Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 4

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< 3 August 5 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 delete. Trevor MacInnis contribs 20:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deskzilla

edit
Deskzilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 5 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 Chick Hearn. (non-admin closure) Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 23:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Chick Hearn

edit
Curse of Chick Hearn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Spurious bollocks masquerading as a sensible article. The premise of the article-- in the Origins paragraph--is referenced to a couple of blogs. The rest appears to be ex post facto confirmation bias. This is *exactly* the sort of article we do not want on Wikipedia ... opinion and superstition disguised as reportage and fact. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curses. You're right, of course. WP:RS has it :(. I've added that citation to the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:33, 5 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 Shinedown. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasin Todd

edit
Jasin Todd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No individual notability outside of a band. Fails WP:MUSICBIO -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Shinedown. Even though he is not currently a member of the band, he is part of the history of the band. I can find no sourcing to establish independent notability. This interview is the only article I found where he was the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 7 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 Shinedown. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bass

edit
Eric Bass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No individual notability outside of a band. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:39, 4 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. per WP:SNOW JForget 01:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does Jesus want?

edit
What does Jesus want? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Phrase invented by Andrew Chung here: http://wdjw.net/, no sign of notability as judged by discussion in reliable sources - which is entirely absent. Bringing it here as article creator deprodded then was prodded again. Fences&Windows 21:43, 4 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. JForget 01:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinusology

edit
Sinusology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essay, original research, all based on a single handbook produced by a non-scientist which only gets one Google hit ([1]). Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:40, 4 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 Cheers, I'mperator 15:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ilija Temelkovski

edit
Ilija Temelkovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject is not notable perWP:BIO. Furthermore Article is completely unsourced Wefa (talk) 21:37, 4 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. Icewedge (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Sports Television Network

edit
Vision Sports Television Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable unlaunched Sports "network" with no GNEWs, no substantial GHits, and no independent references. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:28, 4 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. JForget 21:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.O.L.O. (Players Only Live Once)

edit
P.O.L.O. (Players Only Live Once) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A future album which fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & Crystal Ball. PROD was removed with no improvement. Release date (4 Aug) has come and gone, and was changed to TBA. No coverage in reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 21:03, 4 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. JForget 01:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joazinho Arroé

edit
Joazinho Arroé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The footballer fails WP:athlete, he did not made his professional debut Matthew_hk tc 20:51, 4 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) Erik9 (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takayoshi Tanimoto

edit
Takayoshi Tanimoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable vocalist. While appears to meet #10 of WP:MUSIC in that he has performed a few theme songs for some anime series, these are all fairly unnotable songs and there are no reliable sources about this person to meet WP:BLP standards beyond being able to confirm a list of work. He fails WP:ENTERTAINER (which seems to conflict with WP:MUSIC) and WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. User:Collectonian graciously brought this to AfD after I disagreed with her about the appropriate qualifications of #10 of WP:MUSIC. I can't decide if being the vocalist on three or four different themes from anime is sufficient to meet that criterion so I will leave it to the community to inform me. I agree that there are no reliable sources present in the article and I am unable to assess the Japanese ones for reliability. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No opinion. But would like to point out: Google News search on "谷本 貴義" shows mentions in Mainichi Shimbun[3], Yomiuri Shimbun[4], etc. And for verifiability, Here is a listing of works in a database. Dekkappai (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a lot more themes than are listed in the article -- which strongly suggests that judging notability purely based on the article's contents is not the best thing to do. What are the newspaper mentions about? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Oricon hits list for his name search. Verification for "Yeah! Break! Care! Break!" and peak rank 23 on Oricon singles chart. I won't do further investigation because i'm mentally tired of the BLP Afds i joined in. --KrebMarkt 16:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The subject is outside my area of interest and knowledge, and my Japanese is pretty shaky, but, as I make it out:
        1. The Mainichi article is about a new TV series (as of March 2008) called "炎神戦隊ゴーオンジャー" Engine Sentai Go-onger, and mentions that Tanimoto sings a theme song. ("主題歌は新人歌手の高橋秀幸さん、「獣拳戦隊ゲキレンジャー」の主題歌を歌った谷本貴義さん、「魔法戦隊マジレンジャー」のSisterMAYOさんらのユニット「Project.R（プロジェクト・ドットアール）」が歌い、「1、2、3、4、ゴーオンジャー！」というフレーズが印象的な明るい楽曲。").
        2. The Yomiuri article mentions a musical event for staff, with Psychic Lover and Tanimoto. ("まず、週末は、読売新聞社の社員向けイベントで、サイキックラバーと谷本貴義さんのヒーローソングを堪能。")
      Besides this listing of recordings, the Japanese Wiki article also has a list of recordings and appearances-- which, at first glance, appears to be verifiable through his homepage. Dekkappai (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Continuing investigation started yesterday Verification for "Dragon Soul" and peak ranked 23rd in Oricon singles charts. Funny that both Op & Ed reached the same rank but the Op stood 11 weeks in chart while the Ed only 6 weeks. --KrebMarkt 09:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, now we have evidence of charting as well. Yup, passes WP:MUSIC, so that's keep and add to the article all the other credits we have sources for (and check them for charting as well). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I'll have to vote Keep. Without looking into what our homespun definition of "notability" for this particular subject area says, a lengthy list of credits plus evidence of hitting the charts does it for me. Dekkappai (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the first sentance on that section of MUISC - "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" - Just because it has been charted does not guarantee it. I still say that it is a trivial element that everything listed can be easily described within the parent article (or a similar listing of notable DBZ songs).陣内Jinnai 21:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources clearly exist and show notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree. It is clearly notable, and passes WP:MUSIC Dream Focus 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fairness Keep Fairness requires we assess this Afd disregarding the Extreme fanboy behavior & wiki warring around the DBZs music articles. Fact: Two singles made into the TOP 25. Fact: His songs were featured in a bunch of compilations albums (TV shows best of style) which modestly made it into the Oricon albums chart (between rank 200 & 300).
    Can closing admin made it clear that we are not here to clean up the trail of wreckages left behind by fanboys out of an I LIKE IT outburst. --KrebMarkt 06:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a rude and inappropriate thing to say. The keeps were because it appears notable. And how exactly would someone like this have a lot of fanboys exactly? Dream Focus 04:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That my very right as one of the contributors of this Afd who brought evidences of notability. This Afd will probably end with keep and i want to make it clear that it isn't an approval for this article creator attitude. That sort of attitude & others i like it arguments are tiring editors who become less open for constructive inputs or less willing to look for evidences of notability.
In my personal human imperfection, i hesitated to look for evidences of Notability for this article worse i pondered not reporting the evidences i found for the reasons mentioned above. --KrebMarkt 05:51, 8 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, nomination withdrawn. Tan | 39 21:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Storage Technology

edit
Silicon Storage Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication this company meets WP:CORP notability standards Tan | 39 19:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you checked? A few seconds glance at the Google News results yields coverage in Forbes, FOX News and CNET News. Not that these reports on minor stock movements confer notability, but they certainly indicate the topic passes the sniff test.  Skomorokh  20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did check, thanks for asking. Like the nomination said, I didn't see any significant coverage. Thus I started the AfD, so other people could do their own research and weigh in. Feel free to cast a !vote. Tan | 39 20:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to Hoovers this is a significant company with 2008 sales of US$315m and 600+ employees. WP:CORP states
sufficient independent sources usually exist for such companies that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source).
So yes, the current article is spammy and needs cleaning up, but shouldn't be deleted on notability grounds. Savlonn (talk) 20:59, 4 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. declined A7, but speedied as a hoax. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JoshCrozier

edit
JoshCrozier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete, claims notability but I couldn't find any news sources proving person was a player in NHL. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:51, 4 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 nomination withdrawn and no delete !votes. Non admin closure-SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eternity Bible College

edit
Eternity Bible College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Looks like advertising; no indication of notability -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Confuse I always go with TerriersFan wisdom with school related articles, but this school is not even accredited by the "Association of Biblical Higher Education". How many students does this school has? , how many teachers? This sounds promotional, I hope the chancellor/founder/pastor is not the only professor. I'm willing to change my mind if the we can clarify the status of this school. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep'--- I made my stupid comments based on this version 1 Of course is a solid keep for me based on improvement, good job TerriersFan. --J.Mundo (talk) 01:42, 5 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 Cheers, I'mperator 15:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Eibeler

edit
Paul Eibeler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This individual appears to have been a controversial CEO and was ultimately deposed. In its original form this article was unreferenced and entirely glossed over the controversies, suggesting a WP:POV. As it was unreferenced I reduced it to a stub but it returned as a partially referenced, lopsided (extremely favourable and apologist), opinion piece, in contravention of WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:BLP and WP:SYN amongst others. Clearly, if retained, a more balanced piece is needed.

However, as the subject is known only as CEO of a company WP:BIO1E would suggest there is insufficient notability for an independent article. Clean-up of the article should therefore be achieved by deletion or redirect to Take-Two Interactive.

An anonymous editor has twice reverted attempts to merge or redirect, without giving any rationale. I am bringing this article here to establish whether there is consensus to delete. I42 (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The current text just sucks. But the guy has about 500 Google News hits, he was the president and COO of another major software company (Acclaim), and he hit the news again today, surfacing at yet another software company. He seems to have been an important, controversial guy in the business side of the software/gaming industty, and is likely worth an article. And I don't buy the BIO1E argument; Kim Jong Il, after all, has been the lunatic dictator of just one small country, and he gets an article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a country's head of state for fifteen years is not "a role in a single event"! However, I do agree that the provided coverage for Eibeler goes beyond a single event. Between the Market Watch article (of which he is the subject) and the other sources, I think this just covers the general notability guideline. Marasmusine (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hullaballoo is completely right. Article protection perhaps, not deletion, is needed here, to control POV. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per above. Also, cleaning up the article can also help cut down some of the vandalism, if that is the problem. MuZemike 19:40, 7 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. JForget 01:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick kemp

edit
Nick kemp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Signed to a contract with the Anaheim Ducks but has not played a professional game yet. Notability is asserted (as a professional hockey player) but not supported. May well play in the NHL at a later date...not notable yet.  Frank  |  talk  18:26, 4 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. Trevor MacInnis contribs 20:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monsters, Inc. characters

edit
List of Monsters, Inc. characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a list of characters appearing in a single film, so it is highly unnecessary. The only content that can possibly make it up is already covered in Monsters, Inc.#Plot, so that makes the entire article completely redundant. TTN (talk) 18:14, 4 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} 22:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coining, inc.

edit
Coining, inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of or evidence of notability. Dicklyon (talk) 17:26, 4 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. Speedy A7 JForget 01:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King's Student Law Review

edit
AfDs for this article:
King's Student Law Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable website, speedy removed as first edit by new user WuhWuzDat 16:48, 4 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. JForget 21:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arafa Nakuaa

edit
Arafa Nakuaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE for not representing his country. Spiderone (talk) 16:18, 4 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. JForget 00:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia AFL-CIO

edit
West Virginia AFL-CIO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was originally to be speedy, it declined and it fails WP:ORG. Though it doesn't take the requirements of notability. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 15:30, 4 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/redirect - original AFD nominator withdrew nomination here.    7   talk | Δ |   02:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz Matejko

edit
Tadeusz Matejko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable painter or works. Is known primarily for his father's work on his portrait. User:Mamaberry11 15:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given that you made this edit it appears that even you don't want deletion, and that you've found a solution that you could even have enacted yourself, since you have all of the tools necessary for doing so, had you not come to AFD. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 4 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) Erik9 (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution of orchid species

edit
Article may constitute original research.Phn229 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless there's some reason to suspect it's a hoax, the mere absence of sources isn't a good enough reason to delete an entire useful page; and this, a long list of orchids categorized by location, seems a worthwhile contribution. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A list of orchid species. Joe Chill (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the nominator may misunderstand what is meant by "original research". Are we really expected to believe that this topic has not been subjected to published research? Or that the article creator personally found all of these species in their various habitats? It only takes a few seconds to find plenty of books covering the subject, including this and this. If there are any inaccuracies in the article then they can be fixed by editing rather than deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 5 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 - G7. ϢereSpielChequers 09:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bumberclart

edit
Bumberclart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Definition of neologism with no mentions in RS. Sources that do exist seem to differ in terms of exact meaning TheSmuel (talk) 15:40, 4 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. JForget 01:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exotica

edit
Exotica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An "invented" music genre that has no sources which pass WP:RS to support inclusion on Wikipedia. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, strongly. A Google News and Google Scholar is enough to establish that "exotica" has an established meaning as a musical genre, and that this article represents it with reasonable accuracy. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is poorly sourced, but sources exist. This has been used as a term for a musical genre for several decades. A random list of sources:

Exotica: Fabricated Soundscapes in the Real World,

"Martin Denny and the development of musical exotica" (a chapter in Widening the Horizon: Exoticism in Post-War Popular Music).

