Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 28

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 27 August 29 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge.  Skomorokh  02:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naxal/Maoist outfits lists

edit
List of more moderate sector of Naxal/Maoist outfits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of more militant sector of Naxal/Maoist outfits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Arbitrary lists with little encyclopediatic value. The distinction between 'moderate' and 'militant' Naxal groups is OR. Soman (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 03:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was delete. All the useful content - finalists and winners - are listed in the main article so according to the consensus here, separate article are unnecessary. A redirect is an option but I'll delete all for now. The copyright is not an issue in this case, I believe. Tone 10:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prix 2005 (snooker)

edit
Grand Prix 2005 (snooker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating a whole set of these (list below). They are bare results from presumably a snooker tournament. Wikipedia is not an almanac of sports results or a directory. I wouldn't have a problem if these had article content, but they're not. They may have even been copy pasted from Snooker database, possibly bringing up some copyright issues.

Shadowjams (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 02:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ExifTool

edit
ExifTool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

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

The result was Speedily Deleted G4 by Graeme Bartlett. I know I !voted below, but this is just a procedural close, (NAC) -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 06:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top Engineering Colleges of Orissa under BPUT

edit
Top Engineering Colleges of Orissa under BPUT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure WP:OR. It is a subjective list with no sourcing. Naming the "top" colleges standing alone is bound to be original research. If it was named by a magazine (US News, e.g.) then that needs to meet its own notability requirements for the list itself. This article does not demonstrate notability standing alone, nor does it indicate it's based on any outside sources. Shadowjams (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skajnowski

edit
Skajnowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax. There are a number of gaping holes in this article.

The first hint is the coat of arms, which is the same image found on the Gorchakov page. (Since declining my prod, the page has been edited to say that Skajnowski and Gorchakov use the same coat of arms, previously it only said they were "similar").

The entry says that the family is descended from Great Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich, but that entry does not mention "Skajnowski" or "Skajnovsky".

There are only 3 Google hits for "Skajnovsky", one is the page up for deletion. The main spelling, "Skajnowski" has more, but nothing particularly relevant looking, although there are two books in Polish which I can't read.

The references given are problematic. One is 404. Another is the Tolstoy novel War and Peace. But this book is fully searchable in Google Books, the names "Skajnowski", "Skajnovsky" and suggested alternate spellings appear nowhere in War and Peace. The remaining references are not available online. That doesn't disqualify them from being good references, but it makes the entry difficult to verify.

Prod declined without comment. Hairhorn (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I wrote "similar" at first was because the Gorchakov and Skajnowski families used a very similar coat of arms, as they have the same ancester (Vladimir I of Kiev). The senior branch of the Skajnowskis used a coat of arms which was nearly the same as the one used by the Gorchakovs, they instead also had added a extra sceptre to the black eagle, while the junior branch (more polonized) used a similar one.

The reason why I wrote it descended from Yaroslav the Wise is because he was the son of Vladimir I of Kiev. What regards the Tolstoy novel "War and Peace" it deals with the Rurikid dynasty as a whole and that was the reason behind it being used as a reference, but I realised later on, that it had not a big importance in the article. And sorry for me English I am a Russian, so it is hard for me to write perfect English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris Vladimirovich Petrov (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC) ( Boris Vladimirovich Petrov (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC) )[reply]

Remember that you become a founder of a family as soon as you get born. And it also says estimated because of the uncertainty in general, what regards the descendents of the Rurikid dynasty and the families that claim Rurikid descendence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris Vladimirovich Petrov (talk • contribs) 09:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC) ( Boris Vladimirovich Petrov (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC) )[reply]

seems from the following discussion that it may in fact be a hoax. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me again remind you of the fact that I am Russian and my English is not perfect. The reason why I changed it from similar to the same, is because there are two branches of the family a junior branch, which uses the same coat of arms and a senior line, that uses the same aswell, besides a second sceptre added to the eagle. And I do not understand why the Russian version of the Skajnowski genolegy is not working. And again let me remind you of the fact, that there are a lot of families that where supposed extinxt, but in fact many of the families, which have roots in the Rurik dynasty in fact still exist through marriages mainly within the nobility to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris Vladimirovich Petrov (talk • contribs) 16:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I should of course have written, that there were 2 lines of the family in the article, and that one of them used the Gorcahkovs coat of arms (junior branch), because of a ancestor they have in common Vladimir I of Kiev and while the other (senior branch) used a similar one. The senior branch even became counts in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and their descendents exist to this day in present day Poland http://www.moikrewni.pl/mapa/kompletny/skajnowski.html. But currently I do not have enough information to write about both the junior branch, even more as they are supposed to be extinct. According to the Russian link of the genology of the Skajnowski family there are descendence who now live in Poland, Russia, Denmark and France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris Vladimirovich Petrov (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - whether it's a hoax or gospel truth, WP:V is absolute. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have asked an editor familiar with Russian subject matter to have a look. If we could hold off on deleting for a bit that would be helpful. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Single purpose account, an article with sources that are just slightly out of reach, nothing significant on a Google search-- and the someone caught red-handed, by an alert nominator, in borrowing an image from another page. I love the "oh-yeah-the-Gorkachovs-use-that-too" save, very convincing. I don't see why an etymological dictionary of the Polish language would have a history of the Skajnowski family, or any other family for that matter. I can't read Russian either, but the machine translation of the linked article [6] is here, and I don't see no Skajnowskis. Beyond that, what is there to examine? Sorry, Boris Vladimirovich, but I don't believe it. Mandsford (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did find the arms thing significant. Even early students of heraldry know that no two families take the same arms. Two branches of the same family may have subtly different arms, and two families coming together will sometimes take new arms reflecting aspects of both to depict the unity. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Weaver

edit
Damon Weaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An 11 year old student interviewed the president and had a brief media run. While maybe the coverage had some buzz, this is not a notable event, and the BLP standards should be strict in this case. Shadowjams (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. Per the nominating argument. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


But people like Tay Zonday and Chris Crocker get wikipedia articles? Are you serious? At least this kid is trying to do something with his life. "Novelty isn't notability" what a crock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidqwikk (talk • contribs) 21:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was redirect to Five Finger Death Punch. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Snell (musician)

edit
Matt Snell (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nn musician. TheWeakWilled 18:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article just too short? Because I can add a longer biography if needed... Epeu (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's not really length thats the problem - the guideline to follow here is "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." (guideline from WP:BAND), so the individual members of this band should all redirect to Five Finger Death Punch Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also other things that show notability are if they write books (such as the members of Korn) or if they have won awards. TheWeakWilled 15:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So he has to be in two bands at the same time? Because FFDP is his third band, but he's not in any other one. Epeu (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. and rename to Supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of marriage equality in the United States

edit
Supporters of marriage equality in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:NOTDIRECTORY; also, the title choice is a neologism per WP:NEO and the argumentation given by the admin in deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement applies Hekerui (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to "Supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States" or "List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States" *Sigh* You know its always good to discuss possible changes and improvements before you go ahead with AfD. The Title can be changed, this article is notable and the article can be improved with Prose. Knowledgekid87 18:12, 28 August 2009 (AT)
NEO, POVforking, and making this a repository of loose association per point one of WP:NOTDIRECTORY is the point in my opinion. Hekerui (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No title change was proposed. Hekerui (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One is being discussed on the talk page, and you participated in it. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had suggested "Supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States" Do you read the talk? Knowledgekid87 18:26, 28 August 2009 (AT)
Nonsense, you're glossing over the several points I made. This AfD proposes no name change, you can find whatever consensus you like on the talk page. My comment there merely said the other name was better, not that the article should be kept. Hekerui (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well youre talking about WP:NEO and the current topic title as a reason why this should be deleted. Knowledgekid87 18:30, 28 August 2009 (AT)

(outdent) It's a loosely assembles repository. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no source speaking of the supporters as a coherent group. The name is NEO, but can be changed or not. Try to address another point as well. Hekerui (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it loose? All of the persons described support a movement and its goals, and have made various statements on it. I do think the article needs to change to be more proseful—that was also discussed on the talk page. But this AfD is not helping improve it. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"All of the persons described support a movement and its goals ..." - no evidence for that Hekerui (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THIS IS NOT A MOVEMENT It is currently more of a list of people who support same-sex marriage. Knowledgekid87 18:39, 28 August 2009 (AT)
Per WP:SALAT: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, lists of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism." - so it's not an appropriate list because the sum of these people is not notable for their support of gay marriage Hekerui (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't attempt to list everybody who supports the movement. Almost everybody listed has at least their own article. List of Sephardic Jews are not full of Jews notable for being Jews, and the same for the Lists of LGBT people. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a discussion of other articles, especially when they have references tags on them. Hekerui (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and why did you bring up the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement then? Also in the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States THIS article was brought up there.
That's a deletion discussion, not an article. As for the mention, it was not by me. Please move further discussion down, there's little place left. Hekerui (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does "support[ing] same-sex marriage" entail for anybody but a priest? These people are not advocating that people enter into same-sex marriages; that people convert to homosexuality, or marry someone of the same-sex for unstated reasons. It is a movement for a change in the law to remove distinctions between marriages between persons of the same sex and persons of the opposite sex. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what movement? What has Pelosi to do with the Communist Party? Hekerui (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The movement to reform marriage laws so as to remove the current gender restrictions, that both support. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States. Assuming that this can pass Directory, "Marriage equality" is a POV neologism that has little or no mainstream use. - Schrandit (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The renaming of the article to that would be dishonest to those who actually use the term "marriage equality" in what they support. Should they be delisted, then? People and groups such as the Libertarian Party: "The LP praised officials in Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia for taking recent steps toward marriage equality, and urged legislators in all states to scrap government licensing, taxation and regulation of marriage.", Kirsten Gillibrand: "Gillibrand endorsed her appointment and said she assured the group that she 'supports marriage equality' for same-sex couples, Jared Polis: "said Polis... 'Marriage equality is long overdue in this country, and I can't wait to see which state will be next to step up and provide equal rights to all its residents.'"... Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marriage equality just like Traditional marriage is a Neologism, a better title can easily be found and I have suggested one. Knowledgekid87 18:59, 28 August 2009 (AT)
How about a descriptive phrase, then? "Supporters of marriage law reform", "Supporters of the legalization of same-sex marriage", or "Supporters of the equalization of marriage laws for same-sex and opposite-sex couples"? "Same-sex marriage" is just not accurate. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well "Marriage equality" certainly isn't. Equality between who? Certainly not polygamists or other undesirables, just same-sex couples. - Schrandit (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shockingly, what is called in the US the "Civil Rights Movement" is about a narrow set of people's civil rights, African Americans. And the "Suffrage movement", not about 18 year olds! "Pro-life movement", not about ending war or capital punishment! It is a phrase with currency enough such that you generally know what the speakers are talking about. —the Homosexualist (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you those who think that marriage equality and same-sex marriage is diffrent there is nothing stopping you from making an article about marriage equality. As for this one though it poses WP: NEO, and WP: POV issues and that is something that goes against what wikipedia is. I dont see how renaming something that doesnt imply anything other than the fact that the people support same-sex marriage can be harmful.Knowledgekid87 12:49, 29 August 2009 (AT)
Hey, hey, not relevant to deletion debate and rapidly turning into political debate. Not helpful. +Hexagon1 16:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I like talking about a deletion on the talk page and possible ways to improve an article before I go ahead with an AfD. This way most editors are in agreement on if an article can be improved upon or not. Knowledgekid87 19:39, 28 August 2009 (AT)
No response to the reasons I gave, just keep? Hekerui (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is notable, it has good references, and just needs fixing up. As for WP: NEO and WP: POV concerns you raised the title can always be changed. So what it really comes down too is if it passes WP:NOTDIRECTORY and if not, does it have the potental too with fixing up? Knowledgekid87 11:41, 29 August 2009 (AT)
I dont see how it can be classified as political campaigning as the names are people who already got Elected and this shows where they stand on the issue. Knowledgekid87 15:00, 29 August 2009 (AT)
  • It's advocacy, seems like a petition and is inherently not NPOV because it only lists one side of the issue (there doesn't seem to be an opponents page, let alone other shades of opinion). It also has maintenance problems because it doesn't seem to allow for the possibility that people or parties might change their mind. This makes it ephemeral and so contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=46428&o=1&rv=1251595552402#commentslistpos#ixzz0PcxotYQS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durnian1811 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to a List. Notable subject matter, very well-referenced. The title is no grounds for deletion, any debates about the terms marriage equality and same-sex marriage should be, say it with me... That's right, the article's talk page. +Hexagon1 16:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You ignore argument number one. Hekerui (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DIRECTORY? That doesn't apply here, if it did we'd have to delete every list ever. This is no more a directory, than, say List of Greeks. +Hexagon1 02:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Marriage Equality is a political label like Pro-Life or Pro-Choice and needs an explanation. Likewise an article discussing Supporters of Traditional Marriage should not be suppressed by the supporters of Marriage Equality (which is what is happening by the very people arguing to keep the marriage equality argument here). These are both valid or they are not valid. Mrdthree (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment on the deletion, but I've just move protected the article. Pick a title, come to a consensus, and then move it. Don't create double and triple redirects by holding a move-war. That's a good way to get blocked. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of political supporters for same sex marriage in the United States of America, would perhaps be a better name. But the article is fine, both in concept and content. Dream Focus 03:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States. This and Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States are companion articles, although this one is currently much better referenced. Per Mrdthree here and Alansohn in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States who have drawn attention to the Pro-Choice/Pro-Life labels, I would be OK with renaming the former to Supporters of marriage equality in the United States on the condition that the latter is renamed to Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States. Location (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Rename to a less POV title. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Delete unlike lists of people by nationality or ethnicity, this is a subjective, changing list. not all people or organizations have the same definition of same sex marriages, just like we dont have one here. some here are massively more notable for this, others are notable ONLY for this. Many people are supporters of this, but not vocal. again, unlike ethnic/national identity, which cannot change, and national id added to by moving, this list is inherently POV. i work with a pastor who is struggling with same sex marriage, is generally in support of equal rights for homosexuals, is not homophobic, but cannot currently perform such marriages by his conscience and understanding of the bible. if he were notable, i really dont know whether he would consider himself on this list, but i can be sure he would object to someone placing him on this list without his informed consent. so i see lots of potential problems with this list. i would rather see this as a CATEGORY, OR CATEGORIES, say, "same sex marriage advocacy groups", "same sex marriage activists", "same sex marriage supporting elected officials", "same sex marriage supporters". the names may be awkward, but i think my point can be understood here. consider this: someone who is a same sex marriage supporter AND a critic of same sex marriage (say, supporter with reservations, or supporter of the legal right while unsupportive of it as a social phenomenon). with categories, a person or group can have unlimited labels. so basically, i support delete per nom, and eventual creation of categories based on article content. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is there more than one definition for same-sex marriage? Can it mean anything other than people of the same gender marrying each other? Dream Focus 10:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think this is more complex than lists of people by nationality, and that nationality is changed by "moving" then you obviously have never been near such a list. This list lists people in support of legalising gay marriage, that's all there is to it, and regardless of other personal viewpoints they may hold. Quite simple. +Hexagon1 06:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi game

edit
Taxi game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is claiming that "Taxi Game" is a video game genre. I am unable to find any sources backing this up, and the source in the article currently actually contradicts the topic, as it does not list the example as being in the "Taxi Game" genre. Other examples given on the article also contradict this, by not being listed under the genre on Wikipedia, or on other reliable sources. Prod was contested for reason "Look for references such as reviews of the games per WP:BEFORE", which I have done, reviews of the games on reliable sites do not state that "Taxi Game" is a genre. Taelus (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn nom. Still not completely convinced, but nowhere near the utterly NN article it was when I nom'd it. Nice work by MQS. Black Kite 01:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derek & Simon

