Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Acroterion _(talk) 23:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christie Fyfe's Italy Article (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OR, POV and some kid's homewaork task Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:18, 2 December 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 deleted WP:BALLS. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely non-notable, and much of the article appears ficticious (e.g. he's only 14? He's won 13 awards?? Madman (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:V, assertion of notability appears to be hoax as it is copied from another article with the numbers and names changed. snigbrook (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be correct: Mike Portnoy is the article you're referring to, right? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Non notable at best. Hoax at worst. It seems to be this kid making a fake little Wikipedia entry for himself. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete – My B.S. detector is flashing after seeing this article. The name of his supposed band alone gives it away. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Per Hunter Kahn.
• Delete. The article certainly is unreferenced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked for speedy - this may even be an attack ("The Retards").--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:42, 3 December 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 deleted under CDS G3. — Edokter • Talk • 01:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Land Before Time XIV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a hoax. No google hits, not on imdb. All the actors that are supposivelly in this movie movie have no news that there will appear in this film.Coasttocoast (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Obvious hoax. Absolutely no secondary sources out there for this supposed film. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. SnottyWong talk 01:43, 3 December 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. Per WP:SNOW. There's no way that consensus is going to change from keep. It has charted as of three days ago, a day after the nomination. Fences&Windows 18:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speechless (Lady Gaga song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Delete due to a failure of WP:NSONGS, which says "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". This song does not pass any of this criteria. The vast majority of the sources here do not refer to the song in its own right, but are retracted from reviews of The Fame Monster album, leaving the song as notable as any other song on the album and not deserving of its own article. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The song has been performed a number of times. The critical notability of this song and the fact that it has received widespread media coverage is what makes it notable. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. The song hasn't charted and most of the references are in relation to the parent article, showing no individual notability. As an observer of the Lady Gaga articles for some time, it does seem that articles appear to crop up regularly that often get deleted. Dale 22:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The song has charted now. Not to be going on about WP:WAX, but if this one is deleted, so would Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song). --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no proof of independent notability outside of the album and accompanying Bad Romance performances. Bravedog (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accompanying "Bad Romance" performances? "Speechless" was the primary performances in AMAs and Ellen. Weird point. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're the main contributor of said article. Your continual arguments are becoming distruptive and pedantic - please make your points in one !vote and refrain from continual distruption. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please refrain from WP:NPA. I can argue and make points as long as I want. You cannot possibly stop me from making logical points. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The key to the portion of WP:NSONGS the nominator cites is "are probably notable". In other words, just because it doesn't fit any of those criteria doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't warrant an article. The very next sentence in WP:NSONGS after that one is, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Obviously, in this case, there is plenty of verifiable material to warrant an entry, and the article is already reasonably detailed. WP:NSONGS also points out that the song must meet basic notability guidelines and coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article also meets those standards: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgetting WP:OTHERCRAP for a moment; surely almost every song on Thriller (album) has recieved the same coverage (it being probably the most critically acclaimed album ever) but still The Lady in My Life (1,180,000,000 hits) and Baby Be Mine (898,000 hits) are left article-less. The same can be said for MANY unreleased songs by The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and other acts who have whole books written on single albums. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you said, that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument. But personally, I'd rather see those articles get made (with the appropriate reliable secondary sources) than this one get deleted. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. All of the sources provided absolutely establish the notability of Lady Gaga and The Fame Monster, however notability of this individual song has not been established. SnottyWong talk 01:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to go too crazy defending this article, but out of curiousity, what elements of the general notability guideline do you feel are not satisfied? The five main criteria are 1) significant coverage, 2) reliable, 3) sources, 4) independent of the subject and 5) presumed. To me, it seems they are all satisfied... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Another recent Lady Gaga AfD nom, Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song), survived despite the most significant "coverage" being an About.com posting that pretty much consists solely of an image. I realize that the song charted, but charted songs are only "probably notable", not "definitely notable" enough to warrant an article, especially if there's virtually zero coverage. My point is not to violate WP:OTHERCRAP, but just to point out that by comparison, "Speechless" has a wealth of information about it, particularly citation 4, which is entirely about the song. Granted, the majority of the other references provide just passing mentions (not even 1 sentence in some instances; as many as 3 sentences in a few instances). My bottom line is, as WP:NSONGS states, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." Indeed, I would consider this article to be reasonably detailed, and so I'm in favor of keeping this. As for those songs on Thriller that don't have articles...if enough information exists, I'm all for their creation, as well.  Gongshow ^Talk 03:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Way passes WP:NSONG. And as for WP:N, the song has already charted at sixty on Billboard's Hot Digital Songs chart and entered at ninety-four on the Hot 100. Wait for Billboard to update their website. do you need any other notability? :D --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. ^Izzedine 03:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom's deletion has been contested. So please explain your disapproval more detailed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These article defenately passes, it have more information than most articles of number-one hits. And don't worry about the song not charting in any country, the digital sales last week guarantee that it will debut tomorrow on the Billboard Hot 100. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not guess what will happen in the future. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case its a fail again as the song has already charted on the Billboard Hot 100. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If every Pink Floyd song can get an article, then "Speechless" deserves one too. It surely meets the general notability guideline.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hunter Kahn. Not only is there a stunning amount of sources to prove the article is verifiable and meets the WP:GNG, by charting it also meets WP:NSONGS as probably notable. Taken together, there should be no doubt about keeping. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NSONG--SveroH (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Hunter Kahn's rationale, passes WP:N. --Jimbo^[online] 19:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This obviously passes the general notability guideline, and the charts that have just been released even further make this article pass NSONGS. Chase wc⁹¹ 21:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NSONG as it has received widespread media coverage throughout the world. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 21:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has charted in even multiple countries. Two is more than one. But one could probably be sufficient.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, eminently satisfies significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since the nomination of this article, the song in question has charted the BillBoard Hot 100. Would have voted a weaker keep initially even before the release of the 12 December 09 charts as a frequency mentioned single of a mainstream artist, but it's apperance that list unquestionably causes this article to fall in the Keep category. Satisfies all requirements for coverage and notability, and then some. DJBullfish 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Charted song, perfomed on tv and good article.--Aaa16 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Gong.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The song has been performed on a major awards show, charted on several charts and is to be a future single. Gaga has also heavily promoted it in many interviews. Regardless of this, the article has more information than many singles articles do, which is a hard thing to do, and so it should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikkuy (talk • contribs) 05:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I feel as though the wealth of knowledge surrounding this song more than makes it worthy of having its own article. Also, there are many articles for singles on this website that have absolutely no content in them, aside from "X released Y as their 2nd single from the album Z." --Benchilla (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This article and the songs are not notable, they are notable just for Gaga's fans (above), who, in fact, created this article only cause they "love Lady Gaga". All this guys are saying that is notable enough, but, not even in Google is notable, is just notable for Gaga's people, sorry, but it has to be deleted. BTW, a lot of the guys here, that try to keep the article are forgetting about WP:OTHERCRAP, so, it doesn't matter if "If every Pink Floyd song can get an article" like someone said before, not every song has to have an article about it, no matter if some of those articles say "X released Y as their 2nd single from the album Z", we don't need any more crap. Sorry, got to be deleted. Fortunato luigi (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERCRAP states: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument". Such is the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Notability clearly established. By nominator's strict application of criteria, we would have to delete "Stairway to Heaven" as well, because it never charted since it wasn't released as a single. Surliness of votes like the one above not doing nomination much help, either. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it passes WP:NSONGS: has charted, and has significant coverage. talkingbirds 18:10, 6 December 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 per A7 on both articles. -- Atama頭 23:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bola Webinformation GmbH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a nonnotable company which fails WP:ORG. The article is also likely a result of paid editing from this posting on elance. This type of deceptive editing goes against our conflict of interest guidelines as well as Wikipedia:PROMOTION. I'm also batch-nominating the related website, as the same problems exist with it.

