Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 21
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Treffpunkt.svg/48px-Treffpunkt.svg.png)
- Subject-specific notability guideline for species
- Consultation on changes to the arbitration policy and procedures
- CSD for unused maintenance categories
- Qualifying the relationship between the Gaza Health Ministry and Hamas
- WMF asking for ideas for annual fundraising banners
- Titles of European monarchs
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 19:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Texas's 22nd congressional district election, 2008 (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 reason for this election to have its own article; the remaining 434 House races do not. This material could all easily go back where it belongs under the district and candidates' articles. This is recentism at its silliest (and US-centric thinking as well). Orange Mike | Talk 23:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nomination rests on a misconception; there are quite a few other articles for individual district elections. See the relevant category [1]. This was Tom DeLay's district, so special attention and much more extensive coverage is unsurprising. The article needs a good deal of work, though. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If all of the races do not have articles, they should. There is always good RS coverage. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a nationally important race. Plenty of source out there.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there have been literally tens of thousands of Congressional races in US history, not to mention races in individual districts in the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, Zimbabwe, etc. While it's to be expected these will garner attention at the local (and occasionally national) level, there's no good reason to presume notability for them generally. Only the sum of the parts - ie, the election nationwide - is definitely notable. Perhaps merge a brief summary at United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2008. - Biruitorul Talk 03:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Without commenting on whether or not all individual US HoR elections deserve a page, this one seems to have the sources to show that it is notable for the swing of DeLay's old seat back into GOP hands. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to [[[United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2008]]. As with Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006, this appears to have been a "daily news" type article that kept track of developments in the primaries and the campaign and the general election, and most of this would fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Normally, the link from the Texas elections article would be to websites that have information for people who wish to check results. I suppose one could say that all elections for a national legislature are "nationally important", but the precedent for a description of any race in any legislative district in the world for Congress, the British House of Commons, the Japanese Diet, the German Bundestag, the Israeli Knesset, etc., is alarming. Would anyone want to keep this article if it had been about a race for a rural district of Uruguay? Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because the subject received national news coverage. In general, I think these articles on individual legislative races should not exist, but that is because they primarily have only very local sources. Karanacs (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In general, I have no problem with articles on competitive campaigns for the US Congress, and this one was competitive. (Most are not.) This race was especially important because of its link to Tom Delay. Gruntler (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient coverage to keep. Can be improved. PmlineditorTalk 11:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I am not leaving a redirect because there are multiple options and maybe it is even better not to have a redirect after all. But this can be decided outside