edit
AfDs for this article:
Derek & Simon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be notable. PROD removed without any good reason given. Black Kite 21:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete (See below) It doesn't look like the show has received much mainstream attention. The only gnews hits are somewhat trivial. The only notability guideline I could find supporting this article is: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." - from WP:NF. Several problems though: the subject is not a film per se, and I wouldn't say this is significant part of any of the involved actors' careers. Jujutacular talkcontribs 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. When first looking at the rather sparse article, I was going to suggest merging it to Bob Odenkirk, but after checking on sources, I feel it can be made to meet WP:GNG and should be expanded. If no one else does so, I will likely do some work on it myself shortly... after going through Futon Critic, USA Today, Rocky Mountain News, Fox News, Toronto Star, GQ, Toronto Star, San Francisco Chronicle, Youngstown Vindicator, Esquire, and whatever else I can find with associated searches. For a short series it seems to have generated enough press... and even an online video award TV Guide. I think one is worth saving. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I presume you did notice that many of those sources were the same AP story reprinted numerous times? The problem I can see is - and I did look for sources myself - that practically all those stories are either about Odenkirk, Super Deluxe or web series in general, and just mention the series in passing. Incidentally, it didn't win the online award, it was only nominated for one. Black Kite 11:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      (To BK) Some perhaps, but certainly not all. In my comment above I granted that I still needed a closer look at the sources proffered from my quick search. And I do not intend to use sources that just parrot each other. One difficulty is found in that Super Deluxe has been swallowed up by Adult Swim. Another is that Odenkirk and the other folks invloved with the project are notable for other works, and that these other works are brought up in various press coverages. It would be so much easier if journalists did not included project "A" or "B" for context when writing about "C". I believe my first quick search only scratched the surface and that I need to seek further coverage for these other's contributions to the early Derek & Simon TV pilots in 2005, the Derek & Simon film festival submissions in 2006, and the Derek & Simon series itself. So... I see that my own work on the article is barely begun and believe continued efforts will be rewarded. If unsuccessful, I might still modify from a keep to suitable merge. But it's too soon yet to wave a white flag. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And yes, I just found that it did indeed win 'Best web video series' from Hollywood NetAwards... this page lists all their 2008 nominees with the winners set in bold: [7]. I am still digging. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Additional input was requested to analyze this article based upon WP:WEB. First, here's a list of the current references for the article: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13]. None of these deal exclusively with the subject. They range from completely to moderately trivial mentions of the subject. The final reference details a "Hollywood NetAward" that the subject won, along with ComedyCentral.com, Gamespot.com, Hulu.com, Pandora.com, Superdeluxe.com, TMZ.COM, and UniversalPictures.com. This may satisfy "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization". It all depends on what constitutes well-known. Personally I've never heard of the award, but I can't say I'm on expert on the subject. I'd certainly consent to keep if other more knowledgeable editors agreed that this criteria has been met. Jujutacular talkcontribs 02:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your welcome input. I had never heard of the award myself before searching... but I have to admit that there's lots of stuff I've never heard of... most of here on Wikipedia (chuckle). Heck... even the Oscars were new once. That organizations are recognizing the internet and looking toward evaluating web content bodes well for us all. In evaluating the award itself, research shows that the Hollywood NetAwards is a part of Hollywood Film Festival & Hollywood Awards [14]. I had never heard of them either, but it appears that they've been around for a while and have some credibility within the industry [15]. So much more to do... I will continue working on the article as my schedule allows. Thank you much, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just found some interviews from May 2007... The A.V. Club [16] and Blender (magazine) [17], where the background and creation of Derek & Simon is discussed in a more-than-trivial manner. More to find... MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given MichaelQSchmidt's great finds concerning this show, I'm switching to keep. Two non-trivial references of the show ([18] and [19]) from popular media sources, an award nomination ([20]) and an award won ([21]). Together these satisfy notability guidelines. Good work Michael. Jujutacular talkcontribs 13:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deirdre Cameron

edit
Deirdre Cameron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking any GNEWS and GHits of substance. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I think there's more of her work here:
http://islandwhere.com/Body,%20Mind%20&%20Spirit.htmlJourdy288 (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - OK, I just looked at the book and here's what I found! It was the first result! "Meet the Makeup Artist: Deirdre Deirdre Cameron is a New York City— trained aesthetician and makeup artist who has been working as a makeup artist/image" Jourdy288 (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there isn't plenty more of her inside the book. Google Books allows for the content of the book to be searched and displayed. There is a single paragraph about her and the rest is the author quoting her for the ret of the bit on makeup artists. This is one source writing about her although not in depth. But more than this is needed. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was G4 and salted Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nassim haramein

edit
Nassim haramein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't know enough about physics to understand Haramein's writing, but he appears to be a writer of fringe science. This would not, in itself, make him a non-notable person, but the article cites only Haramein's own web site, and while I found self-promotion, YouTube videos, and assorted blogs discussing him, I wasn't able to verify that he meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for scholars, or to find reliable sources that discussed him in depth. The article is written in such a biased way that it will require a complete rewrite, but I was not able to attempt such a rewrite due to the dearth of sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm not sure a Gscholar search of full name is fair but I tried last name + things like Einstein. He does seem to have some APS conference papers, at least one or two circa 2001( let me check date now, I've gotten mixed up ) , but everything else is either his own site or such prestigious places as mindspring- did Mythbusters ever cover him? The nature of the claims suggest he should have gotten significant in-field coverage/debate if not some sciam/nytimes articles at least one or two referreed journal articles. I'm no expert on relativity or related matters but unification last I remember is an open and important outstanding issue. I didn't check for notability due to being a notable fringe but since you expressed concern about the physics my quick check didn't show literature consistent with his claims. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 249k ghits: on exact name,LOL. Almost all the usual suspects- blogs, twitter, social sites etc. Does someone have a script to register you with all these using the same name? I've noticed I personally get about 52k hits on my name just from accumulated mail list posts ( " I downloaded your widget and it doesn't work, what is wrong?") mirrored on 100's of sites but still... If he is a notable fringe I would ask supporters to pickout some worthwhile sources. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt Obvious G4, see previous deletion debate. --Crusio (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt per G4, also per my reasoning last time around at the previous deletion debate. 23:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Fringe drivel, less than twenty GS cites, most from APS local meetings which are famous (or notorious or charitable) for letting fringer members have their say (usually at the fag end of a session). As noted above, was deleted after AfD in Sept 2008. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • NewResult: This new article claims to have a new publication and gotten an award Aug 3+/- 2009. While pons and fleischman may soon discover fusion, and I take it no one here bought the DVD set on the present topic, in any case there is no significant RS of this new breakthrough. I read the old debate, maybe he has learned vectors by now. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G4 per previous AFD. So tagged. Salt me please. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt. Second the above motion. Mr. Haramein is certainly persistent and is a consummate self-promoter. Let's see if we appreciate how absurd this article is. It says the subject has successfully solved one of the cornerstone problems of physics, the Unified Field Theory, yet checking WoS using the most liberal criterion, author = haramein n*, we find he has no publications. Strange indeed. What I gather is that we have the same situation as before: a fanciful paper that the author refuses to submit to the physics community for proper review. If he does submit it, it gets published, and it turns out to be what the author claims, then I'm sure he'll have his WP page. With all due respect, I shan't hold my breath. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. I'm reminded of what DGG said in the last go-around on this article: "As I said before, no presence in ArXiv = no notability as a physicist--they'll include even the non-conventional if there is any scientific merit whatsoever". Well, he still has nothing on arxiv. It seems as if we're in the very same position except 1 year later. Also, the creating user seems to be a newly-minted WP:SPA. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I do not agree with the statement "no presence in ArXiv = no notability as a physicist" as a hard and fast rule. Many older and well established physicists have not got round to using the ArXiv. However, this has no bearing on the present case. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Point taken and agreed. Rspcty, Agricola44 (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Skomorokh  02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Davide De Martin"

edit
AfDs for this article:
"Davide De Martin" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-promotion page. JaGatalk 21:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

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

The result was delete.  Skomorokh  02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Tang

edit
Felicia Tang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress/model. Fails WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO, listed movie roles are so minor they don't even make IMDB. No independent sourcing, no indication of any independent coverage satisfying the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sassco.co.uk

edit
Sassco.co.uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the use of "professional" and "professionally organized" in the article, the website http://www.sassco.co.uk/ clearly states that it is a collection of purely amateur teams. The fact that they have a nicely done website doesn't raise Sassco to the level of notability usually required for articles on athletic teams, which are reserved for fully professional or top level teams in their sport. ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M. Pat Korb

edit
M. Pat Korb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable therapist and author. This article has been here for years and was nothing more than a stub till she died, the article is now being edited by someone with the same last name. Even still, I would have considered this a non-notable person, and would have nominated it for deletion even prior to the expansion that has been going on. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, she existed. And? She created a non-notable therapy center. How does that make her notable? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not originate this article, but finding that it contained inaccurate and incomplete information (as well as gross typos) have made significant revisions since her death. These continue. Scholarly publications have been noted. Gestalt Therapy: Practice and Theory has been called “the most widely used introductory text in the world-wide Gestalt community in both academic settings and in training institutes” [Wysong, The Gestalt Journal Press]. Professional associations have been noted (Jourard et al) and continue. Academic and professional data are from the subject’s CV. These can all be documented. The fact that I am the subject’s son and colleague may propose a valid conflict of interest: I never claimed the subject was “notable” according to your criteria, since I had nothing to do with its placement here. My only interest has been accuracy and completeness, which I assume you place as much a value on as elementary writing skills? If this is an inappropriate entry, according to your standards, it will be placed elsewhere. I think you should get a life, or go back to school. No further comments will be read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.69.226 (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Gestalt therapy - not notable enough for a page (more like WP:BLP1E), better to keep the data in one place.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article seems a copy of an obituary: "She died August 20, 2009, after a brief battle with pancreatic cancer." "worked with Sidney M. Jourard until his untimely death in 1974." ,"Known to her friends and colleagues as “Pat”," are diagnostic of such an origin. Director of one of about 20 local US institutes. The local newspaper story is exactly the sort of article that is not a reliable source for notability. The primary indication of notability is one book and two journal articles. It is possible that the book is a widely used textbook, in which case she might qualify under WP:PROF, if this could be shown. The book did have 2 eds. and is in about 300 WorldCat libraries [22]-- But the authors are listed as "Vernon Van De Riet; Margaret P Korb; John Jeffrey Gorrell", so she is not necessarily the principal author. None of the 3 ever published much besides that book, so i can not tell who is likely to have been. A review was mentioned above, but I do not know where it may have been published. In any case, not notable enough to merge with Gestalt therapy--that would be the worst way of handling it, unless we intend to list everyone there who ever helped write a book about it--nowhere near as notable as other people listed in that article, & her book is not included in the long list of books given there as supplemental reading. If kept, rewrite free of the obvious copypaste. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article title is a poor search term. Using Margaret P Kob, there are a decent number of Gbooks hits [23] as well as some citations of her work. [24] Edward321 (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails notability as an author and as a therapist. Probably a nice woman, but being nice doesn't make you notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per DGG and noting that dozens of articles/books on Gestalt therapy have higher citation numbers in Google Scholar than hers. See this Gestalt therapy search. Abductive (reasoning) 06:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy delete. G7 Per major author request. No need to drag this out. Protonk (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Jackie Ohlsen-Artist featured in the Borås Tidning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of a non-notable artist who has appeared in one newspaper article. Fails WP:ARTIST. Article created by User:Jackie ohlsen, who also removed the prod tag. Jafeluv (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The article is quite weak, but Borås Tidning is a reliable source. I cannot find references to her on Google News or Google News archive, but that doesn't mean that references don't exist. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes I was in the Borås Tidning, I Fokus-"Målar Med Ljus Och Värme" however it is under my Formal name Jacqueline Ohlsén, My paintings are all signed as Jackie and, as many keyboards worldwide do not have the option for the letter "è", I have dropped it from Ohlsén and my artist name is Jackie Ohlsen which is more easily searched. The link to the article in the Borås Tidning is [25]and I am a credible artist known in both Canada and western Sweden and feel any artist with legitimation, exhibitions and credible newspaper coverage should be allowed to have their article featured when the MAIN purpose was to translate the article into english for the benefit of those following her work in Canada and other English speaking countries.Jackie ohlsen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
any paintings in major collections? Any solo exhibitions? Any awards? -- those are the factors that make for notability here. DGG ( talk )
06:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Of the 3 exhibitions I have been in, Sandared was a solo exhibition.It was exclusive to the Sandared Gallery, in the Sandared Bibliotek, in Sandared Sweden, where ONLY my work was shown. I am just pointing this out as I think I had not made that very clear in the article when I paraphrased it. The Borås Tidning, A very reputable Newspaper, gave my exhibition coverage on the entire Back Page of the paper. I guess I was not as notable as a huge fire where 33 people fled there homes. That got the front page. Jackie ohlsen (talk)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete If my article is to be deleted, I would like it done immediately, as the many people following my work, who own a body of work, those who display it, or are thinking of purchasing my work in the future may already be questioning my credibility as a legitimate artist because of the flag put on it. I feel that flag should not be visible to the general public search and only wikipedia members and the owner of the article in question, as it ultimately could compromise a writers, singers, artists or any legitimate professional persons career. I appreciate the discussion and consideration before deletion and as I TRIED to point out, it was not a personal biography but rather a translation of one written by the Borås Tidning. Jackie ohlsen (talk)
  • Speedy Delete There is no conflict of interest. I want my article to remain. However it is becoming increasingly evident it will be deleted, so do not drag this on as it may risk compromising my reputation further as a credible artist. Just Delete it.Jackie ohlsen (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 Not the place for this discussion Jclemens-public (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sandbox

edit
AfDs for this article:
Wikipedia:Sandbox (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Sandbox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sandbox is a page that has no clear intention, rather than new users posting at times libelous, offensive material and other kinds of vandalism. People should use their user page for experimenting, and removal of the sandbox will decrease vandalism acts, if users are urged to carry out editing tests on their own user page. MikeNicho231 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sandbox is often used for test edits by IPs who don't even know how to find their user talk page. The Sandbox is a good place for them to learn the basics. Yes, there is quite a bit of vandalism that does occur there, but it is better to channel such vandalism towards a project-space page, than to have it sprawl over the mainspace. Nsk92 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - it is a place for people who are just trying to start to test out what they want to do. Giving them a place to "play" helps keep them from doing things to articles until they are ready. Yes, they can use their user space as well, but I see no compelling reason to take away this space. LadyofShalott 17:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close. First off, pages in the Wikipedia namespace belong at WP:MFD, not here. Secondly, to echo MuZemike's closing comment from the last AfD, sensitive/libelous material can be removed by oversight or RevDel. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Non-notable as per consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Banderas

edit
Stella Banderas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN, Child of celebrities, has only had one minor movie role. Ckessler (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. NW (Talk) 18:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mayday Magazine

edit
Mayday Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mayday Magazine is an orphaned article, and I cannot find any reliable sources to back up the little information in the article, thus deeming the article not notable. Also used for self-promotional purposes. The creator is "Maydaymagazine". Cheers, SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bumbling in like a moron, fellas, but I can't figure out how to contribute to this thread except via this method, should it work. I don't know about this magazine in Ontario--which I think is defunct--but we're running an online magazine called MAYDAY at www.maydaymagazine.com, which is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.190.22 (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