• Soccerbetting.info (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ThemFromSpace 22:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (and tagged as such) - neither article makes any assertions of notability and I can't find any coverage of them in reliable sources. Smartse (talk) 23:10, 2 December 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. hoax -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found zero sources for this. Joe Chill (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. This is obviously a hoax. The "official website" of this software starts off with the following: "Olly, the author of OllyDbg, presents his new open source joke"... SnottyWong talk 01:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G4) by Malik Shabazz. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H.J. Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. No indication of notability - he's a successful businessman and involved in his local church but that does not make him notable. JohnBlackburne (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. I just discovered while adding notes to User talk:Alanhsia that a bio for this person (or someone very similar with the same name) was created before, proposed for deletion and deleted - the previous discussion is here. Perhaps this could be moved to a speedy delete, with criteria G4? JohnBlackburne (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - I've added the appropriate speedy delete to the page, as it seems as clear cut as it could be, so can this AfD be closed? JohnBlackburne (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - I remember this article, deleted less than a month ago as non-notable. This looks identical. BTW an article about his business partner Ken Eldred was deleted at the same time, so be on the alert for a reposting of it as well. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[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. Secret ^account 01:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Felice Coniglio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sounds like a biography, doesnt provide much information outside of personal interests.

many of the edits were made by the user himself |anon| -20091202212702

• Delete - Retired guy who doesn't seem to have accomplished anything WP:Notable. A lot of the article is about his hobbies. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
• Speedy delete - not even a claim of notability, possible conflicts. Bearian (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that both the 1993 Educator of the Year award and the claims of widespread press coverage for his football web site are claims of notability. Not very good ones for an AfD, possibly, but enough to stave off A7 deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are a few (minor) claims to notability, so it doesn't quite come under A7. But it's not enough to meet the WP:GNG either. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:52, 6 December 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. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan C. Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to be notable. I did add a notability template to the article, but it was removed. Rockfang (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find this nomination frankly ridiculous. This article is linked to numerous times on other articles and the subject has a profound internet presence, see the external links on the article or put the name "Ryan C. Gordon", "Ryan Gordon", or "icculus" into Google. Also the fact that this article has existed for over three years adds a certain amount of established notability in its own right. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agreed, ridiculous. Icculus has been interviewed by various technical, Linux, gaming, and even hardware websites and is mentioned in several books on Linux (if not by name, but by titles he has ported). He is a known figure head in Linux and Mac gaming, which can be found by a simple search at any website such as LinuxGames or Phoronix. He has worked for Loki Software (the founder of commercial Linux gaming, mentioned in hundreds of articles such as those in Linux Journal, and he was important in Loki too!), Google (Linux port of Google Earth), Epic Games (Unreal Tournament series), the U.S. Army (for America's Army), and even did work for NASA according to one interview which is linked to in the article. Gordon doesn't find work like most programming contractors, work finds him. My family has been in the consulting trade, who know that when companies go knocking on your door, rather than you trying to find work yourself means something. His sheer number of notable clients, which is documented here and elsewhere on Wikipedia establish notability in its own right. Comrade Graham (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based on that article he does not meet WP:GNG. The only links are to his on site and interviews on web sites that few people have heard of. There are people in the games industry with far higher profile, who have been interviewed by mainstream media, quoted regularly and often, and played a part in shaping the industry, but still aren't notable enough for their own article — Matt Booty former CEO of Midway is one. A Google search turns up nothing else of note, only those things already in the article. JohnBlackburne (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  First off, statements such as "web sites that few people have heard of" are hear-say and irrelevant. Just because not everyone has heard of a certain news-source does not mean it is not relevant. Phoronix, for example, is very important in the Linux world but pretty much unknown everywhere else. Just because Windows users have never heard of it does not mean a sizable amount of Linux users do not eagerly read its posts. Secondly, this article is needed as part of Wikipedia's infrastructure. If you put the likes of "Matt Booty" into an article search you get two relevant articles that mention him. Do a search for Ryan "icculus" Gordon however and it is quite a different story. There are many articles that mention him and link to this article. And thirdly, he is not just a member of the gaming industry but the Linux and Mac industry as well. In fact, on Linux he could easily be called a leader in his field. Because of this niche market fulfillment it elevates his importance over just one name in the crowd Windows game programmers. Also Matt Booty might not be notable but Midway is and in many ways Gordon acts more like a company than a person in terms of output. Hence the amount of articles that would link to Midway and not Booty would always in the equivalent case link to this article. Please keep this in mind. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If he is a "leader in his field" then that should be in the article, if it can be referenced. But references in other Wikipedia articles is largely irrelevant as it's not a reliable source. See WP:CIRCULAR. The point about the quality of sources is from WP:GNG. And A web search on its own shows nothing, it's the quality of the references it finds, which should then be used in the article. See e.g. WP:BIO#Invalid criteria. My apologies if the links seem Wikilawyerly but they make the points far better than I could. JohnBlackburne (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I am sorry, but I do not see your point with linking to the General notability guideline with regards to the sources on this article. All of them seem to adhere to it. They are independent of the subject (except for the resume), none contain any libellous or contentious statements, they are from news sources which can be assumed to be reliable (they are used as sources on other articles, which seems to add community belief in their credibility), and offer enough coverage to allow a presumption of notability. Unless you post reasons why you think they do not follow the guidelines, you are threatening to be acting in a similar fashion as example six of Gaming the system. As I am sure that is not your intention, perhaps you can post your reasons for doubting the sources so we can have a reasonable discussion about it. Also, I never insinuated that other articles can be used as sources. My point was if we remove Ryan C. Gordon it would immediately become noticeable on the Wanted Pages listing. This article is part of the wiki infrastructure, as any valid article that has been around for a number of years should be, and removing it would damage that. This might be applicable to the Ignore all rules guidelines, as it would damage Wikipedia's coverage in a similar fashion to firing a cannon ball at a load-bearing wall currently supporting a free-standing building. Granted this should never be used as a main argument, and I do not intend to use it as such, but it should still be mentioned. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability requires good secondary sources. The sources here are all interviews, i.e. primary sources, and they are also from relatively obscure sources - not ones that many people would recognise, even in gaming. And as you seem to agree Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. JohnBlackburne (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, thank you for being clear about the problem now. When you posted this message there were about two secondary sources on the article, and I did a web crawl last night and found and added some more. Check the citations on the article. I still say statements such as that the sources are "not ones that many people would recognize" are hear-say and irrelevant. However, in the sources defense, I will say this. Other Wikipedia articles can not be used to determine notability, but that can be indicative that people are interested in the subject enough to make them. Almost all of the sources have Wikipedia articles about them. See Phoronix, LinuxGames, Inside Mac Games, and ars technica. I have also seen Blue's News in print media, though I am shocked it does not have an article. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better now though it still looks unencyclopaedic - too little text. I found a couple of links myself when searching yesterday, though I don't know if they are of use: [1] and [2]. Anyway, I'll redact my delete vote as my main concern, the lack of references, has been addressed. JohnBlackburne (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have written a proper biography section now, hope this helps solve some of your complaints about the article. It needs more information about his work between 2004 - 2007, and it barely mentions his Mac ports at all (mostly because I do not know much about them or where to find sources for them), but is is more than a start.Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded it now to cover the year gap, and found a few new sources.Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep HIGHLY NOTABLE Kc4 (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - well-known in the Linux/gaming community, and the article seems to have plenty of third-party sources to establish notability. Linux (and Linux gaming) may not be as dominant as Windows, but it's still plenty notable. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:39, 9 December 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. Cirt (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William F. Vallicella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This bio of a former academic turned blogger does not show notability under WP:PROF, WP:WEB or any other notability standard. Prod was objected to based on hits from Google Books and Google Scholar, but having published articles and books is standard for an academic and not a sign of notability. The sources for the article give good indication of the lack of reliable sources coverage: a two-sentence contributor description from a journal, his own blog, a summary of his (apparently only) book from a defunct online book club, and a Google Scholar search page. RL0919 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Here is a useful search link. When you find articles with "The X argument: a reply to Y" it means his ideas are sufficiently notable to merit a full-length refutation, but this is only slightly above average for a decent philosopher. I would like this to be kept, but I can't make a case for it based on sources I've found. 77.4.59.225 (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep there are 79k GHits for "William F. Vallicella" and 63K for "William Vallicella". This is even more than I have - and I have co-authored a notable book :-). NBeale (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Solid Keep. I was the deprodding editor, and as nom points out I pointed nom to the google results. That not having satisfied nom, I've added many (though not all--I tired) of the relevant citations to the article. IMHO this meets wp:prof in that his research has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. It also meets wp:author in that he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by his peers, is known for originating significant new concepts, and has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (by Epeefleche, approximately the same time as the above comment). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is not well written at this point (sorry, Epeefleche, I see your comment about adding refs, but I know this article will be improved considerably eventually as time passes as is the normal course in wiki articles). I think that skews perceptions somewhat. Remember when you handed in typewritten work instead of handwritten work to get a 10% grade boost? Well I think the same thing applies here. I could come back and reconsider after the page is cleaned up. Until then, it's a keeper. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. This is definitely a stub, as the text is severely limited. Once could build it up rather easily by going through the sources, and using them to develop the text. But as the issue at the moment is only notability, I limited myself to trying to reflect that. But your criticism is appropriately placed.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep This is not easy to judge, as there is no reliable citation index for his subject. The large number of journal articles , about half in major journals, would argue for keeping, as does his having been selected to write an article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, an publication with stringent requirements. true, I'd be a lot more satisfied if he held an academic position or had published some actual books. But according to Cambridge University Press [3] he did in fact hold a tenured position, apparently at Case Western Reserve University or possibly Dayton University. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information/cite, which I've now incorporated into the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Seems not to pass WP:Prof #1 on GS cites but eccentric activities make him notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC). The list of articles could be removed from the WP page; it's not usual. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment. Philosophy is a field where citation numbers will nearly always be low for contemporary practitioners, and are pretty useless as an indicator of notability. Academics who do philosophy (as opposed to studying its history) like to present their work as being based on first priciples rather than on the work of others, so rarely cite their peers. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this interesting info. How do we judge then? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Weak keep - passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics) in my opinion, though not with flying colors. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:51, 9 December 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. Secret ^account 01:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't really find any reliable sourcing on this band at all. The only thing I've been able to find on them was a trivial name drop in a BBC article [4], and searches don't turn up a thing remotely reliable other than that: [5], [6] (always telling when the Wikipedia article is the top result), [7]. The article also has a significantly promotional tone ("musical gems", "extremely talented", saying other bands were "less talented" with no sourcing to back that, etc.) With sources to work from, that might be fixable, but the sources aren't there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete for lack of potential sources Polarpanda (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can find no in-depth coverage for this band; appears to fail WP:BAND.  Gongshow ^Talk 22:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. My search of other news sources also revealed nothing significant. Cbl62 (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:BAND - no national tours, no radio hits, etc. Also, they are difficult to verify for lack of sources. Bearian (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: When an undeletion was requested, one of the reasons used was that the band had a cult following in Japan, but I was unable to turn up anything in Japanese mentioning them at all. Nick Wilson (talk) 20:17, 7 December 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. Secret ^account 01:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aber Valley YMCA Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this club plays at too low a level to qualify for an article Polarpanda (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The general rule of thumb for football teams (per Wp:FOOTYN) is that they play in at least their country's national cup. I can't find any evidence of them ever playing in the Welsh Cup. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, a lower level club. No references at all. Bearian (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Sabiona (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PDCook (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (again).  fetchcomms☛ 21:27, 5 December 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. Secret ^account 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Agilence. References given are selflinking press releases (some requiring login) that do not confer notability. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can only find one reliable secondary source for this company, [8], among a sea of press releases. This article is completely based on primary sources from the company. This is definitely company PR for a non-notable company. Angryapathy (talk) 21:30, 2 December 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. Secret ^account 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed building in Dubai which will never get built. No reliable sources, even for its cancellation. Deprodded by a person in denial. Glittering Pillars (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If the building ever starts construction, the article can be re-created. SnottyWong talk 02:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both of the above. This will not be completed in the current crisis. Bearian (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Sabiona (talk) 15:23, 3 December 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 16:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mashin' Duck Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable record label. The article also hardly even deals with the label itself, in fact it most of it seems devoted to elaborate on early Eminem demo tapes, such as "Fuckin' Backstabber" and "Biterphopia", while adding plenty of ridiculous and unattributed claims in the mix as well. Please note that similar discussions have already been conducted on this matter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Intent and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuckin’ Backstabber/Soul Intent. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 19:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect This is definitely WP:COATRACK for anything related to Eminem and Proof. This label by itself has no notability to warrant its own article. As with Soul Intent, it should be redirected to Eminem#Early life and first releases. Angryapathy (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability as a separate article. No sense in an obscure redirect, this is not 'Soul Intent' which is already obscure enough. Polargeo (talk) 15:22, 9 December 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. Secret ^account 01:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Izzy O'Kay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable artist. PROD with commnet "Unsourced BLP of a DJ with no album, only internet media" removed by IP user with no history but might be linked to the author Malcolma (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was the one who added the PROD template. The article's claim of notability is that the subject has received a large number of downloads from the subject's myspace page. I don't consider that alone notable and I couldn't find any non-self-published sources that otherwise verify notability. The article claims an album will be coming out summer 2010. Until then, this subject is certainly not notable, and I think the article is intended to funnel people to the subject's myspace, youtube and itunes pages. PDCook (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This artist fails to meet any criteria of WP:BAND. Angryapathy (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:N due to lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Beware any article about an "aspiring" musician. lol. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is nothing to suggest that this person meets WP:N Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can find no in-depth coverage for this singer; appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO.  Gongshow ^Talk 01:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can find no independent coverage at all; on youtube, the demo version of his "big hit" has less than 3,000 views and the new better version has less than 500. Studerby (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Delete. As not yet notable, per wiki standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 5 December 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 Beltway sniper attacks. Tone 16:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bull's Eye Shooter Supply (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. EGAD. Talk about your textbook WP:COATRACK article. Synopsis: This is where the weapons used in the Beltway sniper attacks were shoplifted from. This doesn't even warrant a redirect in my opinion. JBsupreme (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to retain attribution. The fact the shop was sued for negligence needs to be covered in the article about the attacks, but this is clearly a business known for one (defaming) thing. Since the shop wasn't actively involved, I totally agree it is not suitable for a separate topic. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge info and Redirect - doesn't appear to merit its own article, as it is pretty WP:COATRACKish, but some of the information here definitely seems salvageable (and important). Relevant information should be included in the article about the attacks, and this should redirect. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Merge info specifically about Bull's eye. Not notable as separate article Polargeo (talk) 15:37, 9 December 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. Secret ^account 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lost generation (t.l.g) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsure if this meets the general notability guideline. Questionable references. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the sources provided in this article are reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:BAND. Angryapathy (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can find no in-depth coverage for this band, and they do not satisfy any of the other criteria for WP:BAND. Their best bet probably would have been criterion 5, but Rustyjukebox appears to be neither a "major label or one of the more important indie labels."  Gongshow ^Talk 01:10, 4 December 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. Secret ^account 01:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 arm and 1 leg squat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't really fit any CSD criteria. Would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not entirely sure what this means but the article fails WP:N as it stands Polarpanda (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are so many things wrong with this article, but I am just going to stand by "Fails WP:N". Angryapathy (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I can't see this expand beyond that. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above. Sabiona (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a guide. Redundant. -Reconsider! 04:18, 7 December 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. Secret ^account 01:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The woman is known for only one thing: her affair with Tiger woods. All details about the affair belong in the Tiger Woods article. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Being known for only one thing is not reason enough to warrant deletion (c.f. Monica Lewinsky, Donna Rice); 2) Tiger Woods' page is protected from edits, so this is currently the only way to get the news into Wikipedia, especially considering it is breaking news so we can't wait for an admin to insert it; 3) Specifically because it is breaking news, this should be left in place to see what develops; 4) She is best known for the affair but was also on a VH1 reality TV show. I think we should let this article stand a while and see how it develops before considering deletion. Noraft (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Editors have a week to improve this article to prove that it can stand on its own.
• Rice and Lewinsky have made many media appearances to warrent their own articles. So far, Grubbs has not made a single media appearances.
• Appearance on a reality TV show is not notable enough to have a biographical article
• Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Breaking News is not a reason for a biographical article.