"Taboo: Time and Belief in Exotica",

...etc. Hairhorn (talk) 16:35, 4 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. JForget 01:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disneyland Dubai

edit
Disneyland Dubai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pure rumor, with no verifiable information to back it up. Google hits for the terms usually produce articles using the term as a metaphor, not an actual planned Walt Disney Parks & Resorts project within Dubai. McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:11, 4 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} 22:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whogasm

edit
Whogasm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Out of the 8 sources in the article, 4 are blogs. 1 is a gadget site, 1 is the youtube video itself, 1 is a mention in a 'podcast' and the last is an article in Metro (Associated Metro Limited). So it barely passes WP:WEB. But more of a WP:NOTNEWS delete, as all the sources are between the 2007-06-20 to 2007-07-04 range. Otterathome (talk) 15:05, 4 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. Author himself has said delete JForget 01:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guilderberg

edit
Guilderberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All online sources appear to be blogs or self-publishing press release sites. Non-notable organisation which fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and maybe WP:HOAX. JD554 (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The question is not whether "Guilderberg" can or cannot make public its purported existence. Rather it is a question of whether this organization merits an article on Wikipedia. As I mentioned before, I can find very little convincing evidence that this group even exists (outside of its own literature regurgitated in press releases). Comparing Guilderberg to Freemasonry is more than a little absurd. Hundreds of books have been published on Freemasonry - the article itself is supported by more than 100 different external sources. It is a verifiable, established organization with a mountain of supporting evidence. On the other hand, almost nothing can be ascertained about Guilderberg. At least one blogger actually claims that this is nothing more than a front for a marketing campaign. Even if this is a real secret organization, it fails several of Wikipedia's established standards for notability, presents unverifiable information, and clearly lacks reliable sources. Without strong supporting evidence, this article is a clear candidate for deletion. Noir (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the mistake in terminology - as I do not use Twitter, I wasn't sure what to call users of the service (I suppose "tweeters" is the correct term). At any rate, almost every mention of Guilderberg on the site is from the same two users (50walts and sharon_bates). Other mentions are either unrelated or seem to be people who have gotten "Guilderberg" confused with "Bilderberg." The billboards you referenced (1 2 3) are clearly photoshopped. My main point from before still stands - the subject matter does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Noir (talk) 19:38, 4 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 overall policy-supported consensus here is in favour of deletion; while hypothetical statements of notability and reliable-source coverage were made none of those arguing to keep the article provided enough substantial coverage in reliable sources to comply with the applicable notability guidelines. From an encyclopedia's point of view, coverage solely in self-published and unreliable sources does not make for a reliable article. ~ mazca talk 19:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenji Yamamoto (DBZ game musician)

edit
Kenji Yamamoto (DBZ game musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable video game musician who supposedly has composed music from a few of the DBZ games, though there is no reliable source confirming this, just a single infoseek link. If all that can be said about this person from even none reliable sources is a list of works, it fails WP:N and WP:CREATIVE, as well as introducing BLP concerns. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vgmdb is a user edited site and not a reliable source. No one has denied he has done music, however, no reliable sources say anything about him other than listing his credits. That does not meet notability criteria for the person, even if he has done several albums for a series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once does not achieve a Discography like that without being notable. A major company wouldn't keep putting those out for the Dragonball series, if they weren't selling well. Common sense over wikilawyering. And if they haven't been released in America, then you can't even look for sources for any of the albums, unless you find someone who speaks Japanese. And how often do albums based on a cartoon/manga/video game series get reviewed in the media? Does anyone know where the Japanese album sales are listed? They surely have a site like Billboard.com somewhere. If the albums were hits, then the one who produced them is automatically a hit on that alone. Dream Focus 01:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How would you know? Are you a Japanese company and do you have any knowledge or understanding of how Japanese culture works? Almost every anime series, even the worst received, will still put out soundtracks, and in Japanese culture it would make perfect sense to keep him around even if he did not great music nor was notable. And no, the albums being hits does not make a performer on them (not a producer) automatically notable. Notability is not inherited and he is a living person who deserves the respect of not having an unsourced article making claims about him just because anyone can go around and throw anything they want about him there out of a non-existent claim of notability. The onus is on those saying keep to find sources. One can search in Japanese, but unlike American culture where the theme singer might have tons of press and what not, he likely would not anymore than any other person who contributed to the work. American thinking is about the I - Japanese about the - We. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After lurking around the web i doubt that we have enough to support the notability of this person [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. This person worked outside DBZ mainly as an arranger [17]. He is an arranger first & composer second. Verifiability issue, Oricon doesn't give the full artist credit for every DBZ related CDs. Notability issue, none of the DBZ CDs i could check, made it into the Oricon chart.
    Personal comment, this person should be notable by himself NOT because he composed DBZ musics. I think title like "Kenji Yamamoto (DBZ game musician)" is rather insulting. Regardless whatever he is notable or not this person has an existence outside DBZ so reducing him to the guy who did the DBZ music is rude to not say more. --KrebMarkt 07:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the recent changes. Article now includes reliable sources and is not just a list of his credits. Used the profile at his management's site as the main source. Also, because it's an annoying misconception: VGMdb is not a user-edited site (like Wikipedia). It is user-contributed. All edits, without exception, are proofread and double-checked by knowledgeable staff members. Prime Blue (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, the profile at his management's site is not. And the credits list is not whose notability we're discussing here. Prime Blue (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mangement's profile page is a directory and it's not a source independent of the subject. The VGMdb reference is clearly a database. Neither one of these can be used as evidence for notability. And his credits don't show any evidence that he passes WP:COMPOSER either. --Farix (Talk) 15:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The management site is used as a source for occupational information about Yamamoto, not his composition credits. And WP:SELFPUB encourages this source as long as it's not full of self-serving, fact-twisting adulation (which seems to be your point of criticism in order to challenge it – if I understood you right) which is not the case. And WP:COMPOSER is clearly talking about notable compositions, in that they are professional and it sets them apart from, say, someone who just happens to hum a melody, write lyrics to it and claim himself to be a composer. Yamamoto composed music for a reasonably successful game series and had several of his works released on CD. If you think that's not notable, then you didn't understand WP:COMPOSER. Prime Blue (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the albums he composed and i could check managed to make into the Oricon's Top 300 albums chart. He composed the music for DBZs that's rich but none was a hit in the chart so now knowing that is he a notable composer? For the albums, he officiated as arranger that another story but we don't have a set of guideline for notable arranger. --KrebMarkt 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Within what i could verify, none of the compositions of this person made it into the charts. --KrebMarkt 05:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you were being serious. If charts are the scale for notability of music now, then you'll have quite a lot of CD release and artist articles to flag for deletion. Also, you keep saying he is mostly arranging rather than composing. That's simply not true if you check the facts. He is the composer for Super Butōden, Super Butōden 2, Super Butōden 3, Super Goku Den — Totsugeki-Hen, some other games and new tracks in Dragon Ball Kai. Prime Blue (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice the world outside the DBZ franchise exists ;) See: that 編曲者 = Arranger & 作曲者 = Composer/Writing. He is doing mostly arrangement rather than composition. --KrebMarkt 12:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're trying to make a point, I clearly don't get it. I don't see how his arrangement work would make him any less notable a composer than before. He composes music himself. Prime Blue (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is an arranger first and a composer second. That doesn't make him less notable but accuracy require people to stop viewing him as just the guy who did DBZ music. Another point, i must ask you why Super Butōden, Super Butōden 2, Super Butōden 3, Super Goku Den — Totsugeki-Hen are notable? Answering something like because it's DBZ would be a poor answer. --KrebMarkt 16:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not because "it's DBZ", but because those are professional compositions which have been released on CD. Not to mention they were released by companies that published the work of other notable artists. Prime Blue (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the notability of his work as a composer is what is disputed right now. WP:COMPOSER does not define what a "notable composition" is, that's why it's POV until it's clarified. KrebMarkt defines it as something that made it into the charts, I define it as works by professional composers whose occupation it is to create music and who had CD releases of their compositions. From KrebMarkt's standpoint, I don't see how Kōji Kondō meets KrebMarkt's notability criteria either (at least I didn't find any of his works in the charts on the Oricon site, just some track lists), so I'd encourage you to flag that article for deletion, too. Prime Blue (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well in Kōji Kondō's case the interview from Ign & 1up and not counting the others make him notable.
Back to Kenji Yamamoto, there are still avenues to prove his notability, one is look for coverage on his person. 2 non-trivial papers where he is the central subject would do providing there are from reliable sources. Easier, look for games reviews & games music reviews if his name is mentioned explicitly numerous times by various reliable sources you may try to sell the noteworthy for video games reviewers argument. --KrebMarkt 16:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NM states Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. But I found a review doing just a quick search anyway. If you're already thinking about the next step, I suggest to go here. Prime Blue (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the RS stamp on RPGamer & RPGFan :p Shower us with RS reviews with his name mentioned to convince us. --KrebMarkt 18:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the above, I've made my point on that clearly. Prime Blue (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC, or more specificity WP:NSONG, does state what makes a notable composition or song. All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. . . . Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. And since WP:COMPOSER is a subsection of WP:MUSIC dealing specifically with the notability of composers, then it is very much relevant. --Farix (Talk) 17:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. [...] Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable.
That is the first flaw with your reasoning. The second being, you're arguing in circles. You're basing the notability of a composer off the notability of his song and album articles, which would itself again be dependent on the notability of its composer in this case, as WP:NM goes on to state:
In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. [...] Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.
By your argument, that would mean that each musician listed on Wikipedia would have to have at least one notable song or album article to make the musician article notable itself, although WP:NM claims the opposite for artists without songs or compositions that made it into the charts. Prime Blue (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, not "lots of hand-waving", but just Kaleb G. who said there were many such sources. I've never said that there is a plethora of what Wikipedia classifies as reliable sources, but the sources provided are sufficient. I've given my reasons for that, but again, notability of composers is not just defined by reliable sources dealing with them. Prime Blue (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of a callback to my reply to Stifle. WP:ENTERTAINER under additional criteria for the notability of people links to Wikipedia:MUSIC, because the actual composer notability criteria are defined in WP:COMPOSER. I also mentioned why WP:SELFPUB encourages the management site (if that one could even be considered self-published since it's not from Yamamoto himself): Because the material is not unduly self-serving and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Prime Blue (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with the use of selfpublished sources in this context but they don't go towards establishing notability per the general guideline which specifically requires sources "Independent of the subject" - which excludes such works. The purpose of the management site is to promote the individual - a service I imagine they are paid for - it should not be the basis of an article. I went "back" to WP:BIO as I'm not convinced the individual meets any of the specific criteria set out in WP:COMPOSER; his compositions appear in games which are certainly notable and on albums which may well be notable but I'm not convinced the compositions themselves are notable. Guest9999 (talk) 18:08, 12 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-admin closure. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chillaxation

edit
Chillaxation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism, WP:MADEUP. Irbisgreif (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied it while Irbisgrief was completing the nomination (and then G6'd his page that consisted only of the nomination ;) ). Syrthiss (talk) 13:00, 4 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. JForget 01:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flogblabbin

edit
Flogblabbin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:MADEUP. Irbisgreif (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Might have been possible to scrape it under G3 for speedy? Anyway, perhaps this should be proposed (a separate speedy tag to cater for CLEARLY obvious made up stuff as in this case).Calaka (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or you end up with a talk page full of messages accusing you of bad-faith editing for 'misusing' the tags. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:22, 4 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. Sufficient sources exist (and are cited in the article) to prove that, in her field, this model is noteworthy. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 00:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Babette March

edit
Babette March (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Model was once the cover of a magazine. No noteworthy information about her life has ever been published. Damiens.rf 12:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know whether this claim of no coverage is true. It is certainly much more difficult to research models from the 60s, but I believe she is notable by the mere fact of being the first Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover model.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does having been "the highest paid model of her day" make her notable? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who today's top-paid model is, but suppose its Kate Moss or Gisele Bündchen. It sounds to me like this women is like them 40 years ago. Why is there a question of her notability. We now have a source documenting her notability. I have added this content to the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the "highest-paid" claim were really true, there would be more evidence available than a single, 25-years-later article in SI. Not a single source other than the SI article makes a claim remotely approaching this; there are few other sources; and I don't think it's credible that this otherwise-unknown model was higher-paid than Veruschka, Twiggy, or Jean Shrimpton, or that the highest-paid model of her time was never mentioned by name during that time in media like the New York Times? (Shrimpton, for example, was mentioned repeatedly.) The AP photo index shows no evidence of her, although it does have images of models like Shrimpton. The claim that she was "as ubiquitous as Beatlemania" just underlines how dubious the SI profile is. Ultimately, the SI blurb isn't really an independent, third-party source here, but has elements of self-promotion to it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume there are several definitions of highest paid and that probably anyone in the top half-dozen models could make the claim. Then lets say she was an equivalent of Natalia Vodianova or Daria Werbowy who appear well up on the list of top paid models. It might be really difficult to find a lot about her in a wide range of sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a completely speculative explanation that can't be verified. And both of the names you cite have substantial news coverage. It also ignores the "ubiquitous as Beatlemania" claim, which can't be explained away in the same fashion. The fact that we can't turn up one contemporaneous source suggesting she was otherwise notable, and the fact that nobody's turned up anything in the last 45 years sourced from anything but SI suggesting that she was otherwise notable, is pretty telling. Let's face it, the first swimsuit issue wasn't a big deal, being on the cover of it wasn't a big deal, and it defies common sense to believe that SI went out and hired the highest-price talent they could find for the cover photo -- and didn't bother putting her name on the cover. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to support notability for the following reasons.
  1. A Ford Models talent who lands a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover is instantly notable by current standards for those two facts alone because being a Ford model means she is doing all kinds of top model stuff.
  2. Being a model to me is equivalent to being a professional athlete in terms of WP:N. Proof that you are a professional at the highest level with any flimsy WP:RS support equates to sufficient notability to have a page.
  3. I think all professional models who were on the cover of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, any major Vogue cover or in the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show deserve a page.
Thus, unless you can contest that she was really a professional model who worked for Ford Models or any other elite modeling agency, I think she should get a page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I contest that there are sufficient reliable, independent third-party sources providing the coverage required to establish notability independently of the SI cover. I've even checked out the fairly definitive history of SI, which gives her only cursory mention (if she were one of the top models of her day, she wouldn't be characterized merely as "waiflike.") [19]. In fact, when Frank DeFord wrote a history of the swimsuit issues he didn't even mention her last name or provide any details about her [20]. You can even view the entire issue online [21], and name doesn't seem to be mentioned at all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple things
  • 1) The Sports Illustrated article notes that Babette March was commonly known as "Babette" (one name). We should keep that in mind while looking for information about her. There's a New York Times article which seems to list her in the same breath as Lauren Hutton, Colleen Corby, and others: [22]. I can't access it at this moment, but maybe someone could try to track it down to see if it contains anything useful.
The Times article doesn't contai anything useful; she's mentioned only in that opening list you cite. But it's a very good catch, nonetheless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) It appears that Babette March now goes by the name Babette Beatty, after marrying a man named Dale Beatty. See [23], [24], and [25]. There is also a website, babettegallery.com, which appears to be run by her; her bio corresponds roughly (though not exactly) to some of the details we have in our article (born in Berlin, top 60s fashion model, lived in Brazil, Montreal, etc). Zagalejo^^^ 08:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedy close. Zagalejo's research is excellent, but I'm not convinced that it pulls her out of BLP1E. Highly paid she may have been, but there's still virtually no coverage outside of the context of the swimsuit issue. And I'm very dubious about the article title -- the first use of the name "Babette March" seems to be in the 25-years-late SI article, which is clearly exaggerated or inaccurate on several points (we can all agree, I hope, that "as ubiquitous as Beatlemania" is just not supported by any evidence. I think it would be more appropriate to identify her as "Babette Beatty." And I still think BLP1E should control -- after all, in the context of the original swimsuit feature (it wasn't a swimsuit issue; the swimsuit content was only a few pages within a larger travel section) she was so low-profile her name wasn't even mentioned. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just out of curiosity, what newspaper databases can you access? I agree that she probably wasn't "as ubiquitous as Beatlemania", but there are little pieces of evidence that suggest she was at least somewhat well-known at the time. If you do some digging, you can find a few other pictures of her from the 60s-70s, like this (fourth row). Linda Morand's website also has a picture of Babette, the caption of which calls her a "supermodel": [26] (about 3/4 of the way down). Zagalejo^^^ 04:17, 10 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. JForget 01:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Believe You (Pink song)

edit
AfDs for this article:
I Don't Believe You (Pink song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Unsourced article about an upcoming song that will be released only next winter. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete without prejudice against recreation after either the release of the song or a sourceable hype.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:35, 4 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 paragraph of the article pretty much indicates it fails WP:ATHLETE JForget 21:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bentem

edit
Anthony_Bentem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Player is yet to make his debut for Sparta Rotterdam - fails WP:N and WP:Athlete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03md (talk • contribs) 2009/08/04 11:08:19