Kelly Bell

edit
The result was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete as the subject does not reach the inclusion criterion of either WP:Athlete or WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bilel Henider

edit
Bilel Henider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The source provided [26] proves that he hasn't played in the league, a league that isn't even fully professional. This source [27] says that he's scored a goal but it still isn't relevant unless he's played internationally or at least continentally. Spiderone (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 19:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. Advise that it should be a lengthy time before a 4th AfD is even considered. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Davis

edit
AfDs for this article:
Jackson Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails our biographical notability criteria, general notability criteria and actor notability criteria. All the sources are 1 sentence mentions except the article from his local paper of his home town. Contributors have been asked to add more sources so it passes Wikipedia's notability criteria, but have failed to do so. Otterathome (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article already passes the general notability guideline, and the previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackson Davis (2nd nomination)) was less than a month ago. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No indication that evidence of the subject's notability has changed over the last 16 days or that consensus has changed in the 16 days since the prior AFD closed. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 August 2009
  • Keep. Otterathome appears to have a personal vendetta against lonelygirl15 related articles. I don't say that lightly, as I understand the assumption of good faith for wikipedia. I presume Otterthome makes substantive contributions to other parts of wikipedia. But here's the deal for this article: The last AFD was closed only 16 days ago. When closing the AfD, Pastor Theo wrote: "The article's supporters are invited to strengthen its text, while those who favor deletion are welcome to revisit this subject later in the year if the article has seen no substantial improvements." "Later in the year" is not 16 days by any good faith understanding. Furthermore, after the 2nd AfD was not successful, Otterathome immediately requested a deletion review, which was only closed seven days ago. During these debates, Otterathome falsely claimed that I was part of the lonelygirl15 team to try to invent a conflict of interest, based on some parody vids I have uploaded on youtube. That claim was, if not intentionally malicious, at least indicative that s/he is not examining the subject matter and information around it closely enough to be making serial AfDs. Lastly, there is a current Wikiquette alert outstanding against Otterathome regarding his edits in this area, that provides more detail about all this.--Milowent (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already nominated isn't a reason see WP:NOTAGAIN, and the closing admin suggested nothing wrong in relisting it again at the deletion review. I didn't falsely claim anything, and so what there's a Wikiquette alert on me? Two people have already responded to it stating I had done nothing wrong. Here's a somewhat amusing quote from it: "My advice to Otterathome is, if you find it impossible to deal with the kid stuff calmly and patiently, just stay away from it. Nobody reads it except kids anyway, and it keeps them away from more important articles until they mature a bit. Kids have a very skewed view of notability, but getting into holy wars about it is just a waste of time.".--Otterathome (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What has it been a week, since this matter was resolved? Let's see Lonelygirl15 is still notable, Jackson Davis was still a major part of it, so what has changed? I don't get it. Mathieas (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Already nominated isn't a reason see WP:NOTAGAIN, and the closing admin suggested nothing wrong in relisting it again at the deletion review. Nobody is disputing the notability of lonelygirl15, actors notable for one show is a WP:BIO1E which is shown by the serious lack of sources.--Otterathome (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if he is only notable for one show (which clearly he's not, he's notable for at least three, but that's besides the point) I'd like to take the following quote from the policy you linked to:
"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."
I would argue that lonelygirl15 is a highly significant event due to the information here, and I would argue that Jackson Davis's role was a large one because he was one of the three major actors in the show from nearly the beginning, was the only actor in the show to travel to the UK to participate in the show's sister series KateModern and was one of only two actors to continue onto the follow-up series LG15: The Resistance, which makes him the longest running actor on all EQAL LG15-Universe shows combined. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is clearly a personal vendetta by an individual who has little respect for the wikipedia process or the web series genre of entertainment in general. It needs to end now because it just takes away from the valuable time needed to research and build pages. It would be helpful if the senior admins at wikipedia did the right thing here and informed this individual that they need to be more respectful of the broader wiki community and stop posting these intrusive and disruptive deletion notices which are clearly motivated by a personal bias against the web series genre in general rather than any well founded and coherent argument. If wikipedia wants to retain their author base they need to put a swift and decisive end to such practices before it is too late. Too much damage has been done already by this individual and I call on the head admins to take action now to prevent it from continuing in the future.--Modelmotion (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of that seems to have anything to do with the notability of the article, read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to see how to participate properly.--Otterathome (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps. But it does speak to the credibility and motives of the individual who seems to have a personal vendetta against this page. Would you not agree that those factors are highly relevant? What if some insane person started putting deletion notices on pages they did not like? Would that not be a relevant factor? In this case motive has become the issue since feeble rational arguments are being used to fabricate an unsubstantiated case towards what is essentially an irrational act by an individual whose motives are questionable at best.(for reference see: Confirmation bias)--Modelmotion (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see absolutely no reason that the page needs to be deleted 16 days after the prior discussion was closed. In the interest of moving this along though, I have added a number of additional sources to the page. --Zoeydahling (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already nominated isn't a reason see WP:NOTAGAIN, and the closing admin suggested nothing wrong in relisting it again at the deletion review. Thank you for adding 7 more sources, here's are my reasons why they don't contribute to the notability of the article. 5. Gregory Mantell is a non-notable webshow YouTube channel interview with a number of people including him. 8. Is from eqal.com which is not independant of the subject. 9. & 10. are just links to music videos he supposedly had minor appearances in. 11. Appears to suggest he hosted a non-notable amatuer comedy show. 12. & 13. More minor appearances in non-notable webshows. So all in all, just more minor stuff.--Otterathome (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually think WP:NOTAGAIN works against you here based on the following quotations:
"An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change." (You have not included any new arguments that were not addressed in the last AfD.)
"If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." (emphasis added). 16 days after the AfD and 7 days after the Deletion Review is definitely a "short time."
"If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article." (16 days is hardly enough time to improve upon an article.)
Additionally, your comment about the closing admin saying that the article can be renominated does not support your 16 day renomination: "The article's supporters are invited to strengthen its text, while those who favor deletion are welcome to revisit this subject later in the year if the article has seen no substantial improvements." "Later in the year" is definitely not only 16 days later.
As far as your assessment of my sources, while I agree with some of them, I am confused or disagree about others. I am still new to this process, so perhaps if I am mistaken in my assessment here, you can direct me to the WP that says otherwise, but here are my thoughts:
  • Gregory Mantell - Gregory Mantell is both a cable and web show [28] and therefore I am unsure why it would be any less notable than any other cable TV shows.
  • Why is a source from EQAL not notable? Jackson Davis does not control what EQAL puts out. He is an actor who works for the production company. Would Summit Entertainment putting out a statement on Kristen Stewart then be considered non-notable? I read WP:IS but it says nothing about sources put out by a larger company that one works for, only sources that the subject themselves or their PR people put out about them.
  • What makes ACME Comedy non-notable? It is a well-known comedy show that has featured well-known celebrities and comedians including: Wayne Brady, Adam Carolla, Bryan Cranston, Joel McHale, Kel Mitchell, Ryan Stiles, Fred Willard, Wil Wheaton, among others. [29]
  • Raul Midon is a notable singer, so why would an appearance in one of his music videos be considered non-notable?
Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't need to include any new arguments because they weren't addressed in the previous afd and the article still fails the guidelines I mentioned. 7 days is long enough seeing as closing statement at DRV suggested to relist it. There has been plenty of time for editors to improve the article, I nominated it at the start of August, nearly a whole month. I was referring to the deletion review not the afd, a link was also provided.
  • I pushed aside Gregory Mantell, because there's no article on the individual or show, plus it is an interview with a number of lesser known people Ilene Kristen and Bob Guiney. It is only a cable broadcast shown in New York and LA. It's not exactly The Jay Leno Show. Plus if it was notable wouldn't there be an article somewhere even mentioning it?
  • I didn't say the EQAL source wasn't notable, I said it wasn't independant so doesn't contribute towards the notability of the subject.
  • ACME comedy is just a theater and the sources provided don't say anything about being a host, just show him making an appearance. So minor.
  • Yes Raul Midon is notable, but just appearing in a music video doesn't make you notable. Otherwise every stage dancing/model of every music video would be notable. Another source on it would help though.--Otterathome (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closing statement at the DRV said "No consensus; no prejudice against relisting" but that does not say anything about relisting in such a short amount of time. Additionally, about your comments regarding my sources:
  • Gregory Mantell still appears on Cable TV and an interview would therefore still be notable. I wholeheartedly disagree with you about the notability of the other guests. Ilene Kristen is a well-known and much-beloved soap star who has appeared in 566 episodes of Ryan's Hope and 151 episodes of One Life to Live [30]. Bob Guiney is probably one of the best-known Bachelors and since his appearance on the show (plus the Bachelorette) has hosted a number of notable shows including GSN Live, The View, and ABC's Super Bowl coverage, among many others. [31] I would therefore argue that he was on with two very notable people and that makes his appearance notable based on your argument above.
  • The YT source, on the official acmecomedy channel (as can be evidenced by its link from the official website), is titled "Acme This Week 2008/09/06 Host: Jackson Davis" proving that he did, in fact, host the show that week. Also, if you watch the videos, you can see he is the host.
  • I will try to find another source about the Raul Midon video.
--Zoeydahling (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, I'd like to point out your arguments about the policies which Jackson fails are not true based on the policy descriptions:
  • Wikipedia:BIO - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject... If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." -- The coverage provided by the Lancaster Sunday News is in-depth. Additionally, there are a number of other sources that provide less in-depth but still significant coverage of Jackson, including his interview with Gregory Mantell and the press release by EQAL.
  • WP:ENT -- "Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." His significant roles include: lonelygirl15, KateModern, and LG15: The Resistance, among others.
  • WP:NOTABILITY -- "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I would argue that 13 sources constitutes significant coverage. Even if you do not count all of them as "worthy" there are still a number of in-depth articles or articles with more than just a "trivial mention" and interviews that suggest he has received significant coverage.
--Zoeydahling (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO - Yes, that is a local newspaper from his hometown, and is the only non-trivial source on the subject so still fails WP:N, see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. Any notable biography is expected to have at least two, and not ones just from their hometown. Interview is a non-notable web show so isn't WP:RS, and EQAL is a company he worked for so is not independant.
  • WP:ENT - It doesn't state anything about webshows, but I don't know if any of them are "commercially produced or significant" because they have so few sources. They are part of the lonelygirl15 series so they are from the same company with many of the same characters so are barely considered seperate or new productions, just another web-series.
  • WP:NOTABILITY - Adding up one line sentences from lots of places doesn't equal significant coverage. So there is still only 1 article of significant coverage by his local hometown newspaper.--Otterathome (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Otterathome (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO - The interview is from a Cable TV and web show (see link I posted above). Once again, I ask how that is any less notable than any other show appearing on Cable TV. Additionally, I again pose my question about Summit Entertainment putting out a statement about Kristen Stewart re your argument about EQAL.
  • WP:ENT - If you do not know that Lonelygirl15 is significant, I am confused as to why you are attacking the related pages so heavily. Regardless, Lonelygirl15 is significant because it started the genre and when the story behind its fictionality broke, new sources such as Jay Leno, Wired and the New York Times (among MANY others) covered it. It is commercially produced as the show received a number of product placement sponsors, including The Hershey Company [32], Jumper (film) [33], and Neutrogena [34]. KateModern is significant for being the first web show on Bebo, a social network that now produces a number of web shows, and is commercially produced with sponsors including Toyota [35], Orange Mobile [36], Microsoft, HP, and Paramount [37]. Additionally, all of the shows received venture capital funding in the amount of $5 mil from investors such as Spark Capital, Conrad Riggs, Ron Conway, Marc Andreessen, and others. [38][39] Additionally, your comment about them not being separate series is simply not true. They may have been started by the same company, but they had different production teams, different actors (for the most part), etc. I would also like to ask, if someone starred in a movie and its sequel, wouldn't that count as two separate movies? Why would web shows be any different?
  • WP:NOTABILITY - Once again, why are the sources I mentioned above not significant? You still have not addressed that.
--Zoeydahling (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO - It doesn't seem to very notable to me because the show itself gets so little coverage in any media and is only broadcast on cable in LA/New York. We need publications, not interviews. You seem to be a little confused about independant sources despite linking to WP:IS. "An independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective." Meaning, if they already have an official connection such as an actor working for the company, the company writing about one of their employees isn't independant.
  • WP:ENT - If it was incredibly significant, that would give more weight in the notability of this actor. Saying it started that genre is a very bold statement, so you'll need a reliable source to back that up. Commercially produced and sponsored isn't the same thing, if I started a webshow and got a company to pay me to put their logo in my show, would it be commercially produced? No. Again if KateModern was the first show on bebo you need to provide a source for that bold'ish statement. Web shows are different because you don't need any money to make them, I can upload two videos onto youtube and call it a webshow.
  • WP:NOTABILITY - I already described the problems with the sources above edit at 10:30 above.
  • --Otterathome (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I pose the question: Why are you attacking these pages so heavily if you don't even know some basic information about the content?
Anyway, first of all... Commercially produced:
Commercially - 1) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of commerce. (They are taking in commerce. They have large corporate sponsors and $5 mil in venture capital as a result of their shows. See my sources above. Additionally...) 11) paid for by advertisers (Spells out pretty clearly that having a sponsor would make it commercial).
Produced - 2) to bring into existence by intellectual or creative ability (Clearly they did this or it wouldn't exist).
Therefore, commercially produced. (Additionally, see [40] -- "Not only that, but the London-based series [KateModern] is profitable, with some £200,000 ($405,000) in revenue"
Lonelygirl15 as the start of the genre -- "the pioneering online video series “lonelygirl15”" [41]; "But the series he created shows that Internet TV has arrived. "; "It hadn’t taken them long to figure out, by trial and error, what worked in this new genre" (emphasis added); "When “My Parents Suck …” broke 500,000 views, Beckett and Flinders realized this wasn’t just an experiment or a setup for a film. It was a medium in its own right." (emphasis added); Beckett is clearly frustrated. “The Web isn’t just a support system for hit TV shows,” he says. “It’s a new medium. It requires new storytelling techniques. The way the networks look at the Internet now is like the early days of TV, when announcers would just read radio scripts on camera. It was boring in the same way all this supplemental material is boring.”"; "Beckett says. “You make movies for the big screen, sitcoms for TV, and something else entirely for the Internet. That’s the lesson of Lonelygirl15.”" [42] (see link for more info and further details).
KateModern as the first show on Bebo -- "we should note that the show benefits from being Bebo’s first big foray into content" [43]
Additionally, what makes an interview any less worthy than a publication? After all, many publications come from interviews in the first place. And the fact that it is only broadcast in two cities does not make it any less notable. Those are two of the biggest cities in the US and getting shown there is definitely a big deal.
--Zoeydahling (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to be very knowledgable on the article that you are nominating for deletion as that it's the authors' job to add sufficient sources to prove notability, see WP:BURDEN. Was lonelygirl15 commercially produced? Sounds like they were making money after they started making it. They may be commercially produced but it's still from the same company/lg15 series with same actors. Barely any difference.
'pioneering' is not the same as starting genre.
It says "Bebo’s first big foray into content" but it also says it was on a videoegg player "We haven’t been able to verify the numbers because the show uses the VideoEgg player" which doesn't seem to be associated with bebo. So it looks like they just embedded the content on the bebo website, which isn't the same thing as hosting it.
Interviews are less note worthy because anyone can be interviewed by anyone and depending on the interview they are may or may not be controlled. So are in effect trivial coverage unless it's an extensive interview. For example the guidelines at WP:BAND allows any interviews 30 minutes can be used to count towards notability.--Otterathome (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN - Same as it is the responsibility of the editors who create the page to prove that the material belongs, it is your responsibility as the person tagging the page for deletion to prove it doesn't belong, which you cannot do if you don't understand the material you are tagging. Additionally, "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." -- You have clearly not made such reasonable efforts if you have not done enough research to understand some basics about the content.
Pioneering -- 2) one who is first or among the earliest in any field of inquiry, enterprise, or progress (emphasis added) -- So yes, pioneering is the same as starting the genre. Additionally, see the Wired article I linked which was written right when Lonelygirl15 "came out of the closet" as being a production with actors not an actual girl video blogging, which uses terms such as "new genre" "start of the genre" and "shows that Internet TV has arrived" which also indicates that they started the genre.
VideoEgg player hosts videos on Bebo. Here is a source that clarifies my point explicitly -- "KateModern, the flagship online drama broadcast by social networking site Bebo" Does that make it clear to you? KateModern is the "flagship online drama" "by social networking site Bebo." Even the title EXPLICITLY states "Bebo's KateModern." In fact, a simple google search will show many other articles using the same terminology. Furthermore, this press release by EQAL further clarifies the relationship between Bebo and KateModern.
WP:BAND has nothing to do with Jackson Davis. A band would be notable if a half-hour broadcast about them was done, but that would be more if they had their music played in a chunk of that time, not if an interview of that amount was done. Nobody does interviews that last half an hour with one person or group. That is an unreasonable guideline to apply here, not to mention, Jackson Davis is not a band. I still assert that the interview is on a notable show, being a Cable TV show broadcast in two major US cities, and the interview is sufficiently long and alongside two very other notable people, and therefore should definitely count in establishing the notability of Jackson Davis.
So you agree that they are commercially produced then? And once again, they have separate production teams and separate actors except in the case of a few notable exceptions, such as Jackson Davis, who is the ONLY actor to appear in all three series. EQAL, the company behind these shows, is just, in essence, the studio. Going back to my Summit Entertainment example, if that company put out two different movies with the same actor, both of those movies would count towards the notability of the actor. This is no different.
--Zoeydahling (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the Lancaster Sunday News not count as a reliable source? One has to assume that your argument is based on the assumption that their is a correlation between the circulation of a newspaper and the validity of the facts contained within and hence the validity of the facts becomes dependent on the size of town a newspaper originates from. Does Wikipedia have a policy that discriminates against all small towns in the World? Are we to discount all local newspapers and weight news based on population? How is that fair? If someone is from New York City are you going to disclude the New York Times and all other media from New York City? The fact that the coverage is from a local news paper should not be the factor that determines the significance of facts. The criteria should be the quality of the journalism and the accuracy of the facts. The size of a town or the place of a persons birth or their place of residence do not reflect upon the validity of the facts. Certainly some media sources have a world wide reputation but even 60 Minutes gets facts wrong. If the article in a local newspaper is well researched and accurate that should be the primary consideration for why a source is reliable and to discriminate based on an individuals place of birth or the population of a town just seems contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.--Modelmotion (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you now agree that the article has at least one very good and credible source from a reputable newspaper? So what is your problem with the article since you have just agreed that the source is totally up to Wikipedia standards?--Modelmotion (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read what has already been discussed instead of latching on to certain parts of it, you'd know having only a single siginificant source for a biography can easily equals WP:1E, and all other guidelines require more than 1 source where the subject has been properly covered. Which this doesn't.--Otterathome (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the previous deletion was denied so if you now say that the citation is fully authoritative by Wikipedia standards does that not discredit this additional attempt to have the article deleted. That alone would seem to support the notion of [confirmation bias]].--Modelmotion (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep
    • Consensus did not change: While Otter keeps repeating "Consensus can change, consensus can change", it has been decided to keep this page twice this month, and there is no evidence that anything in the situation changed. His own opposition to this page is certainly not news. It should be obvious we're deep in WP:OVERZEALOUS territory by now. Otterathome needs to get over it and just let go. WP:NOTAGAIN describes it aptly: "An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion". As pointed out before, there are no strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion. Otterathome thinks Jackson Davis is not notable. That's not news. That was the situation both in the previous nomination as well as in the review, and both times the result was keep. There is nothing new in this nomination, and no proof that anything changed in the last week. In fact, WP:CCC, which he himself cites to support his actions, says "It is reasonable and indeed often desirable to make further changes to things at a later date, even if the last change was years ago" - emphasis added. Surely "one week" is not "a later date" in the spirit of the policy.
    • Frivolous: While Otter loves to point out that there was nothing barring him from re-nomination, the previous closing admin's words were "[...] while those who favor deletion are welcome to revisit this subject later in the year if the article has seen no substantial improvements" - emphasis added. Otter also loves to claim WP:NOTAGAIN does not apply, while said section clearly states "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute [...] when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination". 16 days since the last AFD ended. 7 days since the review ended. That is short time.
    • Bogus nomination reason: His claim that editors have failed to add better sources is bogus at best, not only because he is the only one judging the quality of the sources, but moreso because he continuously disrupts the editing process of this page by nominating it again and again and again. On one hand, he expects people to improve the page, while on the other hand, he keeps tying everyone up with nominations again and again and again. In order to have the page improved, the editors involved have to actually have a chance to edit it, rather than spending their time in frivolous deletion discussions.
    • Nomination goes against WP:AFD: Nevertheless, the page actually has improved significantly in the past four weeks - WP:AFD clearly and unambiguously states "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD".
    • FUD: In addition, Otter keeps trying to disguise the fact that he is the only one interested in deletion by using the notavote template as a FUD tactic to cast doubt on people's positions. Independent from the fact that his template is tellingly lacking an URL, even if the discussion was mentioned elsewhere, WP:AFD has an entire section on notifying interested editors. Notifying people interested in the article that it's up for deletion is not against Wikipedia policy, and trying to frame any such notification as a request to blind vote is dishonest at best.
      The fact that Otter disagrees with the majority opinion does not invalidate it, and the fact that it is the majority opinion does not mean it was formed through inappropriate measures.
    • On the content side, I actually have the Bud Light commercial marked on the page as needing citation, from a forwarded mail directly from Anheuser-Busch after a different user requested it from them. Due to Wikipedia's 10,000 policies, I can't just add a screencap, but if someone points out where I'll find the necessary policies to use a screencap from a copyrighted work, I'll try to get it in. For reference, it's the commercial with the granny on the quad, featuring the tag line "Smart grannies choose Bud Light".
In summary: This nomination goes against WP:AFD, it's a frivolous nomination as per WP:NOTAGAIN, WP:CCC does not apply due to the very limited timeframe, the previous closing admin's directions were to wait with renomination, and the only supporter for deletion so far (watch the meatpuppets roll in after I post) is the nominator himself.
WP:KEEP lists among possible reasons "obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations" as well as "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected". I have already shown how the nomination qualifies as frivolous, and while "strongly rejected" is certainly subjective, the fact that the same user with the same argumentation was unsuccessful in both the AFD as well as the review within a 3-week-period should be strong enough for a speedy keep.
~ Renegade - 80.171.51.191 (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you've said assumes I'm the only one who thinks it isn't notable and should be deleted, which isn't true as evidenced by the previous AFD and DRV.--Otterathome (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, that's a lie. Plain and simple. Not only does only a minor part of the post "assume" that you're alone, but it's only really the central part of the argument in the last paragraph, where I argue for Speedy Keep. Dishonest tactics like that are one of the reasons there's a Wikiquette Alert for you.
Besides, your argumentation is blatantly fallacious. Your entire basis for this AfD is that consensus can change, and that, as such, the previous AfD's and the review's outcome don't matter. Therefore, the previous AfD-participants' opinion only become relevant if they are stated as current opinions in this AfD.
Either you insist that consensus has changed in the past week, then previous points of view are irrelevant, or you insist it hasn't, then accept consensus and speedy keep this.
To pretend that supporters' opinions may have changed, but that opponents' opinions most definitely stayed the same is all but ridiculous.
~ Renegade - 80.171.29.22 (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers are certainly not the sole factor in making decisions, but in terms of the current deletion discussion which pertains to the page as it currently stands who else is in favor of deletion? No one so far! I think the credibility of the individuals also goes to the issue. The mere fact that someone is able to cite Wikipedia policy without having the perspective to see it within the context of the current discussion certainly does not support the credibility of those in favor of deletion in this instance. Persistent attempts to attack this page without good justification are simply not acceptable on Wikipedia and clearly demonstrate the prior assertion of confirmation bias.--Modelmotion (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from a semi-deliberate wikipedia outsider, and someone that has NEVER SEEN, BARELY HEARD OF, and basically KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT this lonelygirl thing... Otter, you're grasping at straws. This nom is blindingly obviously both vexatious and frivolous. It's pretty clear you've made this thing personal. Why I can't fathom, it simply isn't important enough to be worth the trouble. Not to mention your own arguments fail.

