedTrack (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Dank's invitation to remove a tag was placed in a PROD tag which was removed on 29 April. I am surprised that RedTrack thought that it applied to the AfD placed on 9 September. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I left a message on your talk page yesterday to check WP:SOURCES. UncleDouggie (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Blogs and news releases are excellent examples of what are not good sources. Anyone can write anything in a blog, so they are not reliable. A company's press release plugs its own view, so it is not an independent source, no matter what company reproduces it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Added non press release refs. Pls re-check. Thx --RedTrack (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of the new refs are reliable third-party sources. One of them is your own company promoting its marketing of PHD Virtual Technologies. If the company is notable, it should have received some type of coverage in regular industry publications. Blogs just don't cut it. UncleDouggie (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's been covered in quite a few publications. Will find the articles and add as refs. Cheers --RedTrack (talk) 20:58, 14 September 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) 00:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Only non-wire/PressRelease coverage is the DCIG blog entry (which is of questionable reliability) and InfoWorld, which is borderline significant. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too much marketing, too little reliable sources providing discussion of the topic. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. I have checked every one of the "references" given. Almost all of them are press releases, advertising pages, blogs, etc, and none of them gives substantial independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Better refs haven't been provided after numerous requests. Simple searches show no independent coverage of the company or its products. Perhaps they will be notable one day, but they don't seem to be today. UncleDouggie (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as blatant advertising: a software company developing simple, scalable solutions to complex data problems. OK, but what do you do for a living? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 20:51, 16 September 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. "listcruft" is not a valid deletion rationale. Perhaps this could be merged/redirected to Belial, but that is an editorial decision that should take place on the talk page of this article. NW (Talk) 00:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Belial in popular culture

Belial in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Belial in popular culture" – news · books · scholar · images)

Trivial listcruft that shows no signs of notability. If there is any important ones, they belong in a small section in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge the significant points to Belial. The information in the article isn't all that bad. I would recommend something along the lines of ""Belial" or a variant is a popular name for enemies in video, card, and role-playing games, including [whatever]" to summarize the game references, and the most significant film and musical references. Cmprince (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep most of it is significant--a little isn't. There's enough here to justify an article. "listcruft" = IDon'tLikeThisList" which is not a reason for deletion.The use of notable cultural themes in significant ways in notable works is suitable subject for an article. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 15 September 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) 00:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Big Top (Transformers)

Big Top (Transformers) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Big Top (Transformers)" – news · books · scholar · images)

Non-notable trivial comic book character that appeared in one comic issue ever. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:N, fails every definition of the word notable. AP1787 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 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) 00:01, 16 September 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 . Procedural close per WP:BAN. Edits by ban-evading users should be removed / discouraged. This does not imply any judgment on the article, and if someone files a new AfD, then this first AfD should not be used as an argument in it.Fram (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sula Kim

Sula Kim (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Sula Kim" – news · books · scholar · images)

The article's author removed a Prod tag on this very brief offering about a minor US television reporter. The article does not appear to meet WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked editor. Ikip (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If is a stub in progress. I will add more information as I have time. If this article gets deleted, articles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinah_Kim should also be marked for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcog (talk • contribs) 23:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please also take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Journalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcog (talk • contribs) 23:56, 9 September 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) 00:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Stay Brady Stay

Stay Brady Stay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Stay Brady Stay" – news · books · scholar · images)

Non-notable film by redlinked creator (note that the redlink is due to the fact that the article about John Sutherlin, which the original editor of this article also created, got tagged for db-bio, so the original editor blanked the page and it was duly delete). Note also that the name "Brady" is associated with the title of this article as well as the editor who created it. No reliable sources for notability. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • delete. we made a speedy for albums by non notable artists with no independent reliable sources. can we make a speedy for films by non notable film makers with no independent reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 15 September 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) 00:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not asserted. Very suspect article chock full of linkspam too. Off with yer 'ed. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not asserted jusr an article full of linkspam - where are the reliable sources? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, if there was a CSD for films then this would be a CSD. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, as linkspam. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve Fryer

Steve Fryer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Steve Fryer" – news · books · scholar · images)

Failure to meet notability guidelines; minor sports reporter at small-time paper Perspixx (talk) 22:52, 9 September 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) 23:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this writer. Joe Chill (talk) 22:50, 16 September 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. NW (Talk) 00:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Lord Loss

Lord Loss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Lord Loss" – news · books · scholar · images)