Victor Victoria (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing that this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion under WP:BIO, however, I quote from that article: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." All these criteria are met.

• Editors have a week to improve this article to prove that it can stand on its own.

The presumption is not that it will be deleted now that it has been nominated. I think it stands on its own now, personally, and unless we can get consensus that this is not the case, it stays.

• Rice and Lewinsky have made many media appearances to warrent their own articles. So far, Grubbs has not made a single media appearances.

Making "media appearances" does not increase one's notability. However, having press coverage does, whether one makes "media appearances" or not. Lewinski and Rice both became notable before either made their first media appearance. Further, what do you consider "a media appearance"? Grubbs obviously talked with reporters and furnished them with evidence. Is that not a media appearance? Does she need to be on TV or hold a press conference for one to consider that a "media appearance"?

• Appearance on a reality TV show is not notable enough to have a biographical article

Right. But I submit that appearing on a reality TV show AND having an affair with Tiger Woods is.

• Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Breaking News is not a reason for a biographical article.

While breaking news is not a reason for an article in and of itself, breaking news related to a notable person should be included in an article about said person, so really this all boils down to notability. Noraft (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your claims. Grubbs has not been the subject of any third party sources, the affair is the subject (it's like taking a review of a book and saying that it's about the author). It's your job to prove she is notable, which so far you haven't IMO (and so far the consensus is that she is not notable). Both Lewinsky and Rice (ESPECIALLY Lewinksy) got tons of media coverage on them and their past, so far almost all of the "coverage" she has gotten has been in storys of Woods having an affair (with her being a second thought in them). Having an affair with someone notable has no affect on notability, it doesn't help her case (and having a small appearance on a non-notable reality show doesn't help her that much). As for your last point, that doesn't mean she deserves an article; hell, we don't know if this affair will even mean anything a year from now (there have been many cases of famous people having affairs, the majority of them ended up being forgotten after a few months and that could be the case here based on the fact that no sponsors have dropped him and Woods has not been getting much negative coverage). TJ Spyke 02:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lewinsky and Rice didn't get their tons of coverage the day after the story broke. If having an affair with someone had no effect on notability, then Lewinsky would never have been notable. In fact, not only does she have an article, the scandal itself has its own article. Did the photo of Donna Rice sitting on Gary Hart's lap mean anything a year from when it happened, or now? No, but she has a page all the same. Lastly, consensus is not a majority vote (Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F#Not_a_majority_vote), so I'd say there is not consensus to delete, with a number of people feeling the article should stay. Noraft (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Woods has not yet lost any sponsors, his squeaky clean reputation has taken a serious hit because of Jaimee Grubbs. She's well into her sixteenth minute of fame, and there's no reason to believe that she'll be going away anytime soon. // Internet Esquire (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The story is about 6 hours old, what makes you think it won't go away? It's only been a minor story so far, I doubt it will be getting much attention after a few weeks. TJ Spyke 03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your timeline. By my reckoning, this story is several days old, beginning with the Friday after Thanksgiving. Jaimee Grubbs may have just made her entrance onto the stage, but her allegations are the first credible allegations that have been acknowledged as credible by the mainstream media, so what makes you think the story is going away? People love to hear trash about celebrities, and Tiger's refusal to engage the media in any sort of meaningful way (although commendable) is clearly backfiring. In the weeks and months to come, we will see all sorts of trashy media coverage with timelines, dates, and blow-by-blow descriptions of alleged sexual encounters, and Jaimee Grubbs is going to be in the center ring of this media circus. // Internet Esquire (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This woman has nothing to do with the crash. The story involving this woman is less than a day old. Tiger refused to talk about the car crash, but he confessed to this affair only a few hours after she made the allegations (so how you get "refusal to talk to the media" out of a story that is not only about 12 hours old is confusing). You are assuming this will be talked about in the future. Think about all the hundreds and hundreds of athletes who have been confirmed to have affairs. Now think about how many of those people who they had affairs with are notable or got any real coverage other than for a few days max, the list is pretty small. This may or may not end up being on the small list of affairs that were notable, but as of right now she is not notable. TJ Spyke 04:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Victor Victoria and WP:BLP1E. Not notable enough yet. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Noraft. This woman was a D list minor celebrity; now she is the next Monica Lewinsky. // Internet Esquire (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Me. This woman was a D list minor celebrity; now she is the next Monica Lewinsky—Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.247.183.132 (talk)
• Delete. WP:BLP1E. Kaldari (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Claiming to have had sex with some celebrity does not confer automatic notability. Fails WP:BIO. Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. We are not on deadline, so if it were ever judged that someone known only for their claimed association with Wood should be included in his article, that would be the place for some brief mention. Such an addition to a protected article could be made on the talk page. It is crystall ball gazing to claim she "will be the next Monica." When she has testified before courts and congress, there might be more basis for the claim. Edison (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redirecting to Tiger Woods if editors there do decide to add material regarding this (and it's a notable event in his life, I imagine that will happen). Regarding the four points above: 1) In the biography of a living person, being notable for only one event absolutely is reason to delete. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. 2) We are not on a deadline. There is no rush to get this stuff into any article, it's more important that we get it right than do it immediately. 3) We don't wait to see what develops with an article in place, we wait for material for it to develop first, and then and only then write the article. Reiterated, no deadline. 4) Being on a reality show does not confer notability, I can't find any evidence that she received substantial coverage for that. The sources cited in the article only mention her reality show appearance very briefly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep- If it were just the VH1 thing, or just the Tiger Woods thing, then it'd be an obvious delete. But her past with VH1, in my mind at least, means WP:BLP1E isn't really applicable. I'm not sure I *like* this article, or the subject, but I just don't see the necessity for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BLP1E applies. Woods story is her only noteworthy press coverage. Nakomaru (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong DELETE Absolutely not notable outside of Tiger. Coverage is not about this non-notable woman, it's about Woods's affair. Reywas92^Talk 00:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable as the news makes headlines around the globe. --Hapsala (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this event is noteworthy. However, it is (currently being argued) that this event is the only noteworthy news related to her. Under WP:BLP1E, therefore, she should not have her own bio article. It is sufficient that the event is mentioned in Tiger Woods' article. Nakomaru (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E—Chris!_c/t 00:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Widespread but insignificant and derivative press coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Reporting an affair with a famous professional athlete and appearing on a low-level reality TV show is not enough to make someone notable. The information can be covered adequately in Tiger's article, making this article rather pointless. Without any evidence of continued press coverage of Grubbs (which can't be assumed), this looks like a textbook WP:BLP1E case. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because of the reality show thing in addition to the Tiger affair. That's one minor TV show plus one news event that made headlines around the world. Kraikk (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is the definition of WP:BLP1E. I think the world can wait for an admin to add the relevant info to the Tiger Woods article. Celebrity gossip is really not so important that "breaking news" about the rumored sexual indiscretions of a popular golfer have to immediately be covered in an article. Let's get back to reality. WP is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. SnottyWong talk 02:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The MOST she warrants is a 1-sentence mention in Woods article. She claims to have had an affair with Tiger Woods, that isn't even close to making hr notable. TJ Spyke 02:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the length of this entire discussion prove that she is now a notable person? Yes, WP is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. And this person has become famous for some very unsavory reasons. But famous nonetheless. KINGBOB