WP:NOTAGAIN *does* apply in this situation, in precisely the opposite way you're trying to assert that it does. It's intended to prevent the argument of 'It got nominated and kept two years ago so it shouldn't be nominated now!' It SPECIFICALLY lays out an exception for situations where a single editor tries to spam an article up on AFD until it gets deleted. And even I, who think the entire deletion process on wikipedia verges on offensive(it's one of the reasons I won't make an account), know that you're not only allowed to but actually supposed to inform the other editors involved with the article that it's been nominated.

Simply put, no admin is going to reasonably support an almost verbatim reposting of an AFD that ended less than three weeks prior, especially with an appeal that ended a week prior. No matter how you argue, no matter how you wikilawyer, you can't win this one mate. It doesn't even matter if you're right or not. I don't know if you are, and I frankly don't care. I don't know who this guy is, and I likely never will, and that won't bother me(a walking mass of trivia), one little bit. Your METHODS alone make your success impossible. You're not working with the community, you're not being reasonable, and you're making no attempt whatsoever to improve the subject matter. You simply want it gone, and refuse to hear any argument to the contrary.

Seriously man, get a grip, let it go. These tactics will in the end lead you to only one place. It's called ARBCOMM. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus before, so there's nothing wrong in nominating it again. To the IP 'Graptor', or the 'semi-deliberate wikipedia outsider', when you stop failing WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL and stop criticizing Wikipedia itself, then you might actually have an argument.--Otterathome (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So wait, the guy who has made it a point to, in every single of these discussions so far, brand everyone's support as blind voting, tried to put in doubt individual supporters' opinions, misrepresented fanfic as official material to generate a conflict of interest, refused to see any outcome but deletion, and deliberately lied about the nature of my argumentation is trying to lecture people about Assuming Good Fath and Civility?
WP:IRONY at its finest.
Just let go, man.
~ Renegade - 80.171.84.253 (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation bias is a serious problem and to point out that this third deletion notice is totally irrational and not substantiated by fact is not respectful of Wikipedia or the Wikipedia process. What is disrespectful is to ignore the wishes of the wikipedia community when they have clearly demonstrated that this article already meets Wikipedia standards. I call on the senior admins at Wikipedia to put a swift end to this problem and warn the individual concerned that future abuses of Wikipedia policies will not be tolerated.--Modelmotion (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This 'wikipedia community' you talk about seems to consist of mostly fans of the things the subject has starred in
The 'it was already nominated not too long ago' only applies when the afd showed nobody supported deletion except the nominator. This is untrue as show in the afd + drv so I don't know why you keep repeating it.--Otterathome (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it applies when A.) A long enough time period has passed that it's reasonable to expect consensus could have changed; B.) A long time period has passed, and the previously lacking article that was kept because it could BECOME a decent article...hasn't; C.) Something new emerges that changes the situation since the last AFD. It does NOT apply to 'they didn't come to the OBVIOUSLY correct conclusion that I did about it so they CLEARLY didn't think about it.' And as he said...the Irony. You're not being civil and not acting in good faith yourself, you're fighting dirty and trying to use minutiae to support your arguments...when BASICALLY NO ONE ELSE AGREES WITH YOU. You might've had a point the first time. Re-AFDing two weeks later is like the pet referendum of some elected officials getting voted down, so then they just go ahead and implement it anyway without a vote. Guess who the only people surprised by the angry backlash are. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as we already established, you are rejecting previous consensus by nominating it again, as such, previous opinions are irrelevant. Which leaves us at a simple truth: You are the only one supporting deletion.
Either you want to argue on basis of the previous AfD and DRV, then accept consensus and the closing admin's directions, or you reject the previous consensus, then stop arguing with the very discussions that formed it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the previous AfD is relevant or not. It can't be both.
(Or, to put it in your language: Consensus can change. These people may have been against the page in the previous AfD and DRV, but there is no proof they are still holding that opinion right now.)
~ Renegade - 80.171.83.218 (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The 2nd nomination failed and so did the deletion review, the closing comment by the admin was "while those who favor deletion are welcome to revisit this subject later in the year if the article has seen no substantial improvements" the article has had 7 more references added to it since last time it was nominated for deletion. The article has sign of substantial improvements and later in the year isn't 16 days after the last attempt WP:NOTAGAIN, yes their is no set amount of time before you can nominate an article but Otterathome you are clearly not giving enough time for work on the article to be done before you nominate. The argument brought forward by Zoeydahling stands and Otterathome needs to WP:GETOVERIT and WP:JDI.
~ KindredPhantom (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another spa voting keep with same 'it was already nominated' reason.--Otterathome (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another cheap attempt to gloss over the fact that even your own, oft-cited WP:NOTAGAIN states
"If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute [...] when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination."
The fact that the page was nominated just a few weeks ago and kept is relevant to this discussion.
~ Renegade - 80.171.83.218 (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep repeating yourself? I don't think you know what consensus means.--Otterathome (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another spa voting keep with same 'it was already nominated' reason. I fail to see the relevance. I am a contributor to Wikipedia thus i am allowed to voice my opinion even if it the same as another users. Need i remind you of WP:BITE? Or are you now shifting focus from discussion of the article and instead attempting to discredit those whose opinion is not in line with yours? ~ KindredPhantom (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep And I am not a SPA and I was not asked to come here and comment. I did not particpate in the 2008 AfD. I did not particpate in the AFD of 3 weeks ago. I did not participate in the DRV. I looked at the article and looked at the actor's history. 153 episodes of Lonelygirl 15 and 13 episodes of LG15: The Resistance allow Davis to meet WP:ENT. Easily... and there is just enough sourcing provided to show he was in those two series. The tremendous single-mined effort being made to delete this article is strangely out of proportion to the article and its notability. My opinion is that notability has been shown and that it improves the project to have this article remain and grow. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a discussion above asking whether the two things are considered completely separate productions as they are by the same company, have the same characters are considered part of the same series.--Otterathome (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say they are two separate productions. Just because they are from the same company it does not mean they are one and the same. For example Angel was the spin-off from Buffy the Vampire Slayer like LG15: The Resistance is the spinoff from Lonelygirl 15.
    ~ KindredPhantom (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same production company means nothing as far as establishing separation in the series. Warner Brothers Studios, for instances, puts out tons of films and I would be willing to bet that the same actor appeared in more than one of them, but you wouldn't say that both productions don't count toward establishing the notability of the actors. Just because the same company puts out two different productions does not make appearing in more those productions any less notable.
  • They do NOT, for the most part, have the same characters. See lonelygirl15 characters, LGPedia, KateModern characters, LGPedia, and LG15: The Resistance characters, LGPedia. You will notice that the only characters shared by Lonelygirl15 and KateModern are Steve (Giles Alderson) and Jonas (Jackson Davis) from their two-week cross-over (additional minor characters were shared, as the week when Jonas was in KateModern, all the characters who appeared in those videos were considered part of Lonelygirl15, and vice-versa. However, those two actors were the only ones who actually appeared on each others' shows). The only two characters shared by Lonelygirl15 and LG15: The Resistance were Jonas (Jackson Davis) and Sarah (Alexandra Dreyfus). And the single only character shared between KateModern and LG15: The Resistance was Jonas (Jackson Davis). Considering the large number of characters shown on the pages, it is hard to argue that they have the same characters to any notable degree.
  • I think you are confusing sharing the same mythology with being a part of the same series. For instance, see this quote: "[LG15: The Resistance] shares the same mythology of competing secret societies behind lonelygirl15 and KateModern" (emphasis added) [44] Please find me a single RELIABLE source that says they are the same series. You can't. They aren't.
  • --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All they mean by that LG15: The Resistance continues to build upon the mythology laid out in the Lonelygirl15 story and continues the stories of the two characters mentioned previously. It does not mean that the stories are the same series, just that one continues certain aspects of the other. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy Keep. I have never seen this actor or the show he's on. I am as far out of the demographic as possible. But I have to ask why this nominator is so ultra-fixated on deleting this article, especially considering that the subject clearly and unquestionably passes Wikipedia's notability requirements? I'm trying to assume good faith here, but given that multiple editors have repeatedly given solid reasons in all three nominations why this person is notable, I do have to wonder if this is being nominated for personal reasons and not for the betterment of the encyclopedia. I also wonder why the editor cares so much about one article that he feels it necessary to repeatedly nominate it for AFD and DRV and not just let consensus be. The attempts to brand opponents as single-purpose accounts or as attached to the show itself are worrisome as well. --NellieBly (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it "clearly and unquestionably passes Wikipedia's notability requirements" then why did the last afd receive delete votes, and the drv of it receive some overturn and deletes? Also what consensus? You've basically just repeated everything that has already been said so have contributed nothing new.--Otterathome (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So basically you are telling this user that there is no consensus, but also saying that they are just repeating everything that has already been said (thereby contributing to the consensus of "everything that has already been said")? Very ironic. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To any admin or third party-user currently reading this page: I would like to note that Otterathome has recently added the Puffery template to Jackson Davis to further discredit the opinions of users on this page. I truly believe his conduct needs to be addressed. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. lifebaka++ 00:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XXL (club)

edit
XXL (club) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources since creation in 2007 and most importantly, no notability. -     allstar▼echo     19:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

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

The result was delete. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Age

edit
AfDs for this article:
Castle Age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Self

edit
Jane Self (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I searched in multiple databases and archival research sources - but was unable to find any secondary sources independent of the article subject that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V and significantly discuss the individual whatsoever. It also appears that there were absolutely zero book reviews of the author's book - which was itself published by a non-notable publisher. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this note, which I had mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard but forgot to link to and also mention here. Both the book and the author are non-notable, both fail WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A message to someone's wiki talk page is in fact a public, not a "private" message. And posting a helpful notice to an individual informing them that their comment has been responded to, if they are not necessarily watchlisting every single articles for deletion discussion that they comment in, is not canvassing. Cirt (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you ask people to change their vote "revisit their position".. That's canvassing. "messages that are written to influence the outcome". TomCat4680 (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not misrepresent me. I kindly requested two individuals to revist their comments at the AfD after I had commented in response to the points they had raised. That is most certainly not "canvassing". Note: TomCat4680 (talk · contribs) disingenuously placed this note here, though I have not contacted anyone about this AfD discussion, and falsely places in quotes words I have not said. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burnout 6 (Working Title)

edit
Burnout 6 (Working Title) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nearly nothing confirmed. All that I can find about the game is listed here. In 6-8 months we should know more about it. TheWeakWilled 17:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. lifebaka++ 00:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Coy

edit
Chase Coy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod; appears to pass WP:MUSICBIO, and all but admits that it's a myspace band ("Coy has gained much popularity through Myspace.com and the other major social sites on the internet"). Contestor objects that the subject "is on the ITunes 'Rising Stars:Folk' list of the Itunes Essentials" and that if that "isn't good idk [sic.] what is" ([45]), and does satisfy either MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