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and salted JForget 01:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PlanGuru

edit
PlanGuru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article has already been deleted once. I believe that this should not change since the article is a blantant advertisment. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know. V. Joe (talk) 01:42, 4 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. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMSA Convention

edit
AMSA Convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD: Non notable student conference. Written like an advertisement. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:55, 4 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) 02:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M K Ramachandran

edit
M K Ramachandran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

contested prod. while there are 2 claims of notability here ("completed Kailas circumulation on foot" and "Kerala sahithya akadami award") the notability of these is not clear. The award lacks a wikipedia page and I'm having difficulty finding any information on the first item. RadioFan (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please add these references to the article if they may be used to demonstrate this author's notability. It's still completely unsourced.--RadioFan (talk) 17:20, 4 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 Glen Campbell videos. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Evening with Glen Campbell and the Royal Philharmonic

edit
AfDs for this article:
    An Evening with Glen Campbell and the Royal Philharmonic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Also listed:

    Best of The Glen Campbell Music Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Branson Video Classics Glen Campbell Goodtime Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Christmas with Glen Campbell (video) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Glen Campbell and Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Glen Campbell in Concert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Glen Campbell Live (video) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Good Times Again (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Live at the Dome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Delete - no reliable sources appear to indicate that these various video releases have a shred of independent notability. PRODs removed by creator under the mistaken notion that the notability of the artist means that every random video release by the artist is automatically independently notable. Otto4711 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you :-). As for my opinion on the articles, I think ThaddeusB's merge proposal sounds reasonable. Campbell is apparently a notable performer, but a video recording of his performances is of less note than a studio album with new songs. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge all into one article - Videos of Glen Campbell or something like that. It is best to PRESERVE the content, but none of these really have enough content for a stand alone article. Thus the best solution is simply to merge the all into one article. Considered collectively, the video releases of Glen Campbell are surely notable, even if individual notability is questionable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. I wish that kind of suggestion was made more often. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:48, 8 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. JForget 21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Veera Johnson

    edit
    Veera Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article has a subject that it doesn't meet the notability requirements. Though it fails WP:BIO and purely unsourced biographical page. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 10:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There are no sources listed....Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:04, 5 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. Editorial decisions should be discussed at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CJ Group

    edit
    CJ Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I am also nominating the following related pages because they are closely related:

    CJ CGV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    CJ Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    CJ Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    CJ GLS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The articles fail to establish notability. No external links for it, and the text simply states it's a "large company", without anything else. DanielPharos (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Merging all the pages together into one article might save the entire lot, if decent sources can be found. --DanielPharos (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep all Although the article are poor in the status, I wish the nominator would do some pre-reasearch before the nomination for the whole sale deletion. The group is the 17th biggest chaebol (conglomerate) in South Korea and was part of Samsung Group until 1993[29] (삼성그룹에서 분리된 범삼성계 기업들도 활약 중이다. 1991년과 1993년 독립경영을 선언한 신세계그룹과 CJ그룹은 꾸준히 몸집을 불려 각각 재계순위 19위(12조원)와 17위(12조3000억원)에 올라있다.), and some of the listed companies rank number 1 in some specific field (movie). If the articles about a company that has 10 billion profit should be deleted, what else Wikipedia should have? --Caspian blue 14:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit I didn't do any deep research (I can't read Korean, that's not helping), but if you have any sources, please link the articles to them and I'll shut up. It's just that there appear to be several dozens of these kinds of articles, none sourced in the two years that they exist.
    Also, I wouldn't count "17th biggest conglomerate" as being an statement of notability.
    I now realize I shouldn't have marked them for deletion. I should have marked them for merger or something. Sorry about that. --DanielPharos (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    3,260 for CJ group Korea. Plenty of English sources from Google news search.--Caspian blue 15:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot to put quotes around the name; you're also picking up on other CJ-things. 204 for CJ Group. OK, still, I see I made a mistake doing this, at least this way. I can make a listing of all the articles that I would've marked, and pass that on to the Korea wikiproject. If they really are notable, they deserve to be properly sourced after 2 years of wiki-lifetime. --DanielPharos (talk) 15:22, 4 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) 02:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Plushophile

    edit
    Plushophile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The article is about a neologism (one which is a frankly bizarre - and, I suspect, totally fictional - psychosexual perversion/internet hoax - you be the judge which term is more applicable). My understanding is that neologisms have a higher-than-average standard for notability, as per WP:Avoid neologisms. This article might meet a low threshold for notability, but a high one? Not a chance. Additionally, it seems that Wiktionary would be a more appropriate place for a somewhat scaled-down version of this peculiar little stub. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Do you really think that being featured in a fictional (not to mention supremely crappy) tv show like "CSI" genuinely enhances the Notability of this article's subject? I'd probably ask a similar question about "Eurotrash"...if I had any idea what that was. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe they mean Eurotrash (TV series). Notability of a sort, although I think that episode was about ConFurence 10 and not plushophiles. Similarly, I'm not sure where CSI comes in, as the episode did not cover them. GreenReaper (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did in fact mean Eurotrash (TV series), thank you GreenReaper. Also, KevinOKeeffe, just because you have a crusade against something and haven't heard of sources supporting it doesn't mean that the source is any less notable. The CSI show was Fur and Loathing (ep. 406). Lithorien (talk) 02:21, 9 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 Deleted as obvious hoax, vandalism. PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin Park (author)

    edit
    Kevin Park (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    DELETE. Contested speedy which is, without a doubt, completely non-notable. Textbook NN. JBsupreme (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. I nominated this for speedy. As I stated in an edit summary [31] and at WP:BLPN [32], the claims are unsupported by Google and Amazon searches (outside of the linked interview, one can not find evidence that either writer or books exits), and at least one of the references, that linking to a Parsons biography, is about someone else, a designer. If it is determined that this is non-notable, or a hoax, there will need to be much clean up at other articles, where the subject has been added as a 'notable'. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of Google and Amazon hits looks suspicious, and the link to Parsons makes one wonder if the whole thing is built on air. Following the threads from the article's edit history, it will be seen that several contributors have also added the subject's name to numerous other articles. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a current attempt to halt this discussion by removal of the AFD template from the article. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 12:02, August 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep  : A7 requirement for notability does pass. Also, the designer is the same Kevin Park as the author. Romance novels also have very short print lives and not all of them appear on Google, Amazon.com, especially if sold directly by smaller publishing houses.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.174.135 (talk • contribs)
    Comment. A7 is a criteria for speedy deletion. Passing A7 is not a sufficient criteria for keeping an article. Here you need to argue in terms of WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. 66.57.7.153 (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for all your efforts, Wikipedia.

    Comment. I hesitated to nominate this for speedy as a hoax, on the off chance that the writer and books were indeed actual. The efforts of others to research this have confirmed my findings, and I greatly appreciate those who have removed the related mentions in other articles. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retain. . Not a hoax at all, but non-notable. Erase links but keep general article.
      Comment. As a non-notable, the article would not be retained. Nor is there any support for the Parsons links referring to the same person. It is also reasonable to inquire whether the contributors to the article are all one person, or working closely together, per WP:SOCKPUPPET. One hopes that the admin who closes this discussion will take note of the accounts that promulgated the article, as well as those accounts created just to comment here. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, hoax. According to this, he's the Art Director at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. At the age of 26? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      You guys didn't notice that the hoax NYT book list says 11 2 HOLD ME CLOSE, by Kevin Park. (Dorchester, $6.99.) A fictionalized account of a womans murder in Los Angeles in 1947, first published in 1987 .. When the author was four years old. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Lol, I totally failed to notice that. Good catch. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An anon has now removed all references to his books, as well as his birthdate, and is just putting up information that's supported by the link to the Parsons School link. Looks like their hoax failed, and they're now trying to claim notability of the Parsons designer, who is most assuredly an entirely different person. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:00, 4 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 deleted by User:Jimfbleak, non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Precious time and its management

    edit
    Precious time and its management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. Blatant OR. Tim Song (talk) 08:49, 4 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. JForget 21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Víctor Samuel Rivera

    edit
    Víctor Samuel Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Nomination on behalf of User:Andreasmperu, who does not believe the subject meets WP:PROF, writing that:

    The Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal (Lima) (where he teaches) is not considered even in the top 10 of the universities in Peru (you can see here it's at the 48th place), so I can't imagine what relevance has at a global level. The so-called publications aren't in scientific journals peer-rewiewed, but in student journals or other journals available to any person not necessarily academic. And he is not cited for anybody, he is not even well-known in the peruvian academic media. He had not received any award or recognition from any institution (less from a prestigious one). Worse, he hasn't earn any graduate degree in philosophy (not a master not a Ph.D.).

    I declined the A7 on this in light of the article's several (unproven) claims to notability, but have no position on this debate.  Skomorokh  08:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete  : I found a long lost essay I wrote around 5th grade on credit and economics. The cover is a collage of newspaper clippings on credit and stock quotes. I don't want to make fun of the guys's publications, I haven't checked them, but certainly the article text is a bit lacking in obvious notability. Are any of these publications cited anywhere? Did they assert novel conclusions subsequently examined by others in the field or popular press? Did they constitute widely cited review or summary articles with no new hypotheses? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. These publications at the bottom appear to be highly non-notable in their own right, and I don't see any verifiable proof that the subject would pass WP:PROF. Nerd, your reference to your own essay, I don't get it. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - the references are all works by him, I don't see any independent reference about him, and a Scholar search doesn't show him being cited extensively, or indeed at all. I don't think he meets the standard of WP:PROF. For what it's worth, though I don't know how their standards compare with ours, the Spanish-speakers might be better placed to check him out, and his article on :es was deleted as "without encyclopedic relevance" which I guess is equivalent to our A7. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Notability not established, no secondary sources Wefa (talk) 22:57, 4 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. Consensus here suggests that the topic does not meet notability guidelines. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rivendell Institute

    edit
    Rivendell Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:ORG. Lacks both significant coverage (most citations are for mere mentions) and third party coverage, let alone significant third party coverage. {{find}} appears to turn up nothing beyond mere mentions. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I find a few instances of trivial and incidental coverage, but no reliable source appears to have taken the time to note more than the mere existence of this organization. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There is no requirement that it must be discussed in detail everywhere it is mentioned. Indeed if this was the criteria there would be no need for wikipedia to include anything in any article. Biofase flame| stalk  16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: there is in fact a "requirement" that it must be "discussed in detail" somewhere in a third party source -- WP:ORG: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." As I stated in my nomination, this organisation fails this requirement. Unless you can provide some evidence that this organisation meets this requirement, your 'keep' opinion is without foundation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:47, 4 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. JForget 01:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My Cute Girlfriend

    edit
    My Cute Girlfriend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unsourced article on theater/movie/TV (?) production that may or may not be produced next year. Not notable at this point in time. Prod removed without stated reason. Crusio (talk) 07:26, 4 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, defaulting to keep. Discussion is a bit thin, with no recognizable consensus to delete emerging.--Kubigula (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Axialis IconWorkshop

    edit
    Axialis IconWorkshop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    • Trivial Critieria  : I've gotten into some debates over what constitutes notability of if an article is "about" the topic rather than mentions it only in passing. I think you can make this more direct by saying the secondary source coverage is non-trivial if it includes enough information about the topic to make a good article ( duh). Does it address encyclopedic attributes of the topic, for which you could fill in some details from biased or primary sources? Or, does it just state it exists and the sum total of such secondary source coverages is not enough to write a good article? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article Updated - Based on this discussion, I've updated the article: removed trivial sources, added new sources, added new features, added info about Lite Version. Remark: I'm the author of IconWorkshop and new to Wikipedia. I hope my contribution is not against the editorial rules. Feel free to contact me. Memile (talk) 13:38, 10 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Abdur Rahman (Islamic scholar)

    edit
    Abdur Rahman (Islamic scholar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non notable cleric/scholar. Notability is not established by any references from reliable sources. The organizations mentioned in the article are also non-notable. Ragib (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. It is possible that he is notable in his home country or in the Islamic world, but that there just are no sources about him in Latin alphabet. However, it's up to the article creator to establish notability, and as long as the article has no reliable sources, it has to go. Offliner (talk) 12:15, 5 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. JForget 01:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I Like the Way (You Move)