No it doesn't. Anytime something like this happens you have people thinking they deserve an article. Whenever a scandal affects someone famous, you have people creating articles about non-notable people involved in the situation and some people who think it should be kept in an AFD. TJ Spyke 03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Aside from the situation with Tiger Woods, she is not notable enough to warrant an article. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only notable for a single event, so any relevant info can go in Tiger Woods. One note though: I did a brief Google search and found a tidbit about her being a "reality show star and model". However, I could not find anything in reliable sources about that aspect of her life (apart from brief mentions of her role in Tool Academy), so she is not notable enough to warrant an article. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no independent notability. -Reconsider! 04:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Per already mentioned criteria. Gage (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those arguing delete as per WP:BLP1E, I quote: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." This event was covered by CNN on December 3, among many other reliable sources. I think the event, given her release of Tiger's voicemail, plus the text messages, plus Tiger's apology for "transgressions," all covered by major media, constitutes "well documented" as per WP:BLP1E. Noraft (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think having an alleged affair with a sports star is on the same level of importance as attempting to assassinate the President of the United States... well, all I can say is, 'no, it's not'. Robofish (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - WP:ONEEVENT. Gage (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete This woman will be well forgotten in a month. This is nowhere near as notable as the Clinton affair, not at the current time anyway ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 08:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NTEMP - "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for living individuals known for one event." The appearance on a reality show wouldn't meet WP:ENT so doesn't tip this over the notability threshold. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete she's not notable for the reasons mentioned above. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Noraft. I'm getting tired of every news-related Wikipedia article having a deletion notice at the top. Binarybits (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect While a brief reality show appearance and an affair are not sufficient reason for a separate article, this is clearly something that needs to be covered in the Tiger Woods article. Since it is protected, an admin should do the including. At the very least leaving a redirect, since she's a possible search term, is a good idea. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She's not notable, per above. Allowing her here would open up Wikipedia to tons of pages devoted to nobodies who know somebody. Sabiona (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is another non-notable bio.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. It can always be recreated if something else comes up later. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, at least for now. Deleting articles when the story is developing doesn't seem very wise. Tiger Woods' career is jeopardized and now his most dedicated supporters try to clean Wikipedia from everything they don't like. The question of deletion should be put on hold until, at least, the next golf season. Fredrich H. 192.121.84.241 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to an omnibus article TW's affair coverage. There's lots of articles covering the coverage in terms of what it means for our society, beyond the actual tabloid coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BLP1E, as others have said. A brief appearance on a cable reality show doesn't contribute anything toward notability. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; this is precisely the kind of subject BLP1E was designed for. The argument that deleting while coverage is ongoing is premature is beside the point, since we don't cover the news and we don't recognize pending notability. Chick Bowen 00:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and incorporate into separate article about the Woods affair, if it ever even gets made, per User:Peregrine Fisher. Mononomic (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Tiger Woods. She's not notable enough for her own article. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - yet another WP:BLP1E. If someone's only in the news because someone famous reportedly had an affair with them, we shouldn't have an article on them. Robofish (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or alternatively merge into Tiger Woods. Insufficient notability for her own article. Aditya Ex Machina 15:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless she gets her own reality show which seems inevitable these days.--The lorax (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, she is not currently notable, she may become notable in the future at which point an article can be created. Mah favourite (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Oh lawd, this is so textbook WP:BLP1E it isn't even funny. No. Really. It is not funny. JBsupreme (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mattnad (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has per delete votes. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Saying that she is anywhere near as notable for one event as Lewinsky or Rice is stretching matters. Dismas|^(talk) 11:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Seraphimblade. very clear BLP1E case. We could consider a protected redirect to crash/affair allegations section of Tiger Woods article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A bunch of people are citing WP:BLP1E. Here's the thing: BLP1E says that "it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." But there's no event article for the scandal. This means we'd wind up merging information about Grubbs into the Tiger Woods article, which seems particularly inappropriate given that Tiger hasn't acknowledged the affair to have taken place. So my keep vote stands, but if we are going to delete the article based on BLP1E, it seems to me that implies we need to create an article about the scandal. Because there's certainly more than enough reliable sources to cover the Grubbs allegations somewhere, and I don't think the Tiger Woods article is the place to do it. Binarybits (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • What do we call it? Alleged affairs of Tiger Woods? Are there any other articles similar that we can look at for guidance? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me, Binarybits's post begs the question, why should deletion imply that there needs to be an article on the scandal? If this gets the type of coverage in reliable sources that WP:BLP demands, then add it the Woods article, where it can be placed in proper context by the rest of the coverage of Woods career. IMO, spinning out this type of article too early tends to lead to a grab-bag of gossipy quotes and undisciplined writing all thrown together. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Binarybits is interpreting BLP1E more narrowly than the policy intends. This is a more complex case than the ones the short paragraph at BLP1E cites. In this case, the subject isn't notable except in relation to an event, but the event itself isn't notable except in relation to a person. The closest analogue mentioned in the various policies on the issue is probably George Holliday (witness), in which there is a redirect to another biography but no biographical information on Holliday in the main article. That might be appropriate in this case, but I still think a redlink would be more appropriate given that it's not the affairs themselves that are notable but the way in which they came to be known and the response to them (another way to look at it--Grubbs, despite more media coverage of her personal life, has actually had far less of an impact on the relevant event than Holliday did). Chick Bowen 19:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The story is still moving pretty quickly, so we'll have a better idea of what to do soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - outside of the Tiger story, insufficent secondary sources. Hence fails WP:BIO. Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, WP:BLP1E Tovojolo (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets the notability requirements. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, Should be incorperated with Tiger woods article. Snickers696969 (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable for all the above reason. Reality TV star is too low a bar to be notable. And the affair seems to be far from notable (there are 7+ other ones). --MarsRover (talk) 01:17, 9 December 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. Note that there was serious concerns in the article, particualy WP:NOR in which the keep side didn't explain/fix. Secret ^account 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of landmarks in Las Vegas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A brand-new advertisement for Las Vegas tourism, added to Wikipedia yesterday. They have brochures for this already at your nearest travel agency. ~YellowFives 17:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I'm torn on this one. I see the point of the nominator, and also it appears to be a product of original research. On the other hand, it is a useful article that would be helpful if I ever decided to visit Las Vegas. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and per WP:OR (what exactly is a "landmark"?) Lugnuts (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created this page after seeing it on Wikipedia's list of wanted articles. With over 1700 pages linking to it, I thought it'd be a worthy gap to fill. I was surprised to see this immediately get moved to "Landmarks," as the list is clearly of "Attractions." As per the value, yes, I see it being a valuable resource to someone visiting Las Vegas. Having never been myself, I feel like I have a much better understanding of the area and seeing it all on one page would save time hunting around individual articles, provided they exist! Pintong (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My classmate wrote most of the copy, which he admits comes across as sales-pitchy at points. Maybe if this was cleaned up it would seem less like an advert? Pintong (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is Vegas afterall. It is difficult to write anything non touristy or non-trashy sounding for Vegas baby. Actually I moved it from "list of attractions" for the very reason of trying to avoid it looks like a brochure advert. Weak keep - the article is not really essential given that we already have templates with the main attractions and categories but it is clearly in demand. If it could develop into a more comprehensive article and to try to address the brochure vibe we get from it its OK I think. We have lists of notable buildings and that for a number of cities. Don't like the open 24 column though (most say NO!!). At face value though it seems better suited to WikiTravel than wikipedia... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:There are similar pages for Seattle, Louisville and other places. Polarpanda (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There may be 1700 pages linking here, but most are talk pages and appear because the page is part of WikiProject Las Vegas's template. However, if the objection to the article lay in the neutrality of the POV, I would say Weak keep and tag. Vulture19 (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTRAVEL. I agree with Blofeld that this belongs better at WikiTravel. Wikipedia is not a tour guide. I might be OK with keeping it if it only included items that have articles on WP already. Angryapathy (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and WP:CLEANUP - without a violation of WP:WAX, some similar articles (List of Chicago Landmarks is at FL level) appear to function very well. The article just needs some TLC. Dale 22:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. Dale's comment above is comparing apples and oranges. The List of Chicago Landmarks is a list of structures which have been officially designated as "landmarks" by the City of Chicago's Commission on Chicago Landmarks. The Las Vegas list is a completely subjective list of structures that the creator has deemed to be "landmarks." Much of the content also reads like an advertisement for specific restaurants and other business establishments. In its current form, the article is purely subjective original research, and I have to vote "delete." However, if there were a reliable, verifiable source for what is being included as a landmark (rather than the editor's subjective opinion), I might be persuaded to "keep." Cbl62 (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Aside from the blatant subjectivity and original research problems, most of the attractions listed here are not "landmarks" in any sense of the word. A landmark is "a structure (as a building) of unusual historical and usually aesthetic interest; especially one that is officially designated and set aside for preservation." This list includes things like shows (e.g., the "Show in the Sky" - a "free show with ladies dancing on floats") and miscellaneous things to do (e.g., the Wyrick Magic Academy). These are not "landmarks"; they are simply "things to do." Also, how can we justify including one restaurant (The Tuscany Kitchen) as a landmark but not the dozens of other fine restaurants in Vegas. Frankly, this is a real mess of promotion and subjective opinion. This is more like a guide to attractions that may be fine for WikiTravel, but it is NOT encyclopedic in its present form. Cbl62 (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is already a list of true Las Vegas historic landmarks (as opposed to "attractions") at National Register of Historic Places listings in Nevada#Clark County. Cbl62 (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Cbl62's comment above. There is no criteria for inclusion into the "landmark" club. This is simply an advertisement. SnottyWong talk 02:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can't see what guideline or policy this violates. It seems to pass WP:LIST. Virtually all of the "landmarks" are notable by themselves, so a list of such would also be notable. Cut out the cruft (NN sites) and fix the citations. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how Wikipedia:NOTRAVEL#NOTTRAVEL may apply. In any case, I've removed the NN stuff. Bearian (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment i dont think either "attractions" or "landmarks" is appropriate. a better choice may be "list of las vegas tourist oriented businesses" or "list of commercial attractions in las vegas". i think its actually an obvious list to have on WP, though of course it requires vigilance to not include marginal/nonnotable attractions. a lead which notes the obvious commercial nature of nearly every destination in the town would help. we cant exactly NOT list these attractions just because they are such blatantly self promoting entities. they are notable, after all. (and i HATE vegas). Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't go overboard, Mercurywoodrose. If we were to use your titles, not only would it be near impossible to find, it would also break a basic naming rule. Keep it short and simple. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good point. I would support any agreed upon simpler title if the lead specified the lists limits.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rework. Since most of these already have valid articles themselves, there's no particular reason not to organize them in a list. If the 24 hour, column is removed and the last one rewritten, the promotional tone will also be gone. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cbl62's comment above. If it could be edited to the standards of the CHicago article, I'd change it to a keep, but as is, it's just an ad.Sabiona (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I am leaning towards keep because the Vegas list could be developed like Chicago and actually contain encyclopedia landmarks rather than just touristy attractions. Either way, the way it is currently done will have to change if this is to be kept. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:59, 3 December 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. Secret ^account 01:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined A7 nominee. The article makes a claim to notability through chart rankings, but a Google search looking for substantial (vs. trivial) coverage to establish notability came up dry. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete yeah, it "charted" at the local college's student radio station, according to the article. Consider me unimpressed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• reply "unimpressed" or not, WP:BAND lists "Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart." as sufficient cause for notability. Your statement is incorrect and minimizes the articles references: the album not only charted on the local radio station, it placed within the top 200 nationally, please see: http://www.earshot-online.com/charts/2008/December/top200.cfm . If this ranking is not considered valuable, perhaps the above quoted item on WP:BAND needs to be altered. 17:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alibosworth (talk • contribs)