[47] has been viewed 2.8 million times, and it is no more notable than the video you posted above. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not suggesting that Wikipedia adopt number of Youtube views as a new measure of notability. Merely it seemed a large amount for a band we are about the delete as "not notable"  Francium12  21:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-Combatives

edit
Neuro-Combatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization has not established notability -- a search for sources shows only blog sites, a youtube video, and a personal web page. The article was apparently created by the person who founded the organization. Looie496 (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep and redirect to Mad Max#Future of the franchise. lifebaka++ 00:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Max 4: Fury Road

edit
AfDs for this article:
Mad Max 4: Fury Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this movie has even begun production yet, so I would say that this fails WP:CRYSTAL. Enough information allready exists within the Mad Max article. magnius (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

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

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 18:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Connable

edit
AfDs for this article:
Joel Connable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfD created incorrectly by editor Grahambrunk (talk · contribs · count), presumably arguing that the subject is not notable. Technical nomination only from me. Eastmain (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

This article is not relevant, it really has no sources, this is not a well known person that has any real significance, and it is written entirely by a fan like as if it were a fan page, perhaps even by Joel Connable himself. I tried to find sources to clean this article up and there are none to verify what is already there and there is nowhere to really get new information on this person. Perhaps one day once someone can find better sources (or if better sources giving info about this person are created) then the article can be created accurately and appropriately. Right now this is just a clustered mess written by a fan. The fact that this articles legitimacy has been questioned before only allows my claim to hold more water. --Grahambrunk (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stay-giver

edit
Stay-giver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Proposed Deletion was contested at the last minute by 69.245.14.10 here. This is not a simple procedural nomination on my part. I strongly agree with the ratoinales given by Beeswaxcandle and 7 here. This is a dictionary article, quite plainly, giving the pronunciation, part of speech, and meaning of a purported word. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There's no scope for refactoring this into an encyclopaedia article about the person/place/concept/event/thing denoted by the title, because in fact this is a protologism (clearly invented by analogue to "go-getter"), and doesn't actually denote any subject at all. I had to grit my teeth to keep to the Proposed Deletion process and bring this contested deletion here. The contesting argument is feeble and completely unsupported by policy. But Proposed Deletion is, strictly, for uncontested deletions. Uncle G (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Performance of teams in 2009-10 UEFA competitions, grouped by country

edit
Performance of teams in 2009-10 UEFA competitions, grouped by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article consists, in equal parts, of original research and sports-almanac content. PROD was contested. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why it is considered "original research", when all the info on this page is based on matches that have already been played! Do you just want me to clog the page with a link on every row to UEFA's website as proof that none of what I've put is lies? I admit that in the past I was making presumptive edits (i.e. putting a team as eliminated if they lost the first leg 6-0 at home or something) but I have stopped that and shall do it no more as it doesn't help anyone obviously.

Please don't take me as someone who likes to cause trouble. The only reason I created this page is because there is no other page like it on WP, that is to say one through which you can quickly find out how all the teams of a particular country are doing in the two UEFA competitions. I honestly thought I was doing something (at least slightly) useful but I know better than to waste any more time fighting an admin so it looks like I'll be continuing this table on my own webspace. Never mind, it was worth a try! --SirJibby (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above moved from the talk page of this AfD, where it had been placed in error -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bradbury (transhumanist)

edit
Robert Bradbury (transhumanist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A nonnotable person with the only claim to glory is invention of a nonnotabe neologism (under afd now). The very fact that the only thing can describe him is "transhumanist" says it all. - Altenmann >t 14:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matrioshka brain

edit
Matrioshka brain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A nonnotable neologism by a nonnotable person (under afd now). Wikipedia is not a vehicle of promotion of new ideas.- Altenmann >t 14:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Como Jannali Rugby League Football Club

edit
Como Jannali Rugby League Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CLUB , nothing in gnews [61]. a non notable local sporting club. LibStar (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunmore Lang College

edit
Dunmore Lang College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG, lacks significant third party coverage [62]. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

many of those news hits and book listings are just listings for events at the college as a venue rather than in depth coverage of the college. note WP:GROUP says incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's a student dorm, it offers no teaching and does not give out degrees. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge is where I come out after reading it all. --Milowent (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.education.net.au/education/DUNMORE-LANG-COLLEGE/1092/ is purely a directory listing (even the website is called directory) from a website that lists student accommodation and campuses around Australia. how about some more reliable sources in major newspapers? Gets 2 mentions in one of sydney's major newspapers [63]. LibStar (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
depends how you define college? this is not a college that awards degrees. LibStar (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the colleges of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham Universities award degrees either but they all have articles. TerriersFan (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
these are definitely different. those colleges have responsibility for admitting and interviewing students for entry. Dunmore Lang College does not admit students. + you'll note any of those colleges gets far more coverage. you're using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs)
You are wrong, at least in part. The Oxbridge colleges do "have responsibility for admitting and interviewing students for entry" but the Durham colleges do not. TerriersFan (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
still it means therefore you cannot compare Oxbridge colleges to Dunmore Lang College. in any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep this, it needs to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The UK/Australian meaning of the word "college" is different to American usage. "College" refers to residential college, and University or Technical college refers to a place that actually hands out a qualification. As for sources, the SMH link above (the obituary about a woman who helped found the college) is probably just enough on its own to demonstrate notability. And at the risk of invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this type of organization isn't exactly uncommon in Wikipedia.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaguluhan Music Festival (Film)

edit
Kaguluhan Music Festival (Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film. User234 (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • FYI We have specially screened the film last August 1st at Robinson's galleria the same day Cory Aquino passed away. and will make its debut on home video this November of December, the event was covered by Pulp Magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.72.227 (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides the Pulp magazine mentions, all the links and resources you mentioned are blogs and social networking sites. These are all not permitted under Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. Generally, any self-published material is not acceptable as a reliable source for articles. And if you can show me other sources other than Pulp magazine (who knows if the article was written by a kakilala (acquaintance) of one of the organizers from within Pulp magazine, or if the "source" turns out to be a self-submitted press release?), so much the better. Please check the link I provided for more information on what constitutes reliable sources in Wikipedia. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boavista Golf

edit
Boavista Golf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable golf course. Possible speedy candidate (G11). wjematherbigissue 10:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the hosting of a non-notable event would not make this club notable. wjematherbigissue 09:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 13:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy delete. Non-notable company / spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whenwewerecasuals

edit
Whenwewerecasuals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable website/store. speedy delete removed by anon user after creator warned about deleting tags themselves. Appears to be spam. noq (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as A7 (the "non-famous" was a bit of a giveaway). ... discospinster talk 17:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Jabran

edit
Muhammad Jabran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. gnews and google search turn up no possible sources or anything to establish notability. Gordonrox24 | Talk 12:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. G3 Seems to be blatant hoax, no ghits. — λ (talk | contribs) 13:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has a web site about himself so Im not so sure it is a hoax.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 13:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sloane FC

edit
Sloane FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable non-professional football club. No (credible) suggestion of notability. Unreferenced, and no notability demonstrated despite good faith search of online sources. Bongomatic 12:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happens on tour, stays on tour

edit
What happens on tour, stays on tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article makes too many claims which are of uncertain accuracy and which cannot easily be referenced (from online sources at least), and to my mind fails WP:Original Research. It is not clear that this is the most common variant of the phrase (What goes on the bus, stays on the bus gets more google hits), whether it does originate from sports - variants from the entertainment industry certainly have a long history - or the extent to which it primarily applies to male behaviour - I have heard it used by women and applied to female behaviour a significant number of times. Take those out and there is nothing left to base an anrticle on. dramatic (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Hidden behind the inadequate research and the earlier versions of the article is a real meme that has been stated many ways, including your "What goes on the bus..." In looking for references for the article, I found many more instances of "What happens on the road..." than any other variant, but whatever works. The article could be moved to the most apt title, it can be referenced better, it can have its OR bits taken out, it can have more about females, it can have an entirely new introduction written, but article deletion is not required to fix this. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - important meme it may be, but without reliable sources which discuss it as a meme (rather than the thousands of links which merely repeat variants of it), we don't have the basis of an article. Are any of the keepsayers actually volunteering to research and fix this? dramatic (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been and I will continue to do so, but with this AfD going as it's going with so many "keep" !votes, there are no frantic flames to beat out. I imagine that I'll return to the article each time I find a new reference. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Shulton

edit
Scott Shulton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Notability, as only citations are club's own site and a password protected list of participants. Fails WP:Athlete, as Ebbsfleet do not play in a fully professional league. Kevin McE (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should every Christian, Muslim, Hindu or agnostic footballer be listed as such? Kevin McE (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jews are a race. Christians and Muslims aren't Spiderone 15:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the creator came to my talk page claiming He is also a British/Jewish player which I think adds a little something. Kevin McE (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy delete under the A7 crouton. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 11:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colliii TV

edit
Colliii TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable web TV station not covered by reliable third party sources. Cameron Scott (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Color Me Badd. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Abrams

edit
Bryan Abrams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual only notable for being in the band Color Me Badd, for which there is already an article. Equazcion (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dinmukhamet Akhimov

edit
Dinmukhamet Akhimov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on Kazakh actor. Ghits under the name in the article turned up zero ghits; author then provided two alternate spellings, corresponding to two different actor listings in IMDB. It's not clear whether this is a real person or not. Even so, under the alternate spellings most are generic movie listing sites, and no coverage of the actor, odd if he does indeed have a medal and has acted in high-profile films like "Inhabited Island." Originally a DB-hoax, moving to AfD to get more input from hopefully more knowledgeable people. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral AfD was my suggestion. We need people who know more about Kazakhstan. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


-- 08:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Since none of mine notes were read, I do not want to rewrite or copy already written information in talk-section (Dinmukhamet_Akhimov), because of lack of logic and perhaps laziness from certain individuals who review written information.

Nevertheless, in short, we have an actor whose first name is incorrecly written in web and public articles. Most of the times he is called by his alias (which is Dimash -- instead of original Dinmukhamet) Moderator mentioned "Inhabited Island" movie, even thou article for the film is already posted here - he (for some unknown reasons) did not even looked through the cast [65], where he can see named actor (Dimash Akhimov as Begemot). All information came officially from the actor himself, with all roles and past experiences, which I thought would be an easy and pleasant task to do - adding to Wikipedia, but it turned out as a lame struggle of interests.

Where were such moderators when in the article about Kazakhstan Republic everyone could see Borat as a president? Perhaps just for the laughs, it is much more appropriate to host such stuff in here. Good thing is things are changing, and we can see some proper information now.

Proof:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0015255/

http://www.fandango.com/dinmukhamedakhimov/filmography/p244585

or by alias:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1068543/

http://www.fandango.com/dimashakhimov/filmography/p244584

(Doesn't it feel strange that ID on fandango.com, goes by one digit from p244584 to p244585? Coincidence, sure...)

In both IMDB entries there is a same movie: "Bo Ba Bu" Also on the page itself Dinmukhamet Akhimov, his alias has been mentioned first of all.

P.S. If you are so eager to write another incorrect spelling of his name, so be it.

Ghits: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=dinmukhamed+akhimov&aq=f&oq=&aqi= (162)

or by alias: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dimash+akhimov&aq=f&oq=&aqi= (336)

It was mentioned before by mr. moderator that there is no proof of owning of "Kurmet" medal,

here are some articles (links through automated translation service, from russian to english):

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http://monitoring.academy.kz/index.php%3Fmodname%3Dnews%26action%3Dshow_full%26id%3D536%26lang%3D1&sl=ru&tl=en&history_state0=

http://www.translate.ru//url/wideTranslation.aspx?sid=95779f85-f1a6-47e1-b0ff-b28ef00f368c&from=adv&direction=re&template=General&autotranslate=on&transliterate=&showvariants=&viewModeSelected=result&url=http://www.express-k.kz/show_article.php?art_id=26034

-- Grq2top (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This link demonstrates notability. --Russavia Dialogue 21:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From the above, it looks as if the article could be improved by adding sources that might well show it is verifiable and notable. But if those improvements are not made, it should be deleted. It can always be recreated later with sources, and presumably would survive the second AfD if the sources showed notability. Better to make the improvements now. We are discussing the article, not the potential article. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. Flagged it for Rescue. Seb az86556 (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have structured the article a bit and added the sources identified above. Weak. He has played in a lot of movies, but apparently not in major roles. He got a Kurmet medal, but they seem to be handed out quite freely. One interview and that's it. It needs more to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Ramsey Clark. Consensus is that this organization is not notable independent of its founder, but many are reluctant to delete the content outright. After the merger it may be trimmed at the discretion of the target article's editors. Jusdafax's opinion is not taken into account per WP:AGF and WP:ATTP.  Sandstein  04:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VoteToImpeach

edit
VoteToImpeach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political website, sole reference is site itself Soxwon (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A link to this article appears in the Ramsey Clark article. I requested a redirect to this article for searches on "indictbushnow.org" which is a current campaign to indict President Bush for war crimes and violating the Constitution. I donated money to this cause, but had difficulty finding out who these people were.114.161.253.11 (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to question Soxwon's motives for deletion, in light of the information on his user page stating: "I'm a right-wing capitalist, and for the most part conservative." Is this proposed deletion politically motivated?114.161.253.11 (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact that I'm open about which way I lean makes my opinion questionable? Everyone on here is biased in some way, we all try to work to control it. So in answer to your question, no, it's not, and thanks for WP:AGF. Soxwon (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Soxwon is an interesting case; he asks for an assumption of good faith while asking for defacto censorship by deleting this article! This is like slapping someone, and then saying "you have to assume good faith" despite your acts! All the while, he proudly proclaims that he is "conservative" on his page. Guess that explains his interest in removing this page, as well as some of his edits (in my opinion) over at Karl Rove. No doubt the article can be improved and updated, but deleting it removes historical fact from Wikipedia. As a precedent-setting test case alone, this is important in the Wikipedia world.