    edit
    I Like the Way (You Move) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Completing nomination for User:Spectre9, who tagged the article and attempted an entry on the AfD log page but neglected to create a deletion discussion page. Since the nomination rationale Spectre used for three other AfD's created about the same time was the single word "Notability," I presume that's what s/he would have used here as well. I'm expressing no opinion myself. Deor (talk) 14:49, 4 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. Non-admin closure. Joe Chill (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mary Don't You Weep

    edit
    Mary Don't You Weep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Notability Spectre9 (talk) 05:24, 4 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) Erik9 (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Traveling Light (album)

    edit
    Traveling Light (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Notability Spectre9 (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep as another bad nomination by this editor. A quick search reveals plenty of significant coverage for this album. Editor would be better off improving these articles rather than nominating them. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - album by an artist with their own (albeit weak) article.    7   talk | Δ |   23:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Just because it is a release from a notable artist doesn't automatically make their albums notable too. Instead of counting Ghits, sources show nothing of substance actually talking or reviewing specifically this album. Notability not established per WP:MUSIC#Albums with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Keep, for the sources Drmies has added to the article. Nice work.  Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 03:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep: most of the links on the google page that Drmies provides are to reviews of the album, unfortunately paid reviews, but reviews none-the-less. A couple of non-subscription reviews can be found in the Illinois Herald & Review[34] and Blender[35]. --JD554 (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are two (albeit brief) mentions in Billboard, a review in Guitar Player (can't get my hands on it right now), a five-paragraph review in Deseret News, a paragraph in The Salt Lake Tribune, etc. For some reason I can't access the 20 Jan 2006 edition of the Herald & Review, but even the blurb on Google is indicative of some substance. I mean, this, Singer-songwriter Courtney Jaye gets a royal sendoff on "Traveling Light" (Island). Finessed by hit producer Peter Collins, the Pittsburgh-born, Atlanta-raised Jaye comes off like a lighter, breezier Sarah McLachlan. Check out the frisky first single "Can't Behave" (a co-write with the Jayhawks' Gary Louris), the poignant "Time for Goodbye," balmy, Indigo Girls-ish title track and warmly embracing "Love Song (For Everyone)," from the St. Paul Pioneer Press, isn't all that much--but it's more than a lot of other albums on WP have gotten. Put it all together, you have notability, and Esradekan Gibb, I'm not counting Google hits (if you would look, you would know that I use Google News, without counter), and if you think a five-paragraph review in Utah's oldest daily newspaper does not amount to "significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources," then you really need to look again. And before you ask, YES, I did just spent the last 45 minutes plowing through databases to refute your all-too dismissive statement and this ridiculous nomination. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It looks like the Herald & Review was only temporary access for free. But it is there, and I guess an assumption of good faith is needed ... unless someone wants to pay ;) --JD554 (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The weird thing is, the Herald's entire month of January 2006 is not indexed in EBSCO. Strange, because they have the paper from Jan 2005 until the day before yesterday. No, I'm not willing to pay, haha. BTW, I should not have put this comment under yours, sorry 'bout that. I have looked at a number of AfD's by this nominator and they were all not-so-good; answering Esradekan, who needs more proof than the blurbs on Google News (he has a right to ask, of course, though perhaps not a reason to dismiss my search results so quickly), made me go through all these databases and that's really irritating, esp. LexisNexis, whose search functionality blows. I could, of course, bring all this into the article--but I also have a job... ;) Drmies (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, whaddayaknow, all of a sudden I had free access: "Courtney Jaye, “Traveling Light” — Great voice. She reminds me of Liz Phair vocally, but she’s not quite as musically eccentric. (Actually, she sounds more like Danielle Brisebois to me, but that’s not a lot of help to almost everyone, since so few people have heard her.) Jaye has drawn comparisons with Sheryl Crow, but she’s a little more pop than Crow’s relative rock. Besides, Playboy has picked Jaye as a Woman on the Verge, and Playboy is where you go for music tips, right?" That's not very substantive, but again, it's something. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - based on sources added, appears to meet notability. Rlendog (talk) 20:50, 6 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. Non-admin closure. Joe Chill (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Harmonies for the Haunted

    edit
    Harmonies for the Haunted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Notability Spectre9 (talk) 05:20, 4 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 WP:SNOW Keep. Non-admin closure. Joe Chill (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Aquamarine (film)

    edit
    Aquamarine (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Recent film, not notable, no WP:RS Spectre9 (talk) 05:18, 4 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. Obviously no consensus for deletion; editorial decisions should be discussed on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Secure digital camera

    edit
    Secure digital camera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No source besides the primary sources of Mohanty et al. can be found to support notability of the topic. It looks like just a vanity article (see Sarajumohanty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See talk page for more on sources examined. Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep I had no difficulty in finding sources and have added some to the article. The topic is clearly notable and we have to start somewhere. It is our editing policy that we improve such initial contributions rather than deleting them. Note also that the topic is of particular interest to Wikipedia as we currently do not seem to have any method of verifying that images are accurate and have not been altered or misrepresented. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Colonel Warden has shown that the topic is encyclopedic and that it should exist. That the article may have (most prob'ly!) started as a vanity piece is now moot. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - valid sourced fork from Digital Camera - that article is already very long. Springnuts (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We can try to turn it into an article, but all we have really are primary sources by the coi author and a new one that Warden cited in supported of "Epson and Kodak have produced cameras with these features such as the Epson PhotoPC 3000Z and the Kodak DC-290. Both cameras added irremovable features to the pictures which distorted the original image, making them unacceptable for some applications such as forensic evidence in court." However, if you look at that source, it says those Epson and Kodak cameras are NOT what it is proposing as a secure digital camera. Is a proposal like this with no secondary commentary really enough to establish notability of a topic? I don't think so. Dicklyon (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Digital watermarking is a weak article and there is currently a proposal to merge it into Watermark (data file), though that seems even worse. That would move the topic too far away from the essential point of this topic - that the security mechanism (which is not necessarily a watermark) is built-in to the camera. Note also that the field is fairly new and so all of these phrases are fairly new. I wouldn't call them neologisms though as there are no new words being used - just a variety of descriptive phrases which put existing words together in a fairly obvious way. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amended addendum: removing the OR & the not-supported-by-citation material, we are left with two off-topic sections (one on cameras-that-aren't-SDCs & one on reversible data-hiding -- that is relevant to digital watermarking generally, rather than SDCs particularly) & Blythe's definition/proposal. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:34, 6 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. Consensus seems to be that the article is original research, and thus unsuitable for inclusion. Wiktionary is perhaps a better place to cover the term. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Intellectual whimsy

    edit
    Intellectual whimsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not WP:Notable. Most of the sources cited do not even use the expression. Intellectual whimsy is real but there is no reason to call it that rather than "quaint cleverness", "old-fashioned mind-games", or whatever you like. Until there is a generally accepted name an article on it is WP:Original research Northwestgnome (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - the article could do a better job defining its subject and focusing on encyclopedia relevant aspects of the topic, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthy of inclusion. The idea expressed here is a common and notable one and a find the argument that an idea has to have one unique term to be bizarre. Many subjects are known by more than one term and it certainly isn't original research to pick one of them (normally the most common) for an article title and redirect the rest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I found the term in a dictionary; however, it was only being used as a definition for "conceit" (and not one of the first ones, either): Grambs, David (1985). Literary Companion Dictionary: Words About Words‎. p. 73. conceit: An elaborated metaphor, fanciful analogy, or cleverly evocative turn of expression, sometimes one that is affected or strained; intellectual whimsy; stylistic artifice.
    The earliest usage I found was Masson, David Mather (1854). De Quincey and Prose Writing. p. 165. A man, for the most part, would be ashamed of permitting himself in prose the same freedom of intellectual whimsy, the same arbitrariness of combination, the same riot of imagery, the same care for the exquisite in sound and form, perhaps even the same depth and fervour of feeling, that he would exhibit unabashed in verse. ...
    And after all of this, plus some other research, it came down to: either it's a phrase with a single definition, in which case it goes to wiktionary, or it's a phrase that can be any of a number of things, in which case it's not encyclopedic. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Phrases of this sort are not the exclusive property of Wiktionary as they are commonly used as article titles here. For example, clicking random article a few times and skipping over the villages and asteroids, we have Barnsley Town Hall, Music of Bermuda, Negative resistance. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I look at the phrases you mention, and it's obvious to me what they describe. I'm not talking about getting rid of all phrases (obviously!); just one that doesn't actually have a fixed meaning—that is, there's nothing to actually write an article about. To use more examples from the definition above, WP doesn't have articles on elaborated metaphor, fanciful analogy, or stylistic artifice, either (and shouldn't). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not seem obvious that the Music of Bermuda should include Scottish bagpipe music, as the article tells us. Is the Music of Bermuda any music which is played there or what? May we not have any article for which the topic is not 100% understood and agreed, such as Dark energy or Money supply?
    • Comment I didn't take time to express my thoughts well in the nomination. The problem is not that there is disagreement on what expression to use, it's more like "intellectual whimsy" is really a kind of vauge expression that can be used in different ways. Kind of like "natural beauty", "honest debate", "serious consideration", and others. I don't think WP would have articles on any of them. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The nomination is unclear and I don't think we should entertain such vague propositions here. Topics should be given serious consideration and honest debate rather than being deleted in an offhand fashion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry I did such a poor job of writing the nomination. I still think that the article is original research on a topic that is not clearly notable. A well educated person can indulge in whimsy and they often do, true. However that does not make "intellectual whimsy" a topic in itself. I also mentioned that the sources do not use the expression "intellectual whimsy" (unless I missed it), but serve more as examples of it. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:30, 4 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. JForget 01:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vennis

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Vennis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This game is non-notable and wholly unencyclopedic. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:09, 4 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) 03:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Francisco "Quico" Canseco

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Francisco "Quico" Canseco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    non notable person, failed political candidate. WuhWuzDat 03:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, without prejudice toward reinstatement should he win the congressional election. I nearly tagged this for speedy or prod myself, but decided not to pull the trigger until it got a little more work. That hasn't happened. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:06, 4 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 run-of-the-mill juvenile vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jockey the knob

    edit
    Jockey the knob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    WP:MADEUP - multiple IPs vandalizing.    7   talk | Δ |   03:51, 4 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. As far as I can tell, there is no consensus as to whether or not the individual is sufficiently notable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Onome Sodje

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Onome Sodje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Procedural nomination. I know very little about football hierarchy and have no opinion. This was previously deleted as apparently failing to play at a high enough professional level, but through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Bryant, not the first nomination under the player's name. Upon recreation, it was claimed on my talk page that this doesn't meet G4 as he now plays for a higher level association.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Whilst I agree with that comment, unfortunately the presence of Histon means that the BSP isn't considered a professional league (despite them making the play-offs and beating Leeds in the FA Cup) - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. :( However, if he plays for Barnsley on Saturday, then this debate will be rendered irrelevant, as he'd pass Wp:ATHLETE. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's at least six clubs in the Conference National which aren't professional, not just Histon...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Coverage in respected sources such as the BBC; belongs to the squad of Barnsley FC, and thus passes WP:ATHLETE ("People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport"). In my opinion he does not have to play a game for Barnsley to pass this - belonging to the squad is enough. Offliner (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • .....or a player who was on a pro team's squad 20 years ago, never played, then dropped out of pro football and is now a taxi driver? The father of TV presenter Les Dennis was once on the books of Liverpool, one of the biggest clubs in the land, but left the club without ever playing and wound up working in a betting shop, would you say he passes WP:ATHLETE? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion is that being a member of the senior squad of a professional team makes a player notable. Offliner (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the player never played so much as a single second of competitive football for that club in his career....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Offliner (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At a time when many editors are complaining that we are too lenient in allowing an article on any player who's ever played for a pro club, I doubt you'd find many other people who think we should also have articles on all the players who've not played for a pro club......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 5 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. Arguments for keeping the article are irrelevant to the matter at hand. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chinchilla rescue centres