• "earshot-online.com" is another student radio thing, and is not what the "national chart" criteria in our music guidelines is about. The relvant national charts for Canada are the Billboard Canadian Charts and the Neilsen SoundScan Canadian Singles Chart. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• thank you for the clarification. Again, perhaps the criteria should be clarified. The fact that it specifically states "any national music chart" lead me to interpret it as being inclusive of college/campus radio stations. !earshot is quite established within canada, and while it might not be commercial, it is definitely official. As quote here "[...]the official monthly chart publication of the National Campus and Community Radio Association." Alibosworth (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No notability established. Not sure how C2 can be further clarified, "national music chart" is clear enough. Rehevkor ✉ 17:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? "clear enough"? because wp itself describes the chart in question as "the official monthly chart publication of the National Campus and Community Radio Association." I fail to see how this chart would not qualify as "any national music chart" as per the WP:BAND notability requirement. If there is an unstated rule that the "national chart" has to be a commercial chart, what is the harm in clarifying the requirement? Alibosworth (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they could rename the chart so it's not confused as an actual national chart? Ho hum. Rehevkor ✉ 20:51, 26

• Earshot is a non commercial NATIONAL chart. It collects playlists from every campus and community radio station in Canada. Billboard does the same thing with commercial stations. I believe the band has met this WP:BAND notability requirement.

• Week Keep As WP:Band is currently written, Balacade passes. I have started a discussion on either clarifying "national chart" or deleting it. Click23 (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Zero attention paid to them by reliable sources, and getting played on campus radio is not what is meant by a "national chart", that's just Wikilawyering. Spirit not the word, please. Fences&Windows 22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below thttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Balacade&action=edit&section=1his notice. Thanks, Tone 17:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment: I've already closed this as delete but since the debate has developed elsewhere, it is reasonable to leave this open for a couple of days more in order to get a clearer picture. --Tone 17:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The "national chart" discussion is what brought me here, see WP:Village pump (policy)#Clarify "National Chart" on WP:BAND. IMO National Campus and Community Radio Association meets the letter and spirit of criterion 2. It is an 80 member association, and looking at the map of its member stations I have trouble not classifying as 'national'. The fact that the stations are non-commercial should have no bearing on the validity of the chart. That being said, my !vote is delete, meeting any one of the criteria in WP:BAND does not supersede WP:GNG, as pointed out at the other discussion, the opening sentence of WP:BAND contains the word 'may'. This is a case when that has to be considered as there are no independent, third-party, reliable sources documenting this band and most of their releases (including the most recent) are self-released. Sorry for my grandstanding. J04n(talk page) 03:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Must also pass the general notability criteria with sufficient third-party sourcing. Not a fully national chart. Reywas92^Talk 01:58, 6 December 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. Secret ^account 01:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm unable to find usable sources for this, as it appears the term is only loosely used within a niche group of economic thinking and not found in general usage amongst a wider audience. I deprodded it as it might be notable, but not widely used. Unless someone greater than myself can find reliable sources for this, I believe deletion is the next course of action. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 16:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete First of all, it's basically just a definition of the term; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Secondly, a Google search for the term finds it used on blogs and such, but not in the mainstream press. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
• Delete, the creator of the article acknowledges on the talk page that this is a neologism: "I find this phenomenon lacks a succinct name, and I'm doing my best to craft a term that, while novel as a whole, is made up of familiar parts...." Ground Zero | t 17:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, this is WP:Original research ?? --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