To me, this deletion request is as clear-cut a case of agenda-driven editing as I have seen in nearly two years as an editor. Jusdafax (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax, I've asked you repeatedly to comment on content rather than contributor. What notability can you point to for this article to be kept? A single citation to itself is not grounds for notability and so your accusation of an agenda is empty. Soxwon (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you edit with a clear agenda, your stated political position is relevant to the discussion. My statement stands. As to the issue of notability, a one minute search found the website's successor listed on Congressman Robert Wexler's MySpace page; Wexler asks readers to sign their petition to indict the former President and members of his administration. I've added it to the article as a reference. You may not like it, but it's a fact, it's notable, and you just want to censor it. There are other places the notability has been established, perhaps you could work on improving the article? Jusdafax (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just cite a myspace page? That does NOT meet the requirement for WP:RS or WP:N. I did a couple of G-news searches and came up with nothing, so if you can find anything fine, use it. Soxwon (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's Congressman Wexler's own page. Not enough? I've added former Attorney General Clark's own statement, with a reference. No good? How about that well-known conservative magazine and website The Weekly Standard? I found these two googling while on the phone. It took all of three minutes, which further contributes to my belief that you are only interested in censoring this notable, historical Wikipedia article to meet your agenda. If I'm wrong about you, sorry, but you continue to fail to avoid the appearance of agenda-driven editing.
  • Wexlers page simply shows it exists. So what? That's not the issue here. The issue is notability. A mention on a comgressmans page is not "significant coverage by multiple reliable sources", now is it? Get off your high horse. If you spent nearly as much time trying to meet the notability standards of WP:WEB as you did worrying about the user boxes of those who don't agree with you, I might take you more seriously. Right now, your total arguement comes off as a case of W:ILIKEIT and little more. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please stop leaving messages on my personal page. Here again, you come off as attempting to intimidate. You want to talk to me, do it openly. Jusdafax (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the violations of WP:CIVL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA, press releases and the like aren't considered indicators of notability per WP:WEB. As for the The Weekly Standard, it doesn't seem to be taking the site very seriously (hence the statement at the end: And they have Tchotchke! and later calling it an angry petition site) and is even bordering on sarcasm. I contacted you on your talkpage b/c you were making these accusations over multiple forums and contacting you there would be easier. I find the charges of "intimidation" and "censorship" laughable as well. Soxwon (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To quote you, "I did a couple of G-news searches and came up with nothing, so if you can find anything fine, use it." Sure looks like you didn't look very hard. Let the backpedaling and spin begin. This article documents a noted website run by a former U.S. Attorney General during a turbulent time in U.S. history, during which over a period of years it is claimed, rightly or wrongly, that over one million people signed a petition to impeach a sitting President.
Deleting would set an interesting precedent for Wikipedia. Nor do I think the new fallback position of 'merger', promoted as a 'compromise', is anything more than proclaimed right-wingers (see comments below) censoring Wikipedia. Jusdafax (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok first of all, Wikidemon's not a "self-proclaimed right-winger" and you're now outvoted and by two far more experienced editors. Secondly, let me rephrase, I did a g-news search and didn't see any WP:RS, nor have you presented any. Please stop! Soxwon (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not Wikidemon... My reference, of course, is to carrots, whose comments are telling. Now you're playing the "more experienced editor than you" card. But of course, that's not intimidation. Jusdafax (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Merge - with Ramsey Clark. I found a couple passing mentions in major sources[67][68] but none of them suggest any notability of the organization apart from its being a brainchild of Clark. I don't think a small collection of passing mentions confers notability, but even if it did there is not enough reliable content to support even a start-class stand-alone article. So best to merge it in with Clark's, without prejudice to whether the editors there see fit to keep it or remove it as a WP:WEIGHT matter. It's probably worth a sentence there, which is about the length of the substantive part of this article (if you cut out all the redundancy and meta-discussion of sources now in the text) Wikidemon (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'd go with that, as long as the silly stuff (myspace, mocking Weekly Standard) was rmved. Soxwon (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a sentence in the Clark article would be fair, and the current article could redirect to that one - as could the more current name of the organization. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Gamma Delta Epsilon Chapter

edit
Phi Gamma Delta Epsilon Chapter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Chapter of a national fraternity. Per, Wikipedia is not a directory. miranda 05:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm very surprised why this even lasted this long. There has been a long precedent of not having Wikipedia articles of local chapters of national organizations. Every single article that has been created for a chapter of a national fraternity has been deleted including an entire project. Regardless of how well this particular article is written, there has been absolutely no exception. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 06:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There has been an exception, although it's more a case of a formerly-independent fraternity that was absorbed by a national. That said, stepping back, the organization notability guidelines state that individual/local chapters of (inter)national organizations are not generally notable. It's possible for certain organizations with some extraordinary history to be notable. While this article is extensive, it doesn't show any such notability. While Epsilon should probably copy this text for use, with attribution, on their chapter website, it is not encyclopedia material. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This particular chapter does have a claim to notability as one of the nation's oldest surviving chapters. Not sure it is enough, but the organization should at least be evaluated on its own merits instead of just "no individual chapters are ever notable" type rationales. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I beg to difer. The "claim" of being one of the oldest chapters of any organization is just that: a "claim". There are several fraternities who claim that they have the oldest chapter. Others claim that they have the oldest continually active chapter of any fraternity. Phi Delta Theta claimed this, so has Phi Kappa Psi. etc. However it can't be proven through third party sources. I have seen previous other articles of other chapters that were written on Wikipedia. Several of them were a lot better written than this one. Some actually even included third party sources as their references, yet none of them survive. Why? Because it would set a precedent that allow chapters to use Wikipedia as their personal webspace provider. "No individual chapters are notable" is a fair and valid rational. As I stated above, there has been no exception to this. What C.Fred is referring to is completely different from what I'm referring to. There have been local/regional fraternities some of which have affiliated or disaffiliated with their national organzations and they have seperate articles. They are not "chapters". They are the actual fraternity. Yet even some of these aren't notable enough (e.g. The William Penn Society. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 21:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blanket rules are all X are non-notable are a bad idea. Instead each case should be evaluated on its own merits. It is highly possible that this org fails notability. I am not saying it doesn't. I am just saying it should be evaluated on its own merits, not blindly deleted. And yes, I am quite sure there are some local fraternity chapters that are notable. It would be quite absurd to say that no local chapter anywhere has done anything notable. Certainly the notable ones are the rare exception, but that doesn't mean there are zero. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand. However, this issue of individual chapters has been debated over and over again ad nauseum especially in the Wikipedia fraternity and sorority project which this article seems to fall under the scope of. The consensus was no individual chapters should have a seperate article and something users in the project have generally agreed to. I believe this issue had been settled. Past AfD discussions of individual chapters have been evaluated on their own merits and every article has been subsequently deleted citing lack of third party sources, pov etc. Moreover, the notablity in regards to individual chapters is highly subjective. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree because I don't believe this article should've ever survived the prod and I don't believe that in this case a blanket rule is a bad idea citing precedent. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 02:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - local chapters require decent secondary sources to establish notability and this fails that test. TerriersFan (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was SNOW Keep. ThaddeusB (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Bunches of Oats

edit
Honey Bunches of Oats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not assert notability.Non-notable cereal. — Dædαlus Contribs 02:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You care to provide an actual argument? This is a discussion, not a vote.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Care to provide a reliable source to cite notability, and not some website that doesn't count?— Dædαlus Contribs 07:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you must be kidding. The article cites ACNielsen. Are you going to say that ACNielsen is not a reliable source? Location (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a reason to keep.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus. default to keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States

edit
Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research whose references consist entirely of dictionary definitions. No demonstration of notability. Perhaps an article of this type could exist under a different name if it were rebuilt from the ground up; current framing implies the POV that supporters of same sex marriage would be hostile to opposite sex marriage. Durova306 02:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on this article, others may find the related, and well referenced, Supporters of marriage equality in the United States an interesting read. It could mean that this article has a future if brought up to similar standards, or it could mean that both articles need deleting. Or it could mean nothing at all, but it seems germaine to the topic at hand. --Jayron32 03:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were brought up to similar standards I'd withdraw the nomination. Durova306 14:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A different name was under discussion on the talk page and there are references out there that show where Opponents stand on the matter.Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2009 (AT)
I do like the content in the same-sex article. It could probably use its own article though. My major concern is there is nothing in the article (or any of the proposals) to identify supporters of traditional marriage. Instead every effort is made to reframe this self identifier with the tag "opponent of same-sex marriage". Well this strikes me as POV. How does one make the editorial decision to change a self-identifier? Are you judging the entries of an editor or the beliefs of a group? Mrdthree (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Traditionally blacks and whites were not permitted to marry in many U.S. states. Needs some more cites to flesh out, but no doubt the group described in the article exists and is not small. --Milowent (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provide a citation to the claim. There is only one kind of marriage that is traditional in the United States vis-a-vis the sexes. Traditional does not mean obligatory, it means customary. The dictionary uses the phrase 'traditional marriage' and it has a common, understandable meaning in English. Mrdthree (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is this unlike retitling the "Pro-life" adn "Pro-choice" movements? To retitle a self-label introduces POV. Mrdthree (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well last point is now obsolete.Mrdthree (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it could be shown that traditional marriage is as much a coin of the political realm as marriage equality, or pro-choice, or pro-life then according to your rationale, would it still be POV to write an article about it? Mrdthree (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some stuff I will try and summarize. Maybe this can address notability/neologism issues[70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88]. I will see if there is anything to address POV concerns. Mrdthree (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I develop this article, it is useful to consider the arguments being made atWP:Articles_for_deletion/Supporters_of_marriage_equality_in_the_United_States for additional reasons to keep the article. Some of which are provided by the editors here. Mrdthree (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to POV concerns about the title it should be noted that there is a Pro-life movement not an Opponents of abortion page, there is a pro-choice page, not a supporters of abortion page. Probably other cases of controversial political issues too. I think if the trend in wikipedia is to allow reference the groups' own labels, then to change their labels introduces a POV bias. Mrdthree (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed 100% as to how we should label opinions and movements, and a similar argument is reflected in my vote below. Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made some small changes. See if your votes are changed yet. Mrdthree (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this AfD is NOT about the article Supporters of marriage equality in the United States also this article had been in development at the time of being marked and a new title was being discussed that could have helped the article in a good direction. Other stuff existing is not a good arguement for a delete. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2009 (AT)
  • Delete - Not only is that article full of bold and uncited assertions about this supposed movement's relevance, it also boldly implies that "traditional marriage" is not a neologism and has a universally agreed-to standard amongst supporters, if not the uninitiated. Keeps arguing for the article's potential can put the article in userspace, or merge it into a bigger article until it can be turned into a useful, neutral resource. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I dont understand the meaning of traditional-- I take it to mean customary. The United States has lasted a couple centuries and it would be bold to claim that the customary form of marriage over these centuries has been something other than monogamous coupling of opposite sex persons. If you were right, there would be no debate. Second, I think if the dictionary can use 'traditional marriage' then its not POV [[89]]Mrdthree (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be bold to claim that the customary form of marriage in this country wasn't a license for spousal rape. It's a non-neutral selection of which axes one is looking for tradition on. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a fair statement. You seem very fair-minded. Mrdthree (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My other comment is at what point does Support for traditional marriage become a political position in the UNited States that needs defining? (similarly for marriage equality). Mrdthree (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipédiste Consommé, how do you square your Keep and not rename vote for the Supporters of Marriage Equality AfD but an unconditional Delete on the Supporters of traditional marriage article?99.35.45.69 (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfy or redirect look like good options (there doesn't appear to be much to merge). Would withdraw the nom if the article were improved to acceptable standards during this discussion. Durova306 22:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My main thought is why are people so interested in imposing 4-5 day time limits on the development of articles? How about 14 days? Mrdthree (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can have unlimited days for consideration before creating or recreating the article. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If it takes 14 days to make it encyclopedic and useful it could be userfied during the interim and return to article namespace when ready. Durova306 23:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question of how to frame movements so that they dont feel mildly offensive to one group is a big question. If the dictionary can use 'traditional marriage' then its not POV [[90]]. POV is what gets introduced in an effort to suppress ideas that challenge your own; in Wikipedia there is a huge denial on the issue of traditional marriage, and no support is given, especially now that the domain has been limited to tradiional marriage in the United States clearly that limits the domain to a time and place where there is sufficient evidence as to customs? surely the dictionary is one means of accessing that evidence? Mrdthree (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you feel that if something is in a dictionary, it can't be POV. This article links to a dictionary definition that proclaims "Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children." Surely we're not claiming that that isn't POV. Dictionary definitions of marriage have been quite controversial. And in this case, casting people as supporters of traditional marriage based on their opposition to same-sex marriage casts a false light, as many (presumably most) supporters of same-sex marriage also support what you describe as "traditional marriage", and in fact many take part in one-man, one-woman marriages. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sin and Doom of Godless Men

edit
The Sin and Doom of Godless Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable demo/ep. Article is unsourced, there are no hits on Google News and no significant hits on Google. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 18:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voltz

edit
Voltz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant third-party coverage. Page was quite obviously written by the owner of the company. Product is not notable, and does not assert notability. Conical Johnson (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GoudieFX

edit
GoudieFX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant third-party coverage. These guys are extremely unknown and insignificant to music history. No famous bands have used their products.They make some Ibanez Tube Screamer clones. So do literally thousands of other guys in basements. There isn't even any assertion of notability. Conical Johnson (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effectrode

edit
Effectrode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has not received significant coverage in third-party sources. Major references are either written by the subject, or are reviews from magazines which review thousands of products. Having a review in a guitar magazine does not entitle one to a WP article. No especially famous bands have used these effects. Looking at the history of the article, it has been written and edited almost entirely by user:Moogolplex, whose contributions have been almost all on this article. This makes it seem likely that the owner of this company is Moogolplex. Conical Johnson (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FoOlRulez

edit
FoOlRulez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website or "website crew". No relibable sources can be found to verify any claims of notability. Speedy declined. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The points I made are under Talk:FoOlRulez. If this doesn't happen to be the criteria, feel free to remove. I thought dimensions under a certain niche makes the difference, but then again, I'm not a Wiki pro. Woxxap (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a general point I want to make, doesn't imply this post shouldn't be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woxxap (talk • contribs) 17:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Woxxy but I am an early community member, as I know the history, though not involved in the two teams of the group. I can't be called unbiased because I am inside the website, but it's pretty unlikely to make such article without having an indeep insight. I decided to make an article just because the size of the group's public would make it legit, or at least I think so. In a few days the article would be anyway touched by the public remastering what I wrote. If it was to try getting traffic from wiki, one link in a related subject page would drive the most visitors, while a page like this can only give objective information about the group that can't be gathered in a glimpse.
As said in that article for Dattebayo (which is like the anime version of FoOlRulez), this is saying that information about groups on the "edge of law" aren't worth mentioning. I agree with that the articles shouldn't lead to material with copyright issues, but on the long run this is ignoring a fair slice of cake of what is the internet nowdays. If there can't be the link, then at least name the group without linking should be there (even though that would give a lack of references too).
I am calling it "edge of law" because I know that there isn't a law precedent on scanlations/fansub because after a "Cease and Desist" letter any group dropped the manga from the company who asked them, without any trial. Also, scanlators never translate licensed mangas. Even though this can fall under the name of illegality, there's still the fact that companies are using this "scanlation community" in order to promote their own mangas, that else would never break in the western market. More precisely, groups like "Viz" or "TokyoPop" (official scanlators) usually license mangas that are known to have a lot of readers from the unoffical scanlations. The product can't even be called pirated because it's distributing content that didn't exist previously or that anyway wouldn't be available for certain people (those who can't read Japanese). If you need further explanation I am pretty knowledgeable about this subject.
Also to add, though it's true that the great mass of fansubbers aren't notable, there's at least half a dozen worth mentioning, as for example Dattebayo's public is not just hundred of thousands like the one from FoOlRulez, but millions, making it kind of wrong to not mention it. Even though there aren't articles about it in the New York Times, the mass of people involved is enough of a reason to make an article for it in Wikipedia. Else this would be as well as stating that the truth is only written inside those trustable sources and reality doesn't count as long as it's not filtered through secondary means.
Lastly, websites in the anime/manga websites category are mostly to be considered as illegal as well, especially Crunchyroll, that beside being an anime streaming website, has also their own sub group. Even in the article it's written so, so it's not logic to ignore massive groups like some of the scanlators and fansubbers when Crunchyroll is there (using the product of fansubbers) that all in all works in a no different way than the one I explained two paragraphs ago, while also being commercial.
Sorry for the long post, I just love the subject of discussion. Woxxap (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Legality of the group aside, the guidelines of Wikipedia call for reliable verifiability through references to third party sources. If no one in the legitimate manga or Web industry is writing about this site, perhaps it is because of a desire not to give them undue notability. Whatever the cause, since no reliable sources exist, then none of the information in the page can be considered verifiable, and the page should be deleted. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the page was going to get moved in my User: but seems it didn't work because of the already present article stub there (one can't move it during the first account days). So let's just wait for the AfD to take effect. Woxxap (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not covered by Reliable Third Party to give a modicum of notability. Farix has already explained in details the issue with bunch of wikilinks & acronyms. --KrebMarkt 05:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Woxxap The one who failed here isn't wikipedia but rather the "vetted" experts in animanga field who out frigidity and denial mode did their very best to not cover the scanlation & fansub subjects in a non-trivial way. One of the exception was an +2 years old issue of the Comics Journal with an article on scanlation but nothing a heard off since then. --KrebMarkt 05:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was redirect to Awake (Dream Theater album). NW (Talk) 02:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror (song)

edit
The Mirror (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod; fails WP:NSONGS. The editor who contested the prod added the following claim to notability: "The song is also notable for being much heavier than the rest of the album" and for being contiguous with the song that follows it on the record. I can't say that contiguity with another song, or being heavier than other songs on the album (which isn't accurate in any event: Caught in a Web and Lie are no less "heavy") are convincing arguments for notability.