Seems to fail WP:NB. No external sources that aren't linked with the author, article is pretty much a plot summary. Suggest to redirect to the parent article for the series. In general, this article has fluctuated between a bare plot summary to an extensive character list over the years I've watched it. -- Syrthiss (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge to author if it's not independently notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Changing my vote to keep so as to the support the consensus and unanimity. Hopefully this helps avoid any controversy. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm reporting you at ANI, since you changed your mind and that is obviously a sign that you were corrupted, one way or another. Whether bought by Ikip and then sold to Joe Chill, or simply mentally unstable, you are a danger to yourself and the community. If I weren't so correct in my comment below (Thanks Joe for doing all the work) I'd ask for this AfD to run for an extra week or two, just to spin you around and throw you in a hex. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I have been corrupted. As far as ANI, take a number. :) Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per this, this, this, this, and it won a major award. Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    I'm wondering how prestigious the Redbook awards are, considering we don't have an article on it as far as I can tell. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    It's "Redbridge", and it is one of those local councils lambasted for translating their documents into languages nobody even reads. This is the epitome of a minor award. Abductive (reasoning) 11:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - passes WP:NB per winning a major award. The possible citations given above should be used in the article though.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Joe chill's links (which I subsequently have added to the article) seem to show the book meets minimum notability guidelines. I have found 47 other google news hits which apply to this book Ikip (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per references provided above. Unionhawk, that they should be added to the article is pretty obvious, I'd say! ;) Drmies (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:Darren Shan, Talk:The_Demonata, and Talk:The Saga of Darren Shan page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
  • Keep per references provided above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, but the article needs work from an experienced editor and not constant little edits steveking89 21:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm that applies to many articles here--but many still also need constant little edits from an experienced editor. I can think of one or two editors who need constant help with their commas and semicolons. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per above references. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have removed the "award", given by the wiki/blog of a borough council of London, from the article. It is not worthy of our notice. No opinion on the book. Abductive (reasoning) 11:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I had looked at the refs provided by Joe Chill, which look authoritative enough to me, but not at the award--thank you for popping that balloon. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per Joe and Ikip's sources which mean that the nom's suggestion that the article fails WP:NB is false. Notable book, notable series, extremely notable author. Metty 18:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'll refrain from !voting but some of the comments here are laughable and not based upon reading the "sources" presented (here's a clue, one is immediately out because it's user submitted). However, this is a great example of why AFD is broken, all I see here is a lot of people voting keep because their friends have voted keep or because they saw a notice at the article Canvass Squad. how many people have rushed to add those 'vital' sources to article? oh look it's zero. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(To User:Cameron Scott) Article Canvas Squad?? Pardon me if I am greatly offended by that slur of many editors who strive to improve Wikipedia. If you have a personal problem with one or two, then address that... but please don't go insulting me and so many others or the work I and so many others do. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh look, a user being uncivil. Here's a clue, I did read the sources, but I didn't scroll all the way down on the third source to see that it said Wordpress. Three is still enough for me. Joe Chill (talk) 21:59, 18 September 20h09 (UTC)
Uncivil? - let's have a quoteThe civility guideline is important, but it's not as important as people think. I was told that calling someone lazy was uncivil when the user was obviously lazy to not look at the sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I do think that it is important, but I was just saying that it isn't used the correct way consistently. Maybe I should reword it. Yes, you were uncivil. You obviously don't deny that. Joe Chill (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Should I change my vote back to merge? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
If you believe that AFD system is broken, then AFD debate's are obviously not the place to discuss it. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep This book has been reviewed by School Library Journal and Publishers Weekly, and the audiobook version was reviewed by The Independent. It has also been selected by YALSA as a Quick Pick for Reluctant Young Adult Readers in 2006 and a Popular Paperback for Young Adults in 2009. (Plus this book was a bestseller.) -- KittyRainbow (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing more here than an extensive plot summary, which is discouraged. A redirect to the series would be fine. Stifle (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • If a redirect to the series is fine, then there's no need to delete the edit history as well. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
      • With my sources and KittyRaindbow's sources, it can be improved. The book passes WP:BK. I hate it when editors !vote delete because of how it looks currently when the subject is notable. This has reviews and won awards. I have a feeling that you didn't read the discussion. Joe Chill (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes I have read the discussion; please don't jump to conclusions (-: Stifle (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. There does appear to be reasonable coverage of the book in reliable sources. The award surely cannot be deemed 'major' however. It also needs serious clean up, along with every other Demonata article, which are pretty much unsourced, and some do not appear notable. Quantpole (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep The nomination suggests redirection which is not performed by deletion. It therefore fails our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    Who knew that all those people who commented before you were also ignorant of deletion policy? Syrthiss (talk) 14:01, 22 September 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.


 W The content appearing above is a local copy of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 16 page from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It was written by various Wikipedians (contributor history) and is distributed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 License (license text).

The version shown above has Revision ID: 315709096 and was last updated September 23, 2009, 1:51 pm.

Current version on Wikipedia: view / edit Read Wikipedia's disclaimers.
Retrieved from "http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:GWArtMirrorPage"
Sea Level Explorer
Random image
Toolbox