    edit
    Chinchilla rescue centres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable phenomenon. See this Google news archive search. The allegedly notable example is also non-notable. See this Google news archive search. Bongomatic 02:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - I declined a G11-speedy deletion request after the article had some clean-up; however, I see nothing that indicates this might be notable per our requirements. LadyofShalott 03:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP this is just typical of the kind of ignorance we fight every day in chinchilla rescue centres. Some people even think chinchillas are dogs. Shallot lady, you know chinchillas have a mean bite, right? 75.76.162.50 (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Unless I'm gravely mistaken, meanness of bite is not a criterion of WP:Notability. LadyofShalott 03:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I say so reluctantly. There seems to be little of note here. Also, I have the feeling that there is sock puppeteering going on here--my wife keeps reminding me to put them in the hamper. BTW, Lady of Shalott, I'm reading The Bride of Lammermoor. I have the feeling that one also is going to end badly. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as nominated. Horrible things, chinchillas. Best turned into coats, stoles and muffs. Crafty (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy close The nom describes this organization as a "phenomenon" which could be highly prejudicial to evaluating the devoted work of the animal lovers organizing to provide sanctuary for this wonderful species. Also, it's obviously past the Dr. and the lady's bedtimes, so their views should be discounted heavily. Does "muff" mean something different in other parts of the world than it does here, because I'm concened about what may or may not be implied by the suggestion of making them into "muffs". Chinchillas are people too. They have the same needs for shelter and a loving home as other small mammals. I think the only appropriate close at this point is a no consensus and we can revisit the subject again in a few months after we've had more time to reflect on it and investigate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the reference is intended to be to the first item at the disambiguation page, not the sixth or seventh. Bongomatic 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you be sure? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's clear CoM wants a few months of muff investigation. A most laudable endeavour. Crafty (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Crafty, the mere thought of CoM having even closer interactions with others (human or canine) is somewhat disturbing. He once went on a joyride with User:MichaelQSchmidt, and I believe MQS still hasn't recovered. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Canine? Apart from your habit of mixing up species I'd like to remind you that we aren't in Amsterdam any more. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:55, 4 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. There's clearly no consensus for deletion here. Merging to Schrödinger's cat seems like a reasonable solution, one which should definitely be considered, but there's no consensus for that either. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Schrödinger's cat in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is monolithic listcruft. It's possibly the largest indiscriminate collection of incoherent trivia on Wikipedia. This article is just a catalog of instances of a popular thought experiment in popular media (as such, it makes about as much sense as a page like the sorties paradox in popular culture or the sound of one hand clapping in popular culture). Valuless, and impossible to make encyclopedic through revision, the article's fate must be: delete. Auspex1729 (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is a compilation of every instance of Schrödinger's cat encountered by the page's authors. That's the short definition of indiscriminate. The external links on that page are for LOLCats. How is that "not indiscriminate"? Auspex1729 (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep When notable cultural artifacts, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the fictional work directly. Many of the ones here are clearly used in significant ways. This argument is all the stronger when the cultural artifact is actually of fundamental importance to the scientific world-view, and represents the popular understanding of it. Some may possibly represent an misunderstanding of the science, but that too is characteristic of popular culture. "Just a thought-experiment" ! The most famous thought experiment since Heraclitus's river and Buridan's ass. Both of these i.p.c. would make good articles, as would the two mentioned by the nominator. The nom claims on his user page to practice "extreme article deletion", and has apparently set out to prove it. The appropriate response would be a snow close, which might help discourage him from carrying out the agenda found there. DGG (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Unless sources can be adduced that specifically and substantively treat the article's topic (the uses of Schrödinger's cat in popular culture), this is original research synthesized from primary sources. The only sources currently referenced in the article (aside from Schrödinger's own words) are a TV-show script and a bunch of Web comics that refer to the cat-in-a-box; none of them (including the Schrödinger source) establish the notability of, or discuss in any way, the article's topic. Deor (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki and delete as a violation of WP:SYNTH. None of the sources are about the article subject; they are examples of the article subject as per the personal judgment of Wikipedia editors, which is original research via synthesis. *** Crotalus *** 15:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notable and encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Schrödinger's cat. Argue all one might that Schrödinger's cat is a physics concept, it is (in my opinion) better known (and misunderstood) in the popular mind. Really, Schrödinger's cat should be merged to this article, but that would be too funny for Wikipedia. The Schrödinger's cat article must treat the popular conception of the idea, which it currently does not because of this content fork. Abductive (reasoning) 22:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete WP:OR Wefa (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, Nonnotable; don't be fooled by fake references to primary sources. Mintrick (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but Merge - as abductive points out above, Schrödinger's cat is a popular interpretation of a physics concept. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. While the "merge" arguments are plausible, the existing article on the gedankenexperiment is coherent and well-focused, virtues that would be lost if material with such a disparate tone was to be added in. Agree generally with DGG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete All of the prose that could merit this being its own article is unsourced and looks to be original research. Find sources that described the topic of "Schrödinger's cat in popular culture" first, then you have grounds for an article. Also, goes without saying there's tons of listcruft. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Mostly unsourced list of WP:TRIVIA. Much of this is simply not notable. Some of this material could pass some criterium of inclusion to WP, and could perhaps be added to the main article, but the subject is not notable enough for its own article. Offliner (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - obviously notable popular culture concept from the vast number and reliability of sources. Agreed that it needs extensive trimming. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no. What is sourced in the article is the definition of what Schrödinger's cat is (whihc you should get from Schrödinger's cat), and some references in specific fictional works (mainly by directly linking webcomic pages). This does not establish the notability of "Schrödinger's cat in popular culture". WesleyDodds (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to double-check that reference. Page 7 of the book you cited contains no mention of Schrödinger's cat, science fiction, popular culture, or anything at all in the sentence it's supposedly being used as a source for. Deor (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's page 34. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually Colonel Warden's sources aren't any good, but this one seems on the money. I still really want a merge, though. Abductive (reasoning) 22:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You get what you pay for. I usually only search for a minute or so and don't use expensive services like Lexis. The point is not to turn up good material as AFD is not a GA review. Instead, the point is merely to establish that a topic is not a hopeless case and so that deletion is not the best way forward, per our deletion policy. If there are references to a topic out there then deletion is usually inappropriate because the article name is a useful search term and so redirection/merger is a better outcome than deletion. If editors would follow our policy in this regard we could save an awful lot of time here. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Schrodinger's Cat. Yes, it's important to note the physics thought experiment has penetrated the pop culture, but there's a good amount of WP:OR going on here - even if sourced. EG: just name-dropping Schrodinger is not a significant factor, though the fact it has been name-dropped is important, and about 50% of this list can be turned into a statement that "Schrodinger is often used as a name for a cat or other aspect in reference to the physics thought experiment" and that "Many popular culture works use the "Schrodinger's Cat" idea to gloss over the theory of quantum mechanics to the general reader." However, listing each and every name-drop of SC is just not discriminate. --MASEM (t) 12:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep although extensive trimming and copyediting is needed. The article starts out good then just fades into listcruft -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 20:25, 9 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. +Angr 05:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Was nominated for deletion a year ago and closed with no consensus. Still has the same problems: no definition of counterintuitive, and no references. What is counterintuitive is inherently WP:POV, and so the list is either WP:OR or WP:SYN. -Mairi (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. If the loose definition of the term counterintuitive is ever going to lead to the page being flooded with frivolous entries, surely it would have happened by now. I do not see the problems you see. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 03:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, pace sophistry by Mairi. Inherently interesting article; the kind of thing kids might be intrigued by. Sourcing is no worse that a couple hundred thousand other articles. kwami (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:INTERESTING is really not a valid reason. you have not stated how the article meets WP:N. LibStar (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSUSEFUL is really not a valid reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant keep. Like most Englishmen, I secretly enjoy hearing Americans and other foreigners try to pronounce "Leicester", "Cholmondeley" or "Dalziel" (and while I'm confessing, I also take a perverse pleasure in seeing them try to spell "manoeuvre"). It's particularly good fun not to tell them how it's really done. However, I'm forced to admit that Wikipedia should educate and inform. This article does make a genuine contribution to the sum of human knowledge, so it belongs on Wikipedia. And any argument based on WP:ATA that purports to suggest otherwise should be disregarded. ATA is an essay that can't prevail over Wikipedia's mission to produce valuable encyclopaedic content.

      As for being "open to" OR and POV—well, so's Barack Obama. We don't delete material because it's "open to" misguided or bad-faith editors.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • It's not just "open to" OR and POV; it is inherently OR and POV. --Alynna (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two limbs to that, so two answers.

          1) "Inherently POV"—Well, "lieutenant" is variously pronounced "leftenant" or "loot'nant" . This is either intuitive or counterintuitive. I put it to you that the idea that it's intuitive is a minority POV, and the idea that it's counterintuitive is mainstream. Would you disagree?

          2) "Inherently OR"—This would be true if there were no published sources. But a quick glance at my bookshelves gives me: Baugh, Albert C. & Cable, Thomas: A History of the English Language. Routledge, first edition 1951. My 5th edition (2002), ISBN 0415280990, discusses the matter in the context of English - American dialect changes and Mr Webster's spelling reforms, on pp 367-376. I can't immediately lay my hands on my copy of Bill Bryson's Mother Tongue, but I seem to recall the matter is discussed there as well. Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words is also likely to prove a rich resource.

          In short, it's well-covered by sources, and I think it's neither POV nor OR.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

          • (later addendum) I found my copy of Mother Tongue, and to my delight, Chapter 6 is all about pronunciation. It's a joy to read. (Bryson points out on p. 78 that the word for the study of pronunciation, orthoepy, can itself be pronounced two ways.)

            Chapter 12 points out the various different ways foreigners pronounce English words, and would be a good source for describing how "intuitive" to a native Japanese speaker varies from "intuitive" to a Frenchman.

            Chapter 13 is even better, addressing a series of specific pronunciations directly on pp 191-192. This is ISBN 014014305X.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            • Mother Tongue is indeed a wonderful book. However, I'm not seeing anything that would define what would be "counterintuitive" (much less the distinction between that and non-intuitive). There's certainly discussion of names variously described as "unfathomable", "unpronounceable" (obviously a rhetorical flourish, since they are pronounced), ones that "bear almost no resemblance to their spelling", etc. But the article as it stands now relies on a definition of intuitive and counterintuitive, otherwise it's simply a List of names people think are pronounced strangely, which is hardly encyclopedic. Indeed, in talking about English spelling, Bryson says "If there is one thing certain about English pronunciation it is that there is almost nothing certain about it." and "But in English, pronunciation is so various-one might almost say random-that not one of our twenty-six letters can be relied on for constancy.", neither of which lends much hope to finding a definition of intuitive/counterintuitive. -Mairi (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, for the same reason we don't have List of inherently funny words. The criteria for inclusion are entirely subjective. I think the pronunciation of "Poughkeepsie" is counterintuitive; someone on the talk page of the article doesn't. The "funny words" list redirects to Inherently funny word. There may be a place for an article on the concept of place names that are confusing to outsiders. The most notable examples from this list could even be mentioned in it. But we definitely don't need a list. --Alynna (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: What could be an actually good article is a list of places that have the same name as other places but are pronounced differently. (Under some more concise title.) You could write about Lima, Versailles, and DuBois, among others. --Alynna (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as inherently POV. I've just looked at the "Place names in Britain and Ireland" and find at least one third of them to be completely intuitive. (I'm a U.S. American.) This just illustrates the problems with the notion of "counter-intuitive" raised by others above. I agree with Alynna that a discussion of the concept might be interesting, but worry that even that would require original research via synthesis. Cnilep (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely it depends on what words the sources say are counterintuitive?

      I see several "delete it because we can't agree on exactly what counterintuitive means", and I don't think this argument stands up to close scrutiny. You go to a source that says it's counterintuitive, and if it is, you list it here. Simple.

      Incidentally, there's a helpful list of "disputed pronunciations" in Fowler's. In my revised 3rd edition of 1998, ISBN 0198602634, it's on page 630. One can presume that if they're "disputed" pronunciations, then at least one of the variations is counterintuitive for someone.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Isn't it OR to decide that "disputed" --> "counterintuitive"? And if we're going to expand the definition of "counterintuitive" to "any word that one person could pronounce in a way that another person wouldn't expect", our list is going to include nearly every word in existence. Also, I could find a source that says a word is stupid. Does that mean we can have "List of stupid words"? --Alynna (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak delete, simply because a huge number of words in English have counterintuitive pronunciations. Spelling and pronunciation in English are often wildly different things. (compare, if you will: dough, through, rough, cough, blough...) Hairhorn (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Great topic, poor presentation made with the conceit that everyone can read the "international phonetic alphabet" with ease... ænd ðæts hwaɪ ðɪs ɑrtɪkəl səks. Mandsford (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT? A need for cleanup is not really a reason for deletion. Eauhomme (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Good information, needs better presentation (IPA is not necessarily the best way to present pronunciation), and some sources may be difficult to find, as regional pronunciations are not always sourced well. But source where we can, and give it a chance to be improved--all in all, it adds to, rather than detracts from, the body of knowledge. Eauhomme (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep In re-examining the article, it's clear that various editors have been making this article more useful, by adding English-language dictionary pronunciations to the IPA ones, and that the improvements are a work in progress. Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 9 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} 10:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of words of disputed pronunciation

    edit
    List of words of disputed pronunciation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    WP:OR/WP:Listcruft. Could potentially include any word with different pronunciations in different dialects. Which is going to be nearly every word. We already have Regional accents of English, which captures the general pronunciation variation in English, and Differences between General American and Received Pronunciation, which covers the differences between two specific dialects. -Mairi (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete this unverifiable listcruft.Auspex1729 (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Seems to have indisputably reliable sources, though the article needs to be completed by giving them in every instance. . The words are limited to those with articles in Wikipedia , and so the list is not indiscriminate or infinite, and ones where the differences are particularly significant. . Appropriate summary of one aspect. The functions of a dictionary and an encyclopedia overlap. DGG (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It actually isn't limited to those with articles on Wikipedia; the links are to sound files not articles. E.g. applicable. And even when the articles exist (and aren't redirects or disambigs), they're about concepts, not words. Also, the refs are only that they have multiple pronunciations, not disputed pronunciations. -Mairi (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this is English biased, what about German? Or Russian? Or Japanese? And there are thousands of regional pronounciations of English, this list is unmanageable. 76.66.202.123 (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. By "words of disputed pronunciation", this article seems to mean "words that are not pronounced exactly the same way in every dialect of English". Given the variation between dialects in vowel sounds alone, this is going to cover nearly every word in the language. Even in a single dictionary, there are a huge number of words with multiple pronounciations listed. Here's the list from one page of my 1378-page dictionary:
      • caveat emptor
      • cavern
      • cavetto
      • caviar/caviara
      • caviler/caviller
      • cayenne pepper
      • Cayuga
      • Cayuse
      • CBer
      • CD4
      • cDNA
      • cedar of Lebanon
      • cienture
      • celadon
      • celandine
      • celebratory
      • celeriac
      • celery
    Articles on dialect, as mentioned by the nom, are sufficient to capture the differences. We don't need a list of words that differ. --Alynna (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Alynna (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. As several others suggest, the criteria given in the lede, "words which are often pronounced by native speakers of the English language in ways which many others consider to be incorrect," makes the list unmanageably long. Furthermore, there is no discussion of what leads to these differences (as might be discussed in Historical linguistics, Dialectology, etc.) or the social bases for or effects of such disagreement (as might be discussed in the Sociology of language or other fields). The list is little more than an open-ended compendium of sociophonetic trivia. Cnilep (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Wikipedia is inherently redundant, unwieldy, unbalanced, incomplete and imperfectible. That's what makes it great. Anybody who believes that Wikipedia will ever be the Encyclopædia Britannica is deluded. Deleting an article simply because it is redundant, unwieldy, unbalanced, incomplete and imperfectible is hypocritical, unless we intend to delete Wikipedia entirely. The article in question is clearly well-researched and carefully compiled, and trashing all that wonderful work would be a vicious mistake. Am I the only person who reads Wikipedia for pleasure? This article is a delight to read. That alone makes it worth keeping. The fact that other languages don't get the same treatment is weak justification for deleting this one. Should we delete every article that happens to be the first of its kind?--Jim10701 (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as unmanageable list that might be nice on someone's website but not on Wikipedia. --DAJF (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete potentially unbounded and totally unmaintainable list. Powers T 15:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as I see no reason to have this list. Nor does the author or one of the commentators advance one here(yet). Wefa (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Pronunciation is not an absolute thing as well as its status of being disputed. I see no way this page could be useful/reliable. Triplestop x3 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (croons tunefully) you say tomay-to, I say tomah-to...tomay-to, tomah-to, potay-to, potah-to, let's call the whole thing off. Notable - 'nuff said. Maybe if we stick to notable ones the list'd be manageable. In any case notable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Even having worked on this article a bit, it's pretty clear from everyone's arguments that this article is best deleted. Plus, trying to communicate on the talk page is next to hopeless, as many editors eschew IPA and the like, preferring their own homemade phonetics. Teh Rote (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The argument to delete something because of its size is not a valid one. You don't ignore a subject simply because of its size. This is a perfectly reasonable encyclopedic topic. Dream Focus 00:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The topic of disputed pronunciations is indisputably notable. Attempting to create an exhaustive list of such pronunciations is a different thing entirely; it is in those cases that size (under the metric of maintainability) becomes an issue. Powers T 16:02, 10 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) 03:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bubee

    edit
    Bubee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable product by a non-notable company. Unreferenced. Smells like advertising.    7   talk | Δ |   01:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    But it's real and it is an art design, I own two bottles that each have the Bubee design, if you do not believe I will include a picture of them in the article PocketPenguin (talk) 20:48, 5 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. JForget 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kira Takenouchi