WP:NSONGS tells us that "[m]ost songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article" and that even if a song is notable, it should only be treated in a separate article "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...." This article doesn't meet that standard. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title is appropriate per WP:DAB and is the title under which experienced Wikipedians (who no doubt would expect a title like that to be dabbed) would likely look for the song. Rlendog (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was redirect to Beams (album). NW (Talk) 02:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truth & Lies

edit
AfDs for this article:
Truth & Lies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toy Raid iPhone

edit
Toy Raid iPhone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable software Ironholds (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Generation Y. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Y Generation

edit
Cold Y Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles and references do not establish notability. Neither the business week article or the wordpress blog article even mentions the term Cold Y Generation. The only reference that does is an opinion column from the CBC website. The Google Scholar and Google Books search yields nothing. Google news only shows the one opinion piece. Nasa-verve (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – A real shame that this article has lived a life going from a lot to almost nothing. I think that is what happened last time it was deleted as well. Plenty of stuff about this in the relevant litterature but actually finding references online is more difficult. --Law Lord (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm..nowadays the "relevant literature" would have shown up on a Google scholar search, but it did not....I dont think it exists.... Nasa-verve (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree 100% with you. Your faith in Google searches is not promising, I think. --Law Lord (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to post some info on this literature. Authors, publishers, titles, ISBN numbers (or pages of articles in scientific magazines). Google search is no infallible, but without any info to actually check your claim that the literature exists, it remains a claim without strength in keeping the article. Fram (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --Law Lord (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Volts

edit
The Volts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has had a notability tag since December 2007. There are currently no third-party references on the page, and Google failed to produce any. Ks0stm (T•C) 00:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. NW (Talk) 02:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skishing

edit
Skishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fad Geronimo20 (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I haven't heard of skishing, but I have heard of Forbes Magazine. Notable enough for me. Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when has any little momentary attention-grabbing quirk that Forbes allows been justification for creating a Wikipedia article? I can't see any signs on the web that this activity is enduring or any signs that it was anything other than a fleeting oddity, promoted by some self publicist. It is a piece of silliness, momentarily funny if you like, a stunt, but not a realistic fishing technique. It will have no enduring presence on the web unless Wikipedia makes it so. --Geronimo20 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THere's a link above to Google news. Feel free to add additional sources from the many available going back to 1950. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks like I need to address the notability criteria in detail:
  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
Apart from coverage on a number of web sites none of which are likely to be considered reliable sources, the piece in Forbes Life appears to be the sole source. That hardly constitutes significant coverage.
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
Apart from one article in Forbes Life (which may or may not be considered a reliable source - I have no opinion) none of the other offered references could be claimed to be reliable. It is noted however, that the article does not appear to be from the main editorial pages of Forbes, so I would have severe doubts whether it would in fact pass a reliability test.
  • "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
Nothing has been offered in support of this criteria. The Forbes life article is a first hand account of an experience by the author with Paul Melnyk, the so called inventor of "skishing".
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
The Forbes Life piece is not exactly independent, it reads more like a piece of fandom. No critical analysis is included and very little that could be considered to beeditorial comment, it reads just like the sort of piece one would expect to be included in a lifestyle liftout which, I suppose, is what it is.
  • "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.
One article no matter what its source can hardly be considered to be substabntive coverage.
Overall, IMO a massive fail for notablilty. - Nick Thorne talk 05:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only a handful of mentions in Google News leads me to conclude that this isn't even popular enough to be described as a fad. Since this Wiki article for "Skishing" says the fad was invented in 1995, clearly the portmanteau "skishing" used in the Google News article from 1950 - 45 years before it's invention - is describing some other activity. TruthGal (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are loads of realiable sources discussing this very notable adn long established type of fishing. Here are google book returns [91] and here is Google News[92]. There are many entire articles about the subject. POV pushing editors who don't like the sport are trying to have it deleted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked your links: of the 15 books listed, 7 contain references to this activity, 7 contain references to a sound (ie using terms such as "it made a skishing sound") and one is indeterminate because the contents of the document are hidden; of the 8 Google news entries 2 are reviews of one of the books from the other list, one is a newspaper item from 1950 from which it is impossible to tell whether it is about the same activity (which as has been pointed out was invented only recently according to the skishing article itself), one is an advertisment from 1884 (who knows what that is referring to), leaving four references. This is hardly a picture of "significant coverage". Finally, you need to remember to assume good faith, calling other editors "POV pushing editors" is hardly going to help your cause. - Nick Thorne talk 23:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many articles about this subject and chapters in books does it take? Seems to be a slam dunk. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm yeah, crazy I know. But the nominator is not only trying to delete the article, but he's been removing it from the fishing cateogry, adding it to the humor category, and trying to malign the sport by vanadlising the text. I don't have a dog in the fight, but it's obviously a notable subject. At worst it could be merged, but with entire articles on it and chapters of books it's clear that it's independently notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely out of order CoM with your constant charges of "vandalism" in your edit summaries, as well as above. Keep a civil tongue. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only article I see that's reliable is the Forbes article; anything else is a book, and I'm not sure that this would establish notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNonnotable neologism and dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a mirror of Forbes, . Edison (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To NW, it is apparent that CoM is never going to agree with deletion. He is the only one making any attempt to put up non-trivial arguments in favour of the article. Unfortunately for him, these arguments simply do not hold water. He then proceeds to make ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with him. So why are we having this on-going dicussion? Consensus is not the object here. Remember Wikipedia is not a democracy, votes are not important in these discussions, weight of argument is. Please just cut to the chase and delete this piece of frippery now. - Nick Thorne talk 02:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the the Best Life and Forbes articles already cited, there's also coverage in Aug. 31, 2003 Field and Stream, Jackson Hole Daily, Montauk Star, Publisher's Weekly, Booklist, and the Daily Record. Why aren't those considered reliable sources? And there is also coverage in the books cited in the article (including an entire chapter in one of them) and more on Google Books. Please explain how these sources, including the Forbes article entirely about this subject, are insufficient to establish notability for a stand alone article, or at the very least a merge to surf casting. I haven't added more cites because there is enough coverage there already and it's not a subject of great interest to me. It's also difficult to work on the article because of Geronimo's vandalism. Do you think it's appropriate to remove it from the fishing category and add it to the humor category? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources are good enough for me. At least, they're comparable to the kinds of sources that are normally deemed acceptable for establishing notability. Zagalejo^^^ 02:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • tentative keep. The article currently has a couple of apparently valid book links. The second magazine link is very marginal (an entry in a side bar is really of no consequence), but I'd be interested in Nick Thorne's position on the books. As a fottnote to some of the above discussion, if it was invented by this guy in the 90s, obviously the pre-1990s articles aren't referring to it, so I don't think Child of Midnight's reference to articles going back to the 50s makes sense in the current discussion. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will give my views on the books as requested, I will omit books referring to things other than this activity including anything earlier than 1995 which together make up more than half the entries on the proffered list:
  • 100 Weird ways to catch fish by John Waldman contains a review of a chapter in On the run about the activity. Thus it cannot stand alone without reference to that book.
  • On the Run: An Angler's Journey Down the Striper Coast By David Dibenedetto an editor at Field & Stream magazine. No preview available online, so unable to judge the depth and quality of the reference.
  • The Ultimate Guide to Striped Bass Fishing: Where to Find Them, How to Catch ... By Eric Burnley. No online preview, unable to judge extent or quality of related content.
  • Knack Fishing for Everyone: A Complete Illustrated Guide By Scott Bowen, David E. Dirks. No online preview, unable to judge extent or quality of related content, however given that this book shows how to tie the essential knots; select the right lures, lines, and tackle; identify fish; and make effective casts any coverage is likely to be minor.
And that folks is all that Google Books returns from the offered link. The other entries are about something else. The first two on this list are really only one, but still, even if we allow that there are 4 books with some sort of reference about the activity (and even if we allow that their coverage is non-trivial, which has not been demonstrated), that cannot be describes as significant coverage as defined in the notability criteria. Also, that does not even begin to look at the issue of whether any of these books would meet the criteria for reliable sources, something I would seriously doubt they would achieve. In any case, something that has been around for nearly 15 years and which returns only a small handfull of returns in Google is hardly likely to be the next big thing, is it? - Nick Thorne talk 05:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before you can say that you need to show that the sources are reliable. Additionally, there is the issue of notability. Sources can be fixed (if available, but there seems precious few) but this subject is simply not notable. - Nick Thorne talk 05:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk, tsk. What "reliable sources" did I remove? Name one. You didn't exercise due diligence did you? You didn't actually examine the situation before you accepted ChildofMidnight's abusive posturings at face value. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I don't give two hoots either way, but if you cared to look through the page history you would see that Geronimo has not removed any reliable sources at all. It would be appreciated if you withdrew the accusation. ninety:one 14:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my above comment to him about the reliable primary sources that he removed. I'll happily recant my statement and change my vote if someone can show me a guideline/policy that actively refutes my assertation, though. I just can't find a policy justification to disqualify his sources, and it seems a little WP:POINTY for Geronimo to have removed sources and proper categorizations from the article to fit his specific POV on the subject. But like I said, show me a policy/guideline that refutes what I'm saying, and I'll happily admit that I'm wrong. --Lithorien (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, don't refactor the discussion because unless one checks the timestamps, it appears that I made my comment after you made yours, which is not the case. Secondly, the forum is not a reliabe source (WP:SPS. Thirdly, Geronimo never removed the Forbes reference - unless you can find me diff? ninety:one 15:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erp, sorry about refactoring the discussion. Didn't even occur to me that I was - I fixed the ordering. Secondly, thank you for pointing out WP:SPS... that does mean the forum isn't a reliable source. And third, nice catch. The diff I was thinking of was this[93], but I see where Geronimo edited the Forbes reference to. So I'd just like to apoligize to him publicly, for that false accusation. --Lithorien (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that [94] could be considered a reliable primary source, which was removed, and as another primary source, [95] is. While I agree with the statements being made that the article needs more reliable secondary and tetriary sources, I'm not going to shout for deleting it because some editors believe that the primary sources offered up aren't reliable. Neither of them smack of WP:OR, so I don't see where they need to be pulled and disqualified, and yet you removed them repeatedly from the article. --Lithorien (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second on of those links is to a discussion forum. Forums are not reliable sources. Secondly you seem to be ignoring the notability criteria. As I said above, for an activity that has supposedly been going on for about 15 years, the handful of references to it that have been produced do not reflect something that has received significant coverage. Have a look at my comments above about the criteria and how they apply to this article. No one has shown any evidence that the article meets these criteria, whether the few sources that have been provided are valid or not. - Nick Thorne talk 21:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish by Country

edit
Irish by Country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We already have an article for Irish diaspora. If it is necessary to gather together relevant links then a navtemplate may be the way to go, but this is not the basis for an encyclopedia article. PC78 (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep What is the deal, seems like just about every article about Irish culture gets proposed for deletion. At this rate maybe we should change the name of this institution to NINApedia? Then again I try to vote to keep one article a day. I am not fundamentally opposed to merging, but looks to me like someone put a lot of work into this article, and I don't see why this effort should be snuffed out like the wounded were at the Battle_of_Culloden. Has the makings of a great and useful set of links that belongs some place as information on Celtic peoples expands. If the work contained in the article is reformatted into a template, that would be wonderful but I see no reason that the edit history needs to be deleted? A lot of really great work was done here, and deleting content leads to the discouragement of great editors who's contributions are valuable. TeamQuaternion (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references it lacks are in the articles it lists. A short intro para should not be a problem - I may do one on the weekend if nobody beats me to it. It is actually a preferable solution to adding all the listed articles to the Irish DAB page. Downsize43 (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, valueless article. And I'm Irish. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems to lack the main link, which would be to some reliable and verifiable source that shows the estimated population in various nations of persons who are identified as having Irish ancestry. Sourcing to another Wikipedia article doesn't get it, although perhaps the verifiable sources referred to in those articles could be used. I'd suggest moving this to userspace and working on it there, since it's been posted too soon. Mandsford (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I originally intended this article to be just as useful as the Judaism by country which lists articles about the Jewish religion and ethnicity all categorized by the country. I originally left a lot of countries blank so that articles could be added later, but after going back to the Judaism by country (which I thought contained a full list of countries) I noticed that only countries with relevant Jewish populations were included in the list. So, I went back and deleted the "blank" country sections on the Irish by Country page. They can easily be added back later if an article about the Irish in that country is ever written. If there is anything else that any of you can think of to make the page more useful (or at least as useful as the Judaism by country page, I would be happy to make any alterations) Andrewsthistle (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for the idea Andrewsthistle (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, I invite you to vote to keep your own article, put a start and vote keep and put in an argument on why the article should be in here. Actually your ling to the article along the same lines for another ethnicity clearly demonstrates that this type of article is acceptable on Wikipedia, and if you could do as good a job as that other article it would be quite an accomplishment so keep up the good work.TeamQuaternion (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article now has a meaningful title, an intro para, and a reference. Why is this, plus 3 Keeps to 1 Delete, not yet enough? I believe it is worth keeping, and that it can be further improved by interested editors. One change I would suggest is that only those countries actually mentioned in the European Irish article should be so identified in this article. Downsize43 (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 02:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Studentski kulturni centar

edit
Studentski kulturni centar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Expired prod; concern was "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
2009 August 28 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." I'mperator 00:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The only arguments made for keeping the article merely state "I know of the organization so it must be notable" without providing any sources. Without sources, this article is not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding and Event Videographers Association International

edit
Wedding and Event Videographers Association International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any sources for notability for this organization. Abductive (reasoning) 00:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WEVA is a wedding and event videographers association not unlike the Professional Photographers of America is to photographers, the only difference is that WEVA is younger than the PPA is.

  • Keep -- although I do agree that the article needs more of a encyclopedic feel than one that almost feels like it has to justify its trade to others in the industry. David Unit (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ORG, no significant in depth third party coverage. [97]. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs a little more work and some fine tuning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.144.68 (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have selected this article out of all the articles nominated today as the most "keepable". I don't know how convincing an argument this is but my sister is a proud member of this organization. As the largest professional organization of wedding photographers it is certainly notable. Of course there are verifiable sources of information for this organization, and to say otherwise is laughable. There are plenty of wedding trade magazines some dedicated completely to photography. These magazines of course cover this organization. And I don't want to here an argument here that in order to prove that a topic as obviously verifiable as this one has an obligation to prove that it is notable by going out and actually finding the proof. Instead given the extensive coverage of the marriage industry, and the obvious relevance of this organization to it, I think that the people claiming it is not notable should provide some rational for this strange theory of non-notability. Baring that, we should keep the article and encourage the authors to improve their already fine article thanking them for their past efforts. Also deleting an article deletes the edit history, which in it self would be a terrible loss for this notable topic as all the hard work already done would be lost causing the people who worked in it to become discouraged. There is no way that this organization is non-notable and a little effort will obviously reveal the proof of this, but whipping people who are not being paid to do extra work to keep their existing work from being undone seems to me to be very counterproductive in this case.TeamQuaternion (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT, WP:EFFORT, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:IKNOWIT are arguments to avoid. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to improve the article, just post some rockin' sources here and I will withdraw the nomination. Abductive (reasoning) 05:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I read the somewhat dubious essay your link to and found the following quite in it. "just because an argument appears here does not mean that it is always invalid." The topic of this article is clearly verifiable and notable. There are plenty of articles in the many trade mags on the wedding industry about it. What we are arguing about is if the article can be sourced. Clearly it can, BTW the essay I looked at did not really have any sources? So great somebody listed some of these in this case clearly valid arguments in a taxonomy of arguments. Pointing that out with out any reasoning why they are not valid in this case does not provide any rational on why these arguments which are clearly valid in this case should not be taken into consideration.TeamQuaternion (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources? Abductive (reasoning) 07:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agree with Abductive, best way to save an article is to show the sources. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IKNOWIT is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hardly it's written by someone in the same industry and likely to be a member of this association. we need third party reliable sources, like a major newspaper.LibStar (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it was in US News and World Report or one of those kinds of magazines some years back, but I can't seem to find the archive for it.