• Delete per Ground Zero, it seems that the creator is using this and other posts to try to push an agenda, but I am trying to AGF. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Also per Ground Zero. I see the article creator is not aware of WP policies, which regardless, the term is not yet notable enough for WP. Angryapathy (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blatant neologism. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but with a rewrite by a neutral editor, since POV seems to be in question here. --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per Ground Zero. If the creator's admitting he made the term up and is trying to popularize it, this is a slamdunk to anyone who's ever heard of WP:NEO, WP:OR or WP:SPAM.  RGTraynor  03:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to Financial coercion. Please also note that this is what the article looked like before being stripped down to a 'neologism'. Unomi (talk) 13:55, 8 December 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. Secret ^account 01:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. I get it, he's an excellent student and employee, and he self-published a book! Wow! An incredible set of achievements </sarcasm>. No third-party sources showing notability equals no notability. Ironholds (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - Article written in puffery style. Not much in the way of actual achievement listed. No sources, although the presence of numbers like [8] in the text indicate it was cut-and-pasted from some other document which did have sources. He says his book will be available on Amazon the first week of December, but this is the first week of December and it isn't there. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
• Delete With some actual, independent sources this might be a decent article. There aren't any right now, but may be at some point in the future. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a case of non-notable spam to drum up attention for a book. Reads more like a resume and poorly-written PR release. Angryapathy (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't link to the Lulu.com page, but if you were to look there, you'd notice it hasn't got a sales rank, meaning it barely has any sales if it sold at all. The numbers Melanie mentions makes me suspect some form of copyvio or an attempt at falsifying references. Neither exudes much trust in the content. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, 3 December 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. Secret ^account 01:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by number of heliports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nomination based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by number of airports as this list has the same issues: A single source list based on a source whose accuracy has been called into question (it was noted in that debate that the CIA's count of airports in a country is based on airports visible from the air, and may count closed/abandoned airports while missing airports that are not visible). Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't a airport or heliport that isn't visible from the air pose a risk to anything trying to land there? You need to see where you are to make a safe landing. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud cover on the images taken? Shadows making runways indistinguishable from roads? Small airports with dirt runways with cones unviewable from the air? A major international airport won't go unnoticed, but smaller airports may very well be 'hidden'. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete: This list does not yield any information (there is no sense behind it), it is constantly outdated and tends to contain a never-ending bunch of data. Wikipedia is not a database, as The World Factbook might be. The list cannot be verified, as the term "heliport" is not defined. For example, if one takes all places a helicopter could land... see: it will be a never-ending list. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per above, the topic of the list is unverifiable and hard to define. Angryapathy (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• While the creator of the article should be applauded for their ambition, this is an obvious speedy delete. SnottyWong talk 02:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The number of airports or heliports is not a defining characteristic for a country, thus making it a bad topic for a list. It's ill-defined as well. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on top of the valid concerns above, I challenge the validity of the source used in coming up with this information. How can Australia only have one heliport? The list also claims Canada has only 11 while our list says that it has over 300. I don't think we're going to get many sources to agree with each other for the material, and counting the heliports ourselves is original research. I can't see this list passing WP:V anytime soon. ThemFromSpace 09:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While this list is very different from the airport list in that the source has a clearly defined criteria it is unencyclopaedic and should be deleted for that reason. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 08:00, 5 December 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. Secret ^account 01:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Video Mixer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:PROD. This piece of software does not appear to have received substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources, and therefore does not meet notability guidelines. I have found a single news piece referencing it at http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-75089310/infectious-release-first-album.html (from which the article draws a long quote), but alone this does not amount to significant coverage. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. My prod was declined, see talk for a brief post-prod discussion. Hairhorn (talk) 22:42, 2 December 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. Secret ^account 01:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zanimana: The Blue-eyed Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no assertion of notability - a self-published set of books with six google hits, one of which is us. Ironholds (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable, self-published book series. Angryapathy (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (retyping after spamfilter ate my comment) Self-published books aren't necessarily non-notable, but this one shows all the earmarks. It hasn't got a web presence, no reviews and the lulu sales page lists no sales rank, proving a complete absense of sales since the book's release in October. P.S. Search Lulu if you want to see for yourself, I can't link it because of the spamfilter. I wish that filter could be limited to the main namespace. It makes discussing issues like this unnecessarilly complicated. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 3 December 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. Cirt (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced BLP article that does not appear to pass WP:BIO concerns... Adolphus79 (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's possible that he is notable, but you can't tell it from this article. Google finds some coverage (one mention of him in The Times of India in 2004) but is confusing because a number of people have the same name. --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
• Weak keep. Article is ridiculously tiny, of course, but I'm seeing a lot of coverage on this person. While some of it may be the wrong guy, I'm not so sure. Let's keep this for a while in case it can be expanded. If there is no expansion within, say, two months, then I will personally put it up for deletion. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't searched for sources yet, but there's another Ajay Mahajan who is a politician (and quite a regular on Indian news a while back). -SpacemanSpiff 18:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm only just saying this but there does seem to be some coverage of the man so he appears to barely pass notability. I've added contextual quotes for the articles so people can judge for themselves. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He is reasonably covered in mainstream financial meda - Economic Times, Business Line, Business Standard, Reuters, CNBC TV18/Moneycontrol, Rediff money, Mint, Bloomberg, Outlook money. He was in a CxO position in a bank listed in National Stock Exchange of India. I think this makes him notable.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:43, 5 December 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. Secret ^account 01:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Editors of student media are not necessarily notable. Nothing else is asserted by article. Mblumber (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most of the sources cited are from the (other) Harvard student newspaper. That doesn't make him notable anywhere except on campus. As for the "monthly magazine" he founded, it seems to be a glorified blog. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
• Delete Pure vanity. A7 - sorry, being a student at Harvard is not a claim of importance, nor is starting a student organization there. Ray^Talk 16:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. I disagree that it's a vanity article, however, as half of it is an attack on the publication such that this article has serious BLP issues. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable and also has BLP issues.--Staberinde (talk) 21:12, 5 December 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. concerns about policy wasn't met in this AFD Secret ^account 01:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is hopelessly, irredeemably biased. The term 'racial disappearance' is only used by racists; it's impossible to write a neutral article on the subject. Currently, this article has virtually no reliable sources, and all the sources are either to racists themselves, or trivial mentions. If significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources cannot be found, it should be deleted. A previous AfD on this article ended in 'no consensus', and it's only got worse since then. Robofish (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Numerous books use the term for example. The fact that it is a term used by racists makes it relevant in the context of racism and racist culture. The article is in an embarrasing biased state, but this can be solved by editing, not deletion, as policy requires. --Cyclopia^talk 14:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, there are some reliable sources that use the term - but where are the reliable sources about the term? Those Google Books links aren't acceptable as references; an article on a phrase needs sources that discuss it, not just citations of its use. Robofish (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if it is the most used name about the concept, or if indeed there is a general accepted name for the concept. But that the concept exists and is notable is quite sure to me. I'll look into it. --Cyclopia^talk 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with nominator that this article is highly problematic on various levels. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ATD is policy. Being problematic does not allow deletion. --Cyclopia^talk 19:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Miscegenation, assuming there's anything left of the article after NPOV and OR issues have been resolved (otherwise delete). The sources provided in the article do not establish notability. SnottyWong talk 02:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the articles on Semiticization and Nordic race use the term "dilution", and this may be a better or more commonly used word, if article is kept. these are also good models for how to tackle the subject. i do agree that this article is pretty much unsalvageable as it exists. i think its possible to write a section about this idea in some manner, mostly about its use by racists and its having no significance among anthropologists. probably adding to miscegenation makes sense.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cyclopia. Nom is heavily biased.--Ratbones (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is not an accepted term except by the most extreme fringes of sociology and is unsupported by any reasonable sources in Google scholar. Unless and until it is accepted as mainstream terminology, it's a combination of WP:FRINGE, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and should be consigned to the dustbin since the term seems to be being used as a WP:COATRACK to advance a position. Rodhullandemu 00:52, 8 December 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. Secret ^account 01:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Joseph (Geoshrad) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the reference for "award winning" is the guy's own website Polarpanda (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, can see nothing notable. Even if "award winning" is true it surely should matter what type of award that is, and who else has noticed it. Also COI. Please, Polarpanda, use a tool to populate AfD. This way the AfD day log stays intact ;) --Pgallert (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or doesn't the link actually show he's award-winning. I wasn't able to find the evidence, even on his own site. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Data is being Added up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.144.134.242 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Very well but these are not reliable sources (except NatGeo), and coverage is from Geoshrad, not about him. If National Geographic brings an article on Geoshrad, that would change things for me. --Pgallert (talk) 09:05, 7 December 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. Secret ^account 01:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael John Lassen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable amateur rugby league player, created by an editor of the same name who's only contributions have been on this article. PROD was removed by the article creator without explanation. No references or evidence of notability, all clubs mentioned are lower level, non-professional teams. The-Pope (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless some for of notability can be shown. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not sufficiently established by reliable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 21:13, 5 December 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 Enigma^msg 06:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Unsourced image appears to have been blagged from her website. MuffledThud (talk)
• Delete No evidence of notability, at least by Wiki standards. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can pass the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 3 December 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. Secret ^account 01:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The land of sapphire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL: book doesn't exist yet. WP:N: no evidence of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Has absolutely no evidence of notability. And even sillier, the author is not even mentioned. Probably a hoax (article created by an SPA named iGoofy). Angryapathy (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is most likely eligible for a speedy deletion. There is no assertion of notability in the article. The author is stated as "a young girl in California. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, WP:CSD A7, the provision regarding assertions of importance or significance (not WP:Notability, which isn't addressed by any of the speedy deletion provisions), doesn't apply to books or stories. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops! My mistake. Thanks for the correction. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reliable sources to show notability. ~YellowFives 17:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, according to the talk page of the article's original author "The Land of Sapphire" was speedy deleted under G11. This was presumably the same article as we are now discussing but with different capitalisation.Malcolma (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see that version, so I can only comment on this one. I don't see anything openly promotional about it. All it does is describe the story. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - it looks like description of a school student's homework, so is either as notable as what I had for dinner or a curious hoax. JohnBlackburne (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless a book is a highly expected one by an established author, it's not a good idea to write an article. Since this book doesn't yet exist and is written by an author who isn't even named, it meets all the criteria to be deleted. I would personally TenPoundHammer's Law for music albums to books here. A book article needs basic info before it can be created, the author's name is one of them. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article can't name author, story isn't even finished, so there's no way to confirm anything. No basis for article.Bjones (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable at best. Edward321 (talk) 03:06, 5 December 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. Cirt (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been proposed for deletion 3 times in the past. The last two proposed deletions were procedurally removed due to the initial objection.

Ignoring the overall style and tone of the article, which reads something like a trophy shelf, I'm not convinced that the subject of the article is notable. Google results are slim and (apart from the usual facebook and linkedin results) are almost entirely focused on the Nashville/Tennessee area.