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Kira Takenouchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Nominating for deletion as an article about a non-notable writer. The article was previously deleted at AfD a year ago, and while it probably qualifies for speedy deletion as recreation of previously deleted material, I gave it some time to see if new editors could this time add reliable third-party sourcing to verify the claimed notability of this writer. Unfortunately, the situation remains unchanged since the previously deleted article, and all of the reference sources so far found are from fan blogs or the publisher's site, making this also a WP:BLP violation. It may also be of note that no article for this subject exists on Japanese Wikipedia. DAJF (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Publishers Weekly is not fan blog or her own company. That said, a single news article does not make notability. So it's to WP:CREATIVE that we need to look. A spot check of a three of her titles finds nothing in the way of reviews and, in fact, hardly any bookseller listings, which does not give one the warm fuzzies. (Nor does an ISBN format that indicates a very small press indeed, but notability does not come from the size of the publisher, but the notice it gets.) I need to finish checking the rest, but it's not looking like she's notable as an author. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've not found coverage, let alone reliable third-party coverage, of any of the books with listed ISBNs. Having gotten strikes on all those, I'm not swinging at the others. Unless something turns up about the subject as a publisher, I say delete as not notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete just does not have any significant coverage and fails WP:CREATIVE. Agree with the BLP concerns that there is little referenceable information and as such, it should be redeleted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A article saying that her enterprise is a commercial failure does not necessarily make her notable. I think it's fairly clear that she is not in the US, but I cannot judge about Japan. Am I correct there is no article on her in the Japanese WP? DGG (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Malkinann (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This bio doesn't produce enough evidences of notability both in quality & quantity. Ancient version of this article indicated that this person works were banned from Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand. Asserting this fact with Reliable Sources could have justified a keep vote but that didn't happen. That convinced me this article is no more than an attempt to get more visibility & to catch attentions of potentials investors. --KrebMarkt 06:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Going further in my argumentation for delete, this article is the sole edited article by Katsumasahiro while the article creator Kxings did is very best to insert an in-wiki link to Kira Takenouchi in Yaoi & Ai no Kusabi to the point of being disruptive. That reinforce my conviction of a botched attempt to put Kira Takenouchi on wikipedia map aiming for maximum visibility in Yaoi and yaoi related articles. --KrebMarkt 06:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't find the insertion of the links disruptive, but rather to be rooted in the belief that KT is a notable, prolific, GloBL author and that her fanfiction was relevant to the main article on Ai no Kusabi. After I removed the links from Ai no Kusabi, they did not return, and when I asked for a better source for the yaoi article, another was provided (sadly a Wikipedia mirror and unusable). It's just a pity that there aren't enough sources to prove notability - I've checked aestheticism.com and come up with nothing. Katsumasahiro has said that Yaoi World will be a new magazine about yaoi, and that it will have an article on KT in its first issue, but the overall reliability of Yaoi World cannot be assessed at this time. --Malkinann (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your clarification. I think, she may be notable in the future but not now and not in that way with big unverified stuffs that were removed afterward. --KrebMarkt 06:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Obscure? No offense, but you guys are idiots. Kira was just named "Best New Yaoi Author in the World" for 2009 by Yaoi World. You people are really out of touch. The same publication is featuring authors also hosted here on wikipedia but they are not the feature article, Kira is. Asking a COMPETITOR about KT hardly counts. Yuri is COMPLETELY different from yaoi. Yuri is girl on girl. If you don't know anything about Yaoi, keep off this page. Kxings (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Kxings[reply]

    ALSO, Yaoi World does have a teaser up. If you scroll down there is more information about the issue. The people featured in their lineup are real yaoi writers. If you don't know who they are, you have no business editing this page. Kxings (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Kxings[reply]

    You people are really funny. You think wikipedia is the gold standard or something? No one needs to be listed in wikipedia when there are a zillion other pedias out there to be listed in. So your insulting suggestion that we're trying to boost Kira's notability is ridiculous. She is ALL OVER THE WEB ALREADY. The only reason I even care is that you really ought to at least be half-way accurate about what you're including in wikipedia. You include Tina Anderson, but not Kira Takenouchi? Where does that come from? Do you even monitor any of the other yaoi writers listed on this site, or do you just come here? Having yaoi article without mentioning Kira Takenouchi is like celebrating candy without including chocolate. I honestly don't know why I'm wasting my time, except now I feel insulted, especially since NONE of you knows ANYTHING about yaoi and yet have the audacity to put this page up for deletion. You have your notability question answered by Yaoi World. You can't get much more notable than "Best New Yaoi Author in the World"!! Just because YOU have never read Yaoi or know what it's about doesn't mean it's not very popular and growing rapidly in the world now. If you actually read yaoi, you would know Kira. Why do you even care? Why this RUSH to remove her from wikipedia? Doing so will only launch this entry onto the web where it will be replicated a zillion times by the deletapedias out there. Kxings (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Kxings[reply]

    Book reviews: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2317045.Taming_Riki_Vol_1_Part_1 http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2807506.Taming_Riki_Volume_1_Part_2 You aren't going to find book reviews at Amazon because Yaoi House, her publisher, ONLY sells through its own website and thus has complete control over the price. Incidentally, Yaoi House is also being featured in Yaoi World as an entrepreneur for redefining what it means to be a publishing house in today's self-publishing/anti-Amazon world. Yaoi House publishes other authors besides Kira's books, so it is not a vanity press. The company stopped selling books temporarily when Kira Takenouchi, who was the President of the company, left the yaoi scene, but is now rebuilding their site/store. I make no apologies that I'm a huge fan of Kira Takenouchi. But it doesn't matter whether I'm a fan or not. You can no longer deny her notability simply because you are ignorant of yaoi. Kxings (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Kxings[reply]

    STRONG keep for all the reasons I've stated and the fact that the reference you all poo-pooed turned out to be correct. Also, with regard to the remark above about investors, Kira/Yaoi House are not taking any new investors. So your point is irrelevant. Kxings (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Kxings[reply]

    Striking, I have came to find out that this is an obvious block evasion account of Kxing (talk · contribs). --Farix (Talk) 20:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    KEEP - If "Best New Yaoi Author in the World" doesn't count for notability, what the hell does? Who was the asshole that accused me of posting a "bogus" reference? You can't refute it now, these are all COMPETITORS of KT being interviewed by Yaoi World. And I quote from their website: "Yaoi World is a free review e-zine, a public service for those who appreciate yaoi/boy's love. We hope to become the definitive source for unbiased news relating to the world of yaoi and boy's love. Yaoi World is not affiliated with any company, organization, or individual. We will host a single banner from any yaoi-related site, free of charge.

    Editor-in-Chief: Yutaka Takehiko Contact: [email protected] Issue 1: Rising Stars & Entrepreneurs

    Featuring: Kira Takenouchi, "A Pioneer of American Yaoi" - Winner: Best New Yaoi Author in the World, Yaoi World 2009

    Interviews with: - Tina Anderson "Keeping the Press Hot" - Tricia Owens of Juxtapose Fantasy "Making Boy's Love A Business" - Becca Abbott "Raising the Bar on Quality" - SL Publishing Group "Innovation and Cooperation" - Shuang Wen "The Art of Yaoi: China's Finest" - Van Duran "Spain's Little Gem" - Yaoi House "Redefining the Publishing House"

    and others.

    Release: October 10, 2009 Article submissions: We will consider article submissions related to yaoi, however, you may not submit an article which publicizes your own work or company. Interviews are selected by Yaoi World only and cannot be requested." Katsumasahiro (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Katsumasahiro[reply]

    Kira Takenouchi is based in the USA, not Japan. Katsumasahiro (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Katsumasahiro[reply]

    All her books can be seen here: http://openlibrary.org/a/OL3761269A/Kira-Takenouchi You say you are waiting for the publisher to show up or someone to provide more information, and yet conveniently you DELETED Yaoi House a year go from wikipedia. Katsumasahiro (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Katsumasahiro[reply]

    What is Yaoi World actually? Does it have any reputation? --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not been able to locate any google hits for the name of the editor in chief, which doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. --Malkinann (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I believe we need to have a checkuser done for Kxings (talk · contribs) and Katsumasahiro (talk · contribs). Both accounts where created at about the same time, both edit the same group of articles, both add the same content, and both edit at approximately the same time. This raises the suspicion of sock puppetry. --Farix (Talk) 12:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I'll have to go with delete as there is insufficient coverage by published third-party sources with a history and reputation of reliability. Unpublished sources, yet to be published sources, sources that are not independent of the subject, or sources that has not yet established a history or reputation for reliability do not demonstrate that the subject is notable. --Farix (Talk) 12:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete: Out of a pure "gut feeling:" someone who throws unreferenced material at us, starts arguing, then pulls up a website that's "under construction," calls several others users 'idiots' and 'homophobes,' then brings up the next website with flying logos and a lot of bling -- also "under construction" -- and then rants away at this deletion-nomination in the same tone, clearly does not have a concept of what "reliable sources" are. Anyone who is certain about verifiability simply would not need to throw a tantrum like that, but rather just go to the bookshelf and direct us to the relevant page. Seb az86556 (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't believe any of you people. Your suggestion that I, as fan, would go to the time and expense of creating a new organization, new website, interview a zillion people just to "make" my reference at Wikipedia legitimate simply blows my mind. Are you for real? Do you have a real life outside of editing here at Wikipedia? And I got a message I was accused of sockpuppetry? You people are fucking assholes. You were proved wrong and this is how you respond--oh, the two people who actually know something about yaoi MUST be the same person. That's so insulting I ought to sue Wikipedia for slander. Did you ever think of that? As for this entry, I completely give up. You'll find out soon enough that you're wrong. BTW, I got the balls to email Kira on this and here's her reply, a lot of thanks I just got from her as well for all my trouble.

    wikipedia entry

    Inbox X

    Reply to all Forward Reply by chat Filter messages like this Print Add to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Report not phishing Show original Show in fixed width font Show in variable width font Message text garbled? Why is this spam/nonspam?


    show details 10:15 AM (0 minutes ago)


    Reply

    Follow up message from Kira Takenouchi <[email protected]> to [email protected] date Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:15 AM subject wikipedia entry mailed-by gmail.com

    hide details 10:15 AM (0 minutes ago)


    Reply

    Follow up message Katsu,

    Wikipedia is one of many sites on the Net over which I have almost no control. I simply do not have the time to monitor every site that posts information about me. I appreciate the effort you seem to have put into updating the article posted about me, but surely you must have better things to do with your time. Whether or not I am in Wikipedia makes little difference to me; my deletion from it will have no effect on my existence. It is Wikipedia, not Existipedia.

    I am thankful that Wikipedia was diligent about protecting certain aspects of my privacy. Reliability and verifiability of information are not merely "good ideas," they are absolutely essential in this age of litigation. Do as you will with this statement; however, I have no interest in hearing about Wikipedia again.