http://www.weddingdetails.com/planning/weddingvideo.cfm

http://www.wednet.com/articles/10TipsForATerrificWeddingVideo.aspx

David Unit (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ashkenazi Jews

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of Ashkenazi Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List has had a "does not cite any references or sources" tag on it since January 2007, and still has 0 sources. Correction, it has 1 source, but that source doesn't actually state the individual in question is an Ashkenazi Jew. And if it were properly sourced (if that were even possible), it would be an impossible list, since it would have tens of thousands of items in it. Jayjg (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is always presumed in such a list that the persons included are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. This prevents the list being crowded by the addition of the name of every Ashkenazi Jew who ever lived. For a name to be in this list, there should be sufficient information in the bio article for the individual to confirm that he/she is/was an Ashjenazi Jew. (i.e. descended from the medieval Jewish communities of the Rhineland, presently 80% of the world's Jews). I do not feel it is essential to provide a reference for each member of a list in the list article itself, if the information is to be found in the individual bio article. Those who are questionable (such as if a gentile or a Sephardic Jew like Benjamin Cardozo were added to the list) could be challenged by a source tag being added to that name, and it could be removed if no source could be found. If a Jew is not Sephardic, Falasha, or Mizrahi, is it likely he is Ashkenazi? (Just asking, as a gentile). Edison (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'd be surprised at how many Jews have Wikipedia biographies. Over 3100 in Category:American Jews. Almost 800 in Category:German Jews. Over 800 in Category:Israeli Jews. Over 600 in Category:Polish Jews. Almost 600 in Category:British Jews. 6900 in 5 categories alone. There are dozens of these categories. And that doesn't include the hundreds and hundreds of Jews in sub-categories, like the almost 300 in, for example Category:Jewish American scientists, and the over 800 in Category:Jewish American writers. There are even sub-sub categories, like the over 50 Jews in Category:Jewish American social scientists. There are certainly over 10,000 biographies with some sort of Jew category on it. Oh, and regarding your statement that For a name to be in this list, there should be sufficient information in the bio article for the individual to confirm that he/she is/was an Ashjenazi Jew: to begin with, no, it's not enough for the statement to be in the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles must stand on their own for citations, they can't rely on unreliable and ever-changing sources (other Wikipedia articles) to hold their citations. Equally important, and oddly enough, I've seen hundreds of these artices, and I've never seen one biography of a Jew that actually explicitly documented the individual as being an "Ashkenazi Jew". I suppose there must be some that exist; do you think you could find any? Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the very least, maybe this article should be renamed to indicate that it is a list of notable Ashkenazi Jews, otherwise my girlfriend will be asking why I didn't add her. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the topic, distilling "a hundred of notables from thousands of notables" just won't work. Some ethnic lists arranged by occupation, i.e. List of Poles, look manageable and tidy, but there you have a cohesive group of Polish editors enforcing more or less uniform approach. I doubt that it will work for Ashkenazis who are now scattered all around the world. NVO (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A huge hopeless WP:OR and WP:BLP violative mess.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or split. We can handle lists of any size, so that isn't an argument for deletion. A list with entries limited to those people having articles in Wikipedia subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. This list needs two things: to be completed from he categories mentioned, and to have some sort of identification added to assist browsing. Considering the amount of work that this would entail, it is however possible that we would do better to split the list, probably by profession or other reason for notability, to match the categories. To be discussed on the talk p, but if nobody is prepared to do the work, there isn't much point. As for documenting the Ashkenazic rather than Sephardic origin,we can of course start looking for direct references for country of origin. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Shuki (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Way too large. Hopelessly unmaintainable. We have categories for a reason. And yes, we can have lists of any size but we want navigable lists. By a rough estimate there are easily at least 20,000 or articles that should be on this list. That's precisely the sort of thing we have categories for. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list sucks. When I become notable (when, not if), please don't describe me as an ashkenazi. Frankly, ashkenaziism is not even a hard concept - what if one of my ancestors immigrated to Ukraine from Morocco? Should I be classified as a sephardi as well? This is all stupid categorization. -- Y not? 21:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmaintainable and chocked full o' WP:OR. youngamerican (wtf?) 16:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't see this topic adhering to encyclopedic standards. There's just a LOT of Ashkenazim out there, and we can't even sort them out properly. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

-->

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

The result was Keep. Not only is there no consensus for the article to be deleted (which defaults to keep), the references provided by User:ThaddeusB appear to establish notability. Malinaccier (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Freemans

edit
Doc Freemans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable RJFJR (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attentatet i Pålsjö skog

edit
Attentatet i Pålsjö skog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass any of the 5 requirements for a notable book and as far as I can tell, there is no English version either. Law Lord (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources. It was quite controversial when published, but finding on-line sources after this many years is tricky. // Liftarn (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Swedish newspapers do not generally appear to have openly searchable content on the web going back to 1996, but according to an article database (Artikelsök), the book was reviewed in the following Swedish papers: Gefle Dagblad 1997-02-26, Smålandsposten 1997-01-21, Nerikes Allehanda 1997-01-17, Svenska Dagbladet 1997-01-13, Aftonbladet 1996-12-04, Hallandsposten 1996-11-22, Sundsvalls Tidning 1996-11-19, Nya Wermlands-Tidningen 1996-10-30, Helsingborgs Dagblad 1996-10-28, Kvällsposten 1996-10-28, and Norrköpings Tidningar Östergötlands Dagblad 1996-10-28. Svenska Dagbladet also published an interview with author Hans Alfredson on 1996-11-17, on the occasion of the publication of the book. --Hegvald (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing that the book exists nor that is is known in Sweden. It even sounds like an interesting book. As it is, however, it does not fulfil the notability requirements (see the link above), and the sources you are both providing do not change that. Cheers Law Lord (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the very first of the listed criteria:
"The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." [My emphasis]
Could you explain how that isn't fulfilled by these reviews (+ one other article)? --Hegvald (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me which of those reviews use a source other than the book itself? As far as I can tell, none of them do. They are all based 100% on the book. --Law Lord (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Book reviews are usually not "based on" a book, but discuss the book informed by the reviewer's previous knowledge of its subject area, literary tradition or genre. But how exactly is this question relevant in this context? --Hegvald (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant because your argument is that the book is notable because it is mentioned in several reviews. However, as the policy clearly states: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself , ..." Therefore, your claim of notability for the book remains to be proven. --Law Lord (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally relevant. Book reviews in independent press is exactly what is needed to establish notability for a book. And Hegvald has stated that these are in fact book reviews in Swedish papers. One cannot possibly review a book without basing that review on the book itself. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making the rules, simply trying to make sure they are followed. I think the policy is excellent. Nobody here is claiming that the book reviews must not be based on the book. Rather, they are based on nothing but the book and therefore the "other sources" requirement has not been met. Apart from that, having reviewed the data submitted by Hegvald, it is quite clear the book may be notable in Sweden. However, this is the enWiki, and there is really nothing notable about it from an English speaking point of view. Adding to the fact that English speakers will not be able to even read the book, which is in Swedish. --Law Lord (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your intepretation of these rules then are quite different from mine. Book reviews establish notability for a book because they represent coverage about the subject. The review is independent of the subject because the person writing the review is not affiliated with the book, and for newspapers and magazines, there is editorial oversight into the selection of material to publish which establishes the notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can't read Swedish and the google translator doesn't do a good enough job to get a good undertstanding of teh sourcing, but it does appear to have some notability, and at the very least, it should be a merge to Hans Alfredson. I see no good reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the policy, which is the basis for your claim that something, which is notable in Sweden, is also "notable enough elsewhere." That is quite a claim, actually. --Law Lord (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's covered in multiple reliable sources. There's no stipulation that the sources must be in English although it is preferred. Undeer what policy would you be excluding this? -- Whpq (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, whether your post was a question for me? Anyway, you should read Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Lots_of_sources and learn. As for notability: something being notable in Sweden (or in Belarus or elsewhere) need not mean that it is notable on enWiki. --Law Lord (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, being covered in multiple reliable sources in any language is good enough for general notability, by definition. The link to the (somewhat dubious) essay only says that the sources have to be reliable and independent as well as being multiple. This book, independently reviewed by major newspapers, meets those criteria even if the newspapers didn't publish in English. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please list policy (good luck finding it) in support of your claim. Also, we cannot rename the article to "The Assassination in Pålsjö Wood" since no such book exists. --Law Lord (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The general notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The book notability guideline: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." Are you claiming that the Swedish newspaper book reviews are not independent, not reliable, or don't serve a general audience? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not ask questions, which have already been answered (by me!). The answer is here. Therefore, it is not notable. Besides, it seems obvious that you have a specific inclusionist agenda, as you have stated on your user page. That being the case, perhaps you should stay out of deletion debates, since you are obviously biased? --Law Lord (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The book has been the subject of a number of published reviews and therefore satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (books), point 1. Also, to address some of the nominator's statements:
    1. There is no geographic restriction on notability. If the book is notable in Sweden, it is notable everywhere.
    2. A book review is independent if it appears in a source which is independent of the author, his publisher, etc. There is no requirement that the book review itself not use the book as a source. If a book review did not discuss the book, it would be a very poor review. Spacepotato (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Nobody here is claiming that the book reviews must not be based on the book. Rather, they are based on nothing but the book and therefore the "other sources" requirement has not been met." Your quote "appears in a source" is not a quote but something you have made up. The policy actually says that there must be works (like reviews) "whose sources are independent of the book itself". If the policy was the way you claim (must appear in something other than the book), then please tell me which kinds of works about a book appears in the book itself? That makes no sense at all. --Law Lord (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Appears in a source" means published, as in published by a source independent of the book itself. It's that simple. -- Whpq (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but "appears in a source" is not what the policy says. Please do not make fake quotes here! It does not matter what "appears in a source" means, because the policy requirement is something altogether different. --Law Lord (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re your comment previous to this one, the criterion is that the source a review appears in must be independent of the book (meaning: independent of the book's publisher, author, etc.) The criterion is not whether or not the review appears in the book itself. Indeed Wikipedia:Notability (books) makes this obvious by adding: "The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." Spacepotato (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is becoming very tiresome indeed. I wonder whether people do not understand or are just ignoring the obvious because understanding means accepting that the book does not meet the notability requirements? The requirement in policy is quite clear:

    "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience."

Please read that sentence, and understand the following:
  1. "published works" is the review itself
  2. "whose sources" are the sources, which the review is based on.
The reviews, which have been put forward in this discussion are all based solely on the book itself. The book itself is not "independent of the book itself". An independent source would be e.g. a book by a competitive author, which is then compared with the book in question. Nobody has been able to point out a single review which has been based on a source other than the book itself. Therefore, the requirement is not met. --Law Lord (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, your mistake is easier to see now. Your point 2 is a misapprehension as the words "whose sources" mean: the sources, which the review appears in. This should be obvious from comparing Wikipedia:Notability (books) with the general notability guideline, WP:N:
Clearly, this criterion of independence does not require a book review to discuss a competing book, or to base its content on what you have called an "independent source". Also, you may wish to read footnote 4 in Wikipedia:Notability (books):
It is clear here that independence is a property of the venue and author of the review and not of its content. Spacepotato (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your mistake is quite clear now. You are intent on backing a false interpretation of a policy, which is in fact very clear and easy to understand. Since you are obviously content with maintaining this grievous policy violation, there is little more I can do. My interpretation of the policy wording is the only viable one, and nothing you have written indicates otherwise. --Law Lord (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spacepotato, Hegvald, and I appear to be all under the same understanding of the policy. Furthermore, it is the interpretation that has generally been used by most other editors. I cannot understand how you can claim that these reviews are not independent sources. A review is independent of the book when the reviewer is not affiliated with the book. What you have put forward seems to require that a book review not actually be about the book which is clearly nonsensical so an explanation of your position is needed. -- Whpq (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever else comes of this, I went and made a minor change the syntax of WP:NBOOK, to avoid any ambiguity in what the modifier modified, hoping to avoid this misunderstanding in the future. If I have done wrong in doing so, I'd expect the pitchfork and torch brigade to show up sooner or later, and thus far they haven't. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously meets "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." Reviews are obviously independant sources and the nominator's interpretation that they are not is unique and incorrect. While English language sources are prefered, they are not required. Edward321 (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards renomination. NW (Talk) 18:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Allen

edit
Meghan Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted because it is not notable and is used as an advertisment for a business website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meadvillebulldog (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. The nominator puts his money where his mouth is, and should be applauded for that: he has been trying to remove Allen from the Meadville, Pennsylvania, article, arguing that she is not notable; nominator and I disagreed and I suggested he take it to AfD, which he has done. I'll refrain from voting here and will let the community decide. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Carey

edit
Ray Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure on this. I asked for a second opinion, and AFD was agreed as the best option here. I'll withdraw the nom if I am misunderstanding the article, which is completely possible.

It says he plays for his "local club", and it seems like this is not a pro player, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. However, it mentions the national league in the infobox and in the "Senior" section, however is says Division 2. I don't understand Gaelic football, so I'm not sure if this is pro or not.

The references seem to be trivial mentions, so overall the subject's notability is in question here. Would like the opinions of those familiar with the sport. Lara 17:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep: Plays at the top level of his sport. Gaelic football and hurling are the national sports of Ireland and are not-professional in name only. Games can attract up to 83,000 spectators. See point 2 of here, it states "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport". Article should be kept and recent Gaelic football and hurling articles that have been deleted should not have been. Derry Boi (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I take your first point, but for the ones that were speedied, they didn't compete at the highest level. They were un-used subs. How are they notable? Lara 19:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Brundage

edit
Jackson Brundage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

looks like a fan site. fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO, gets passing mentions as a child actor [102]. LibStar (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States National Karate Association

edit
United States National Karate Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although this claims to be a "national" organization, I have failed to find significant coverage of it in reliable, third-party sources as per our notability guidelines and WP:ORG. Coverage in books and in the news is slight and trivial. There are currently no reliable sources to establish verification of the current material and the article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2007. ThemFromSpace 18:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - and tag for much better referencing. According to their web site, they are the national governing body for the sport of Karate in the United States as recognized by the US Olympic Committee. In trying to verify it by following links from the USOC site, for karate leads to this site which has the USNKF logo, but trying to read more about them doesn't turn up anything. Also note that the official name appears to be United States National Karate-do Federation so the article probably should be moved if kept. -- Whpq (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Women's Ministry

edit
AfDs for this article:
National Association of Women's Ministry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was previously speedied, then apparently recreated. Only provided reference is the groups own website. Does not appear to be a notable organization. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There is a related group with same acronym,

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=nawm+ministry+%22national+association%22&start=10&sa=N does the wedding ministers NAWM have a page? It may qualify more easily. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name-dropping

edit
Name-dropping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition, permanent stub, no sources since 9/07. Either delete or transwiki. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. can't add anything to Mandsford's genial comment. McMarcoP (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The article describes (and is intended to describe) a concept, not a definition. Furthermore, "permanent stub" isn't any sort of a problem, let alone a reason to cite that an article should be deleted (please see WP:STUB). The lack of sources is a significant problem, but is one that can be and should be rectified by adding sources, not by deleting the page. It takes some research, which often involves actually getting off the computer, but just because it's actually a little bit of work shouldn't be a reason to just give up.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Crazily notable topic. Bear in mind that it was a persistent target for vandalism for 18 months, which put a damper on it getting improved. Fences&Windows 02:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There must be plenty to say about this subject from both the scholarly and popular media. I've added a little of each to the article but I'm sure there's much more to be found by editors more expert in this sort of subject. Failure to expand beyond a dicdef is only a reason to transwiki when no expansion would be reasonable; I don't think that's the case here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. It used to be longer, but got gutted after the vandalism. I never got around to rebuilding it using sources. Fences&Windows 03:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was REDIRECTED to MTX Audio since nobody opposed the proposal Corpx (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Loyd Ivey

edit
Loyd Ivey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person with biographical references. Has no indication of notability. If possible I propose that the page be redirected to MTX Audio. E Wing (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. This editor has a somewhat tainted record of poor speedy nominations and the extent to which WP:BEFORE has been attempted is unclear. Minimal efforts using Gbooks return the following sources
    • Billboard‎ - Magazine - 25 Jun 1977 - v. 89, no. 25 - At right. Loyd Ivey of AAL (left) describes features of new Disco Monster speaker system to Steve
  • Billboard‎ - Page 54 - Magazine - 18 Jun 1977 - v. 89, no. 24 - Loyd Ivey And the Trouper w music mixing systems
    • Low rider‎ - Page 92 - Juvenile Fiction - 2001 - Loyd Ivey Chairman and CEO of Mitek Corp, makers of Coustic. MIX and Xtant mobile audio products, summed up the show by saying
    I have no time to check for more sources, but this should be attempted before further actions. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily if possible unless someone chooses to bring the article in line with Wiki policy (i.e. Wikipedia:Copyrights). AS IS, the article is copy and paste from the subject's website. If the copied material is removed, then nothing is left. Location (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, WP:BEFORE is a guideline that frequently contradicts parts of WP:COPYVIO and WP:CSD (which are policies), otherwise there would never be a reason to delete an article based on copyvio. Well before the sections you mentioned, the very top of the Afd page indicates the importance of addressing copyright violations. If a subject is notable, I certainly have no objection to an editor removing copyrighted information and re-writing it, thus I have modified my recommendation accordingly. Location (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_28&oldid=1142645618"