Additionally, I haven't spent time checking out all of the claimed facts, but as a start, this "published book author" has a volume with this level of popularity on Amazon: [9], and almost non-existent ghits besides. Maedin\^talk 13:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems to be fairly notable, more so than many city councilmen who have unchallenged Wikipedia pages. Article contains way too much puffery but should be edited, not deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources being local is insufficient reason for deletion. This could be improved by editing out any hyperboles. Sources clearly exist. I wouldn't call him a published author though. With this sort of Amazon rank, he's barely selling a single copy. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There appears to be significant coverage of this person. The article has some serious POV issues but that just means someone needs to go through and clean it up. There are plenty of in-depth articles about the man and his various achievements. I've added a couple of citations, quotes from the citations can be found here. They're not enough to claim notability on their own, but they give a sense of the type of coverage this man has. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:52, 3 December 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. Secret ^account 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The second AfD was closed early and the article was speedily deleted under criterion G4. This decision was subsequently overturned at DRV. decltype (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- this was deleted just a couple of weeks ago, and there's no more evidence of notability now than there was then -- the vast majority of references are to her own articles, and the few that aren't by her get us nowhere near to extensive coverage in multiple independent sources. Cute, but not notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- There are a number of sources referencing her as winning journalism and comedy awards, appearing on multiple nationally televised programs, and holding prestigious positions at a variety of publications. Other references that some claim are simply "references to her own articles" prove she has written for very notable publications and has covered very notable personalities - making a strong case for notability. I fear your lack of familiarity with someone nationally known for television and journalism is biasing your opinoin and would note that comments like "Cute, but not notable" add nothing to the discussion. Karpaydm (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I invite you to specify which of the references currently on the article constitute "extensive coverage" as required by WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note how Karpaydm mentioned awards. Those can make person notable. In that case you only need to verify the information. The amount of coverage you're asking for is only needed when the coverage itself is supposed to establish notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. Miserably fails WP:CREATIVE. Almost all sources are WP:SELFPUB, and the rest do not pass WP:RS or WP:V to the extent that notability is established. Article has been recreated several times after having been deleted through AfD's and CSD's, and should be protected against re-creation to save us all the trouble of a fourth AfD. SnottyWong talk 02:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that this is only the second time this article has been listed. The first time (not my contribution) it had woefully inadequate references (blogs, you tube). This second version was written by myself and was speedy deleted for being "too similar to the original" which the deletion review determined was unfair since it had been considerably altered from the original version. Surely you don't SALT a topic because someone went through hours and hours of research in order to replace the original, unacceptable article with a legitimate and unbiased article. - Karpaydm|^(talk)

• I don't think salting is necessary. If it's deleted, I'm very confident Karpaydm won't recreate it. She might well become notable at some point. I don't think an award from the Orange County Press Club gets her there, but if she gets more awards and/or becomes the subject of significant coverage then fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, the Orange County awards were to establish her success early in her career. Also note that the reference is an LA Times piece where the LA Times apparently thought it was important enough that they wrote an article about their own authors that won those same awards. She also won an award for New York's Funniest Reporter in 2008. See references 21 and 22 http://www.nyfunniestreporter.com/2008_Recap.html and http://www.stagetimemag.com/standup/?p=3677. I am guessing this doesn't mean anything on the notability scale to you, but she also has an IMDB page, is a "Verified Twitter Celebrity", and has her own iPhone application. She also has done about 10 commentaries for biographies on the A&E channel. Seriously, how can all of these others sources that determine notoriety not be enough for a supposedly open/free information service like Wikipedia. As the other "keep" vote below pointed out, why is this so hard? Because the delete voters don't know her? Karpaydm —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Weak delete A lot of articles only mention this person in passing and the articles by Rosen herself give no indication if she was a regular staff writer or a freelancer for said publications (which makes a huge difference). One article in People is not enough to draw on its notability to establish yourself as a noteworthy writer. There is no indication how important the award mentioned is. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Added that she was a staffer (not a freelancer) at People and highlighted numerous articles with numerous top celebrities. Also, how does one indicate the importance of an award? - Karpaydm|^(talk)

• Delete no evidence the situation has changed substantially since the AFD less than 3 weeks ago. Recommend SALTing until a rock-solid (and preferably COI-free) userspace draft is presented, so we don't have to go through this every 3 weeks from here on out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, there was one original article (not by me) that was terrible. It was deleted. I rewrote it after extensive research and it was speedy deleted unfairly as determined by the deletion review. So this is only the second article about Rosen and the first legitimate and unbiased version. I also think that the controversy that was sparked by her interview with Ed Koch was not highlighted enough until I revised the article today. Finally, I assume COI means "Conflict of Interest". Please explain the conflict of interest. - Karpaydm|^(talk)

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources presented in the article are mostly passing mentions. Trivial coverage does not allow an individual to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Which sources are unreliable? As far as your claim of "trivial coverage" goes, typically journalists (even when really famous) are not "talked about" in other sources. They are notable because of the publications they write for, the television programs they are on, and the subjects they cover in both genres. I am guessing you are familiar with ESPN television journalist Dan Patrick and have no problem with his page existing, yet his page has no references "about him". However, in this case Rosen became quite well known for her coverage of Ed Koch and I added numerous third party sources citing as much Karpaydm|^(talk) 8:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I don't understand why people go out of their way to try and delete peoples pages for no apparent reason. This page isn't hurting anyone. She's written for multiple mainstream publications and has appeared on multiple television programs. It's not taking food out of anyones childrens mouths by having this page up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.14.111.39 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but Do Not Salt Article recreated once doesn't approach salting threshold for me, particularly where subject has a reasonable shot at achieving notability at some point (as opposed to a deceased subject, for example). Vartanza (talk) 03:33, 7 December 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. Secret ^account 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heroes production crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Delete There is no point to this page. It is a small list, and all the information is already present either on the main page or List of Heroes episodes. Ωphois 18:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It doesn't seem that small to me. Polarpanda (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Indiscriminate in the extreme. Wikipedia is no IMDB. Glittering Pillars (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to retain attribution. While most of the direct and writer information is already present elsewhere. The main page makes no distinction between the different types of producers (executive, co-, etc). It's an important distinction that should be covered. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Actually that distinction does exist under the Production heading on the main page, so again, the little amount of info that wasn't already included otherwise is properly redistributed to other pages, therefore this page has no more, is a waste of space and should be deleted ASAP.  Snake Chess5 15:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Mgm is referring to the infobox, which lists both executive producers and producers as "executive producers". There is a difference between the two. The infobox does not support "producer", so it would be easiest to just list them in the production section. Ωphois 19:25, 7 December 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. Secret ^account 01:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands University Snooker Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, because it is a regional championship, which isn't covered by reliable sources, as student papers aren't reliable sources. Armbrust (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Inherently non-notable as a local students' get-together, nothing more. A UK-wide inter-collegiate championship might be another matter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks reliable sources (only ones provided are written by the clubs themselves or are student newspapers, less than reliable sources) not finding much else. Limited to a handful of universities which is probably why significant coverage is not available. RadioFan (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I wouldn't call student newspapers unreliable by definition, but this article should be deleted on other grounds. Sports competitions should only be listed if they're supported by the official organization of that sport or if they're international. This clearly doesn't qualify as the sort of event Wikipedia should cover. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 3 December 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 moved to The Enright House. MuZemike 01:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Enright House discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See WP:MUSIC-Criteria for musicians and ensembles. No notability for this discography or any of the releases therein can be established until someone takes the time to write a supported article about the band itself. A cursory web search for The Enright House reveals a few sources that might be a start for a band article. After that is the time to create articles for albums and singles, and after that comes the discography. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to The Enright House - and rewrite as an article about the band. (No band needs a separate discography article unless the band's article is 40K + and they have ten or so albums to list). They are signed to a "notable indie" label, so should pass WP:Music. dramatic (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move certainly not right as it stands. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move/rename The idea that discographies should be a spin off of a long band article has been a longstanding one in our rules. Someone clearly jumped the gun here, but deletion is not needed. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move/rename (as nominator) I agree... perhaps an AfD was not the best procedure for generating this particular discussion. User:Pasta of Muppets appears to be moving along with this band's new articles accordingly, doing pretty much what you all are recommending here. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 11:20, 3 December 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. Secret ^account 01:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planet of the Dogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially spam for some non-notable children's books. Claims to have been reviewed but none of the links are to a review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply due to contributor inexperience. A simple google search enabled me to find the bookdads review quite easily. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sign of notability. ~YellowFives 16:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book series. Joe Chill (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What worries me about this entry is how the publisher appears to be created especially for this particular series and how they don't appear to have published anything else. Combined with the statement "The publishers, Barking Planet Productions, hold a copyright for all the books in the Planet of the Dogs series and hold a trademark for the name/title Planet of the Dogs." and the use of catalogs as references, I suspect this is an attempt at self-promotion from someone who has no clue about the publishing industry. 1) Copyright belongs to the author rather than the publisher unless they did a work for hire. The publisher gets certain rights, but with trustworthy ones copyright isn't one of them. 2) Catalogs list all published books. While they prove the book exists, they do nothing to establish notability. Reviews can, in my opinion be reasonable sources, assuming the reviewer is well-known as an authority in their field. Unfortunately, I have no clue about who these reviewers are. I'll withdraw my vote if the publisher can be established to be independent from the author or when I can get some indication of sales numbers. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not much to add to the above reasons, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 11:48, 5 December 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.