    Kind regards,

    Kira Takenouchi Reply

    Forward


    Katsumasahiro (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Katsumasahiro[reply]

    Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

    Katsumasahiro (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Katsumasahiro[reply]

    STRONG KEEP. This appears to be a Catch-22. You cite notability issues; fair enough, a good reference is provided. (If you have doubts about its authenticity, why not contact the other individuals being interviewed for the Yaoi World issue? Surely you are not suggesting that Katsu has fabricated all those different companies, sites, artists, and authors, including Tina Anderson who is listed here on wikipedia, simply to create the illusion of a real e-zine? I find it hard to believe this is the view you are standing behind. So, down goes the reference, and then we are a back to notability issues, which makes it easy for you to delete the entry. This is not really about Kira Takenouchi or wikipedia, is it? This is about people having their feathers ruffled. For my part, I apologize if I was rude, but remember, BL-fans are not "regular" wikipedia editors. We don't know all the rules of editing here. We only come here to check out the articles of interest to us, which is yaoi and its hottest writers. You've given me a good idea, though. I'm going to create Yaoipedia, or suggest someone create it, so that we really can have a reliable source of information on current Yaoi authors, artists, and titles. With authors like Kira it's extremely difficult to find her titles because she refuses to publish through "typical" distribution. So finding pages like http://openlibrary.org/a/OL3761269A/Kira-Takenouchi was a godsend since it listed the ISBNs too. People need those to find the books at bookswap places. Kira's books are very pricey and most of us can't afford them, have to find them second-hand. At least wikipedia had the ISBNs listed to help the users out. I'm fairly confident if this page goes down it will just go back up again. But I'm curious as to why some of you feel the need to vandalize her page down to a stump, if you're going to delete in anyway. You won't even give us that small bit of courtesy, after all the editing we've done, to at least leave the article intact? Why? Kxings (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Kxings[reply]

    !Vote struck for double !voting. --Farix (Talk) 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's your only response? Seriously? This isn't a "competition". You don't "win" anything by deleting KT's entry. The only thing you do is dilute the quality of Wikipedia as an accurate database of information. Kxings (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Kxings[reply]

    Yaoi World has not had a single publication at this time and its website contains no articles. In fact, all the website has to say is that it is currently under construction. So attempts to use Yaoi World as a source fails both of the policies on biographies of living people (BLP) and verifiability and cannot be used in an article. Only after Yaoi World has made its publication and establish its repudiation as a reliable source can it be used to source in a BLP, but not before. Removing unsourced or poorly sourced content from a BLP is not vandalism, but following Wikipedia's policies for BLP. It is vandalism to add such information back into the BLP. If you look at the Tina Anderson article, you will see that she has been covered by an academic paper and an interview with Anime News Network. While I have not checked the extent of her coverage by the academic paper, the ANN interview is fairly detailed. Even with that, Anderson is just barely scrapping the edge of notability. This is far more then what Kira Takenouchi currently has. Even the Publisher's Weekly source is just a blog entry that is commenting on another blog entry. That is rather dubious as a source itself. --Farix (Talk) 16:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You're just being pigheaded. You know that the yaoi writers, artists and companies being interviewed by Yaoi World are real. At least one is, by WIKIPEDIA'S OWN STANDARDS, acknowledged as being notable. Yaoi World, by interviewing notable individuals and companies, inherits notability. By deleting this entry you prevent additional references from being added as Yaoi World is established and subsequence issues are released, because deleting the entry will block the Kira Takenouchi page from Wikipedia from an entire year. You know this. You're banking on it. This has ceased to become something I care about from the standpoint of a fan wanting to see his favorite author listed. It has now become the principle of the thing, the way you are attempting to censor information. Kxings (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Kxings[reply]

    Are you seriously accusing Katsu of fabricating Yaoi World, as well as all those writers, companies, and artists just to create a reference? First of all, it's impossible, he couldn't have done it. Visit the sites that are listed as having made the Rising Stars & Entrepreneurs list. They are established sites that are independent of KT, in fact, they are competitors. Tina Anderson has been listed here on Wikipedia for years. Juxtapose Fantasy has been around for maybe 10 years. Becca Abbott, too. Are you really suggesting that Katsu made some elaborate plan beginning over a decade ago to create fake yaoi writers and companies, which includes writing hundreds of stories on all these different sites, learning how to draw amazing yaoi art, all for the purpose of one day editing a silly wikipedia entry so as to have a reliable source showing notability for Kira Takenouchi? Think about it and you will realize how absurd that position is. If you delete this entry as "not notable", you must also delete Tina Anderson, since she is here on wikipedia and is one of the authors being interviewed by Yaoi World. (I'm not actually suggesting you do that, I like Tina Anderson. I'm being facetious, just trying to make a point.) Kxings (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Kxing[reply]

    I don't believe that Yaoi World is a trustworthy, reliable source of information, as the editor-in-chief has either used a nom de plume or has never written on the Internet before. I am, however, very open to being proved wrong on this point (per the guidelines at WP:RS) - it would certainly make improving the yaoi article easier if so! Please note that a reference being notable as the subject of an article and being reliable, acceptable as a source, are two different things. As Wikipedia can be written by anybody, Wikipedia's chief safeguard has been a reliance on verifiable, reliable sources, the more, the merrier. It's just unfortunate that the majority of the sources that have been provided have either been to Takenouchi's own site or to unproven zines. --Malkinann (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note It's been confirmed that the article's creator Kxings (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked a year ago under the account Kxing (talk · contribs) for repeatedly recreating this and other related articles. I'll leave it to others if this now qualifies for CSD G5. --Farix (Talk) 22:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete Does not appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. Material by individual does not apparently meet WP:BOOKS either. The claim made by the repeated commentator that a publication inherits notability by having an occasional interview with a notable individual is simply wrong. We do not have multiple, independent reliable sources for this individual. We do not have other reasons to consider the individual notable. Note to the repeated commentator: No one is claiming that you personally have constructed these other websites: the point is that regardless of who made them, they are functionally equivalent to personal websites: they lack either reliablity or notability in their material and opinions. If this individual does become notable or if these websites become more reliable or their awards become notable then we can reconsider. Until that occurs, we don't have much choice here. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "No one is claiming that you personally have constructed these other websites: the point is that regardless of who made them, they are functionally equivalent to personal websites: they lack either reliablity or notability in their material and opinions." You don't consider Yaoi Press to be notable? You don't consider Tina Anderson to be notable? Why then are they listed on Wikipedia? You mentioned Yaoi Press as a potential yaoi expert, earlier. You've changed your view, apparently. Katsumasahiro2 (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)--katsumasahiro2[reply]

    I've already been over Anderson so I won't repeat myself. But looking at the Yaoi Press article, I see at least two non-trivial sources that cover the subject by a reliable source. That's generally enough for most people to pass either WP:NOTE or WP:CORP. The article is in poor shape, but that's likely because no one really took the existing sources and developed the article. --Farix (Talk) 00:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that Yaoi Press talk about Takenouchi at all on their website... --Malkinann (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this spam. The account that recreated the article is a sock of the account that originally created it previously. It should have been speedied as spam recreated by an indefinitely blocked user. Even taking all that out of consideration, the subject does not satisfy notability. Multiple, independent, reliable sources are necessary and they're lacking here. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There is not a single claim to notability on the entire article. The text simply states that the subject is a writer and president of a U.S.-based publishing house, but neither of these qualifies this person for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrathel (talk • contribs) 08:52, August 7, 2009
    • Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown. The sources are self-published, blogs, or in the case of the ezine, unpublished. Considering the sockpuppetry and personal attacks involved, recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non Notable, this also appears to be a deleted article, OP got upset and remade it issue. I am going with delete per above as well.~~Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There is not enough information in secondary sources to write an article on her, regardless of any other issues. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:46, 8 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 keep, withdrawal of nomination. Although RLCampbell made the first comment on this page, the actual nomination was made by Abc518, who placed the tag on the article and added it to the AfD log. With his switch to keep, and with RLCampbell's apparent keep, the nominator no longer favors deletion, and no other editor favors deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chance Records

    edit
    Chance Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    What's going on here? Chance is the company that recorded such acts as The Flamingos, The Moonglows, The Five Echoes, J. B. Hutto, Homesick James Williamson, Schoolboy Porter, and John Sellers. It also released three singles by John Lee Hooker. I see skeletal articles on Wikipedia for independent record companies like United Records (one of Chance's competitors), States Records, and so on.

    I have no idea why this demand for speedy deletion was made, but if it is pressed I will make a formal complaint about it.-RLCampbell (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Switched from Speedy to AfD

    (Copied from the article's talk page)

    The history page for this article shows that you jumped in with your demand to delete it 2 minutes after I started the article. Moreover, the label you slapped on the article demanded an immediate response here on this talk page. I and others can provide plenty of published sources that cover aspects of Chance Records. It appears, however, that you would prefer to delete the article before anyone has an opportunity to do so. Please take this article off AfD. If after one week, you are not satisfied with it, then make any complaint you wish.-RLCampbell (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a week within the AFD to fix it up. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So I gather, but the AfD was rapidly substituted for a Speedy Deletion after I complained about the demand for the former. I took a look at WP:GD, Section 4.1, and I have trouble believing that Abc518 is heeding any of the guidelines contained therein.-RLCampbell (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you compare the article in its current form with the established article for Vee-Jay, I think you'll see that a merger would be inadvisable. If Aristocrat Records gets a distinct article from Chess Records, even though Chess was a successor to Aristocrat, Chance should be differentiated from Vee-Jay, which was not its successor company. Chess controlled all of the Aristocrat masters, whereas Vee-Jay did not inherit the Chance masters (it licensed a handful of them).-RLCampbell (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. The label was in business for four years and recorded a number of notable artists. Clearly a notable label, just a new article that needs sources. ReverendWayne (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep From Google Book search I found and added six reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage. In particular, see the chapter about the label [36] in a book on "Doowop" music. Chance is notable as an early 1950's independent record company which launched The Flamingos and recorded several other notable artists. The article still needs work to provide inline sites from the refs I added or others. A Google Book search would have quickly shown evidence of notability, but at the time it was nominated for speedy deletion, there was no claim at all of notability. Some of the individual records from Chance now sell for $2500 per Rollingstone. Edison (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it's best, then, to practice defensive editing. I have now put a bunch of in-line citations in the article. Obviously, there is more that could be done, but I am going to await the outcome of this AfD case before committing any further effort to it.-RLCampbell (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep - the original editor has more than asserted notability - apart from anything else, the article now has 14 distinct inline citations. One way of showing good faith when starting a new article is to put up an {{underconstruction}} tag. That in itself doesn't guarantee its survival, but it does seem to appeal to the goodwill of 'em trigger-happy editors out there. --Technopat (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep - The article looks a lot better now. When I nominated this, it was smaller than most of the points page in this page, and had no reference to notability. --Abc518 (talk) 23:51, 4 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 18:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States)

    edit
    List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Overly narrow list. Only nine britsh females have ever hit #1 on the Hot 100, no purpose for a list this small. The intro is nearly double the list's length. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 16:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. List scope is too narrow. --BsayUSDCSU[ π ] 00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, rename or merge—A narrow list criteria doesn't strike me as a valid reason to delete. It is a reason to merge.—RJH (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Rather subjective list that ultimately is only assembled for the purposes of trivia. Why not a list of British males who've hit number one in the US? WesleyDodds (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, perhaps to merge/expand. To WesleyDodds, why not indeed? I don't see how a list tied to a specific and eminently notable achievement can be said to be subjective. The list isn't "Hot chicks who..." To Bsayusd et al, that would be the logical choice for a merge/expansion of this article: List of British artists who reached number one on the Hot 100. The list could be split on the page between male, female and group or it could be a single unisex chronology with the textual delineation. I'm not sure what the length of the intro has to do with it. I've seen AfDs because there was just a list with no context. For disclosure, while I did not create the page, I did expand the article intro some time later, and would not want my work jeopardizing the list's existence. If there's a compelling reason/guideline, I'd have no problem in editing it down; the longest paragraph there, beginning "There were three..." would be the easiest cull, and could go in its entirety. I'd hope there were a more fully expressed reason, however, before this were to get deleted. Abrazame (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a pretty trivial list arrangement, and unnecessarily specific. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think about broadening the scope as I suggested? Abrazame (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete per nom, and point no. 6 here. indopug (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response/Comment Which Hot 100 article would you suggest? Presumably not the Hot 100 article. I'd be interested in discussing how it might be incorporated into another article, such as the erroneously named List of artists who reached number one in the United States. (The list notes only those who reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100, not the Cashbox charts, or the Billboard album charts, AC charts, R&B charts, Country charts, Rock charts, Dance charts, etc.) I do hope before someone closes this discussion someone actually discusses my suggestion, or any other suggestion other than deletion. Abrazame (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    i'm sorry, but i don't really see the diff w/ this article. maybe redirect, but any redirect is a different way of saying "delete".--camr nag 23:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete obvious LISTCRUFT. Byronwrites (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request for comment Obviously this is shaping up to delete, with editors paying no attention to my question of whether the information is relevant to include elsewhere. Indeed, most of the respondents grasp so little about the lists that they have suggested here that they are redundant, when that is clearly not the case. The diff between this article and the List in question is that the former doesn't indicate the nationality of the artist, nor does it indicate their sex or the year they had their first hit. It also doesn't give any context. (Did they have more than one hit?) There is no context or information able to be gleaned from the simple List of artists who reached number one in the United States and serves only as a link source to artist articles.
    Would it be unacceptable to have a list called List of British artists who reached number one on the Hot 100? Before I go to the trouble of making one and having you all come on there and AfD that too, I'd like to know how broad an examination has to be to be considered relevant. If I want this information to go somewhere, rather than simply be deleted, my choices seem to be to create the article I have been suggesting (to no response whatsoever) for several days here, or I could alternately add country of origin information and other contextual data to the generic List of artists who... Abrazame (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The problem here is the scope is too narrow. Having a list with three criteria (British, female, top 100), narrows the scope too much. Having a list with two criteria is ideal (British, Top 100) if indeed a list is needed that is more specific than the single criteria list (top 100). Based on this, if we did make a list of British artists, we would also have to make a list for other reasonable countries. Now, I am not opposed to making a more broad scope list, but is this really what we want on Wikipedia? I support a merge of this article into something else, what that should be needs some discussion. I propose this AfD be closed and changed to an RfC where we can discuss the fate of this article over a longer period of time and in more detail than possible at an AfD --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 05:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. the defender of the article keeps thinking that it can't be covered on this article. but the thing is, it can. the main problem is that the list is too narrow. this would be fixed by a)adding a flag or the country in the right article b)checking which year they reached number one c)checking if they are male/female, etc... as to the question "Did they have more than one hit?", it's already there, next to each artist. and if somebody is rally too lazy to check on the individual articles which year or years an artist reached number one, then you could also add the year, where there are, say, 1, 2, or 3 n°1s and a period of time (eg 19xx-20xx) when there's more.--camr nag 17:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment (Out of sequence response) I guess I'm "the defender" to which you refer. Is it simply a political issue that you wouldn't indulge me by elaborating upon the issues I raised, and only have done so to someone else? You are misrepresenting me. I don't "keep thinking" anything, I have been trying to engage people in a response to the specific questions I raise. I take your point that the article does have a number for how many #1s the artist had. You suggest flags as if I haven't already raised that. Why not say something to me with the import of "Yes, your idea of adding flags to the other list is a good idea," instead of something to someone else with the import of "Why doesn't this idiot realize he could just add flags?" My question is, if I start to put flags on that list and add the textual information, will someone come along and argue against the use of flags? I've seen that happen on discographies when flags are used to denote the country of charting. I would like to get some feedback that this idea of ours isn't a waste of time and effort that will lead me in the wrong direction. As to your misunderstanding of what I have written, I am not defending the article as it stands, I have specifically asked if, as Bsayusd suggests, the two-criteria list would be acceptable, and I'm asking if adding flags et al to the List of artists who reached number one in the United States would be justifiably attacked there if editors go to the trouble of working on that. I'd like to get authoritative feedback on this point from more than one person before I might embark on such an effort, and I should think editors here would understand that. Abrazame (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Helps if I use the right search terms, I could not find that master list. Since that list exists, there is no need for a more specific list. Delete !vote reinstated. --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 04:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    you shouldn't take this things personally, really. according to what you wrote, you created this article just in case your edits on the other article were going to be reversed. that's clearly not the way to go. go ahead and edit. if someone reverses it, there's plenty of people who can help you. now, if that person reverts your edits for actually adding information, not to worry!, darwin would agree he/she would die soon.--camr nag 17:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. So not only won't you address what I've asked, you're bending over backward not to do so by referencing Darwin and the death of Wikipedia editors. My first post here pointed out that I did not create the "List of British females" article, and as it happens I have never edited the "List of artists who", so I have no idea where you're coming from. As to being bold, what's the point of my spending all the time to research the country of origin of every artist who ever hit #1 on the Hot 100 if someone's just going to cite some arcane Wikipedia rule that this isn't an acceptable use of flags? I don't take it personally, I'm just at a loss as to what precipitates this complete unwillingness and/or inability of editors to comprehend what I wrote and articulate a salient and authoritative response. You say there are plenty of people to help me, where are they now? I'm not here to waste time, I'm here to determine what is within policy, and thought that a group of editors who'd be voting on policy grounds would be both knowledgeable and willing to comment. Can I get someone else to speak to the viability of using country flags in this manner given the reaction I've seen to flags in discographies and artist infoboxes? Abrazame (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    well, that was what some people call joke and some other people call hyperbole. you may want to check your sense of humor. as to the claryfication, now i know you did not create the article... thanks. rules in wp are not carved in stone, so it makes no sense for someone to prevent the improvment of an article based on some "flag rules". if you are not to waste time, i suggest you leave wp. it's frustrating, sometimes boureaucratic, time-spending, time-wasting, but it's also fun and constructive. but if you're some kind of time-wasting phobic, then this is not your place. anybody can tell you that. (this discussion itself could be considered by some[weasel words] as a waste of time)--camr nag 19:52, 11 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. JForget 01:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of famous feminist quotes

    edit
    List of famous feminist quotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Another one that seems obviously not an encyclopedia article. I doubt it's suitable for transwikifying either, but I don't know the practices at Wikiquote. DGG (talk) 00:40, 4 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. JForget 01:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of famous female athlete quotes

    edit
    List of famous female athlete quotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I declined a speedy on it, but i think this is obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia, Perhaps we can have a snow delete DGG (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • SNOW Delete This belongs on Wikiquote. One could as well cite WP:CSD A5. -- RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism 04:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete "Famous" is a highly subjective term, and we are not Wikiquote. ThemFromSpace 04:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete DGG has saved many a bad article, and if DGG sees no hope for this one, it really is hopeless. Seriously, though, it's not a good idea for an article. To the new editor, please don't let this discouraging you from contributing. Quotes are a wonderful thing to place within an article about the person who made them, and sometimes in an article about the subject of the quote, but a page of famous quotes would quickly accumulate to the point that no single quote would stand out. Mandsford (talk) 17:51, 5 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. SoWhy 06:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Boston wine festival

    edit
    Boston wine festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non notable wine festival held in Boston Harbor Hotel. Full of peacock terms, read like a advert. References are merely rehashed PR puffery. Peacock and advert tags have been removed, by the creator but this article fails notability guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep 20 year old festival. The nominator is complaining about style, nothing about notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I'm finding discussion of this event on google news. Also, from someone who deals with promotional articles often I don't see this as having a promotional tone, especially since the notable points are well-sourced. ThemFromSpace 04:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: So you would regard The Boston Wine Festival as a reliable source, even as a dead link? Or Meritage Restaurant? The vast majority of the Google hits mentioned above refer to one local paper - the Boston Globe and the content is obviously rehashed press releases,as is the artcile in Quarterly Review of Wine. Using Google hits to establish notability is both lazy and inaccurate, see this item at RS noticeboard. To establish notability we need something better than this, e.g. reviews, critical commentary. The text in articles is so similar that it must come from a common source. The event is not unique, USA Today cites one in Aspen that has run for 24 years [37]. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You are engaging in original research when you speculate on the motivation of the publishers and that they have a hypothetical press release as the source. Even if there is a press release, the media chooses which ones to write articles about, of the thousands released each day. I have noticed the same suspicious editing in biographies, they all tend to use the same birth dates, and places of birth and death, and school attended ... well except those written by Alessandra Stanley. It must be plagiarism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but fix up Those who are interested, and it seems there are many on this page, please say how to make this page better! Halsmith555 (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyvio: portions of the article are WP:Copyvios:
    For each Boston Wine Festival event, Chef Bruce invites wine makers to share their most exclusive wines, while he prepares a unique multi-course meal that complements the flavors of the wines being showcased. He has served as executive chef of the Boston Harbor Hotel for twenty years. Before he assumed leadership of the hotel, Chef Bruce served as executive chef of 21 Club in New York City, being the youngest person to have ever served as executive chef throughout that restaurant’s history. is a direct copy of - or extremely close paraphrase of [38].
    Chef Bruce expanded the festival to the Maison Dupuy in New Orleans, resulting in the French Quarter Wine Festival. He will launch the Capital Wine Festival at The Fairfax at Embassy Row in Washington, D.C. in 2010. - same source [39].
    In celebration of the 20th anniversary Chef Daniel Bruce brought back some of his favorite winemakers from previous years, along with a few new guest chefs - is a very close paraphrase of [40].
    So the article relies on sources which re-hash Pyramid's (the hotel owners) publicity material, much of which is reproduced verbatim in this article, including the inaccurate claim that is the nation’s longest running wine and food pairing series.
    User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), kindly do not remove the {{dubious}} tag again. It is there so that that particular claim can be discussed on the article talk page. And the {{cn}} tag on the claim about Bruce being the youngest chef at 21 is there for a similar purpose. Removing justifiable tags is not a proper way to conduct discussions on Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:29, 7 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. JForget 01:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Artan Shabani

    edit
    Artan Shabani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No evidence of notability, merely a list of exhibitions. Favonian (talk) 21:08, 21 July 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) 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 4 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) 03:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Barry McCoy

    edit
    Barry McCoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Thought about A7 but claims notability so brought it here. States is Director of non-notable organisation, and karate trainer. Had a search and can only find self published infomation. Bacchus87 (talk) 23:38, 28 July 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) 00:26, 4 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 Soulja Boy Tell 'Em. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Stacks on Deck Entertainment

    edit
    Stacks on Deck Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A very minor record label, no real notability. Page only has links to Youtube and Myspace. There appears to be no "home" website for the company. Of the the list of artists shown only one is notable, and that is the owner of the record label. Thus this seems to be mainly self-promotion of his label.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:23, 28 July 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) 00:23, 4 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Deanna Ortuso

    edit
    Deanna Ortuso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete fails WP:BIO, nn actor. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 28 July 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) 00:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. I think that it's funny that the article says that she is a professional actress when her only starring role was in an independent short film. Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk)
    • Delete Fails WP:ENT by a mile. A single role in a single short film which is so insignificant it doesn't have its own Wiki article? RayTalk 20:05, 4 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Survivor (Slovenia)

    edit
    Survivor (Slovenia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete unref WP:CRYSTAL. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 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) 00:23, 4 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 Jonathan Borofsky. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Molecule Man (art)

    edit
    Molecule Man (art) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete no sources for this one line article about a work of art without any indication why its notable or should have its own article. Fails WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:14, 28 July 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) 00:22, 4 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) 02:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Skin-tight garment

    edit
    Skin-tight garment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is an umbrella term which seems too subjective and loose for an article or even a category. It is unsourced original research, heavily tagged. The external links are dubious links to semi-porn rather than to scholarly articles. I came upon this when removing a deleted cat, so it is now lacking a category. I did consider creating a new cat and including the articles in the Examples list - but then questioned how many of those are "skin tight" or even "close fitting" - jeans and polo necks can be worn loose and baggy as well as tight, and it seems to be a matter of choice. Is a t-shirt close-fitting? SilkTork *YES! 10:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - that certainly is a reason to edit those pages with the appropriate information or create a proper skinsuit page with specific references and citations, but notability is demonstrated through coverage in reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:47, 29 July 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) 00:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Existing refs show notability. I did a quick search, found various commercial sites and then found What is zentai & fetishwear & catsuit?? on eBay of all places, but it seems to show that apart from refs already present there is a lot more to be said - the article will grow. A mix of fashion, sports, fetish, medical, whatever - it will need watching. But a legitimate topic. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but consider differentiating more clearly its athletic and sexual uses. As for the athletic, I think I read that some of these were no longer going to be allowed in competitIve swimming as they gave too great an advantage? DGG (talk) 02:15, 4 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. Consensus seems to suggest that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gayane (given name)

    edit
    Gayane (given name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Don't see the need for this page. It isn't a disam page, it has very little history on the name, and in general in unremarkable. Patchy1Talk To Me! 06:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. It is notable because the name is among the top 10 most popular names given to girls in Armenia at present. The article can be expanded. You don't delete a stub article, you expand upon it. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep this article, but rename to something more standard. Having articles about the church and the ballet, but not the name is slightly weird. It will always be a tiny article. That's fine. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The current article name is standard for articles about given names. They are all called Name (given name) or Name (name). In this case, given name is appropriate to distinguish it from the church and the ballet. There should probably also be a separate article about the saint if someone comes along to write one who knows more about the topic. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hasty about names - Martin_(name), or John_(first_name), or Luke. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 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) 00:19, 4 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 Who the Hell is Juliette?. There seems to be a general agreement that the individual fails WP:BLP1E; however, the article's content is very relevant to the film, so merging seems a reasonable solution. There is admittedly no strong consensus for merging, but I feel comfortable exercising my discretion here. That said, editorial decisions made at AfD are non-binding, and ideally discussion should continue on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Juliet Ortega

    edit
    Juliet Ortega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Recreation of previously deleted article. The article is totally unreferenced and has very serious WP:BLP issues. Martin451 (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There are insufficient sources to establish notability. I have done several searches for sources and have only been able to find passing mentions. The film that User:Marine 69-71 mentioned is notable, but that has no bearing on Juliet Ortega's notability because notability is not inherited. Furthermore, the NYT article mentioned by Marine 69-71 is not an article about Ortega; instead, it is a general listing of this movie. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As per WP:BLP1E KevinOKeeffe (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, WP:BLP1E fail. JBsupreme (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Plainly a WP:BLP1E issue. The film may have been notable (although, as it happens, no one so far's thought it notable enough for its own article), but Ortega had no notability before the film, has none separately from it and apparently has vanished back into obscurity. The only Google news hit to date is 12 years old, in Spanish and is about the film. I find no reliable sources about Ortega (as opposed to about the movie), and, come to that, none about the movie since 1998; plainly whatever buzz attached to it died overnight. The article also has some errors - for one, consistently misspelling Carlos Marcovich's name as "Malkovich" - although that should have no direct bearing on retention.  RGTraynor  13:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete WP:BLP1E fail. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the Film itself is not an event but an independent secondary source about Ortega. The Film deals with Ortega herself and thus can not be seen as source qualifying for WP:BLP1E. Therfore Ortega fully satisfies the basic criterion of WP:BIO Wefa (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the film is a secondary source about Ortega, then what makes her notable outside of the film? If the film is not an event, but a source on her life, then she is even less notable than if the film were an event. Martin451 (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • that particular issue makes her notable. Your conclusion is not supported by WP guidelines. The core idea of WP:BIO is that if someone writes about you, you are notable. WP:BLP1E is a well defined exception - if someone writes about you only because you were in a plane crash, you are not independently notable. But I have pointed out why she doesn't meet that exception.Wefa (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If (as I think you are saying) the film itself makes her notable, then the film is a primary source about her. There are very few secondary sources about Ortega to back up her notability, or to provide suitable material for the article. Just having a film made about you does not itself make you notable. Martin451 (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmmm. If the film is a primary source, what would be stuff published by her?. And anyway, wanna bet if Michael Moore made a film about you, you'd be notable? I don't really get this. George Lucas makes a film about invented people, and Wikpedia is full of them. This guy makes a well received film about two real persons, and we debate notability. Look at Wikipedia's definition of primary sources:

              Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident.

              The "event" here is Ortega or her life. Marcovich is not involved in or close to that - he is clearly a secondary source accoding to WP:PSTS. Wefa (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Create and Merge - Why can't we create an article on the film and merge whatever can be verified about her into that article? Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the film is the only thing that makes this person notable, I would Merge per Morbidthoughts. I beleive that WP:BLP1E allows such a merger. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Selective merge to Who the Hell is Juliette?, which I have created. Cunard (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Who the Hell is Juliette?, per Morbidthoughts, Cunard, and others. Cnilep (talk) 19:47, 10 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_4&oldid=1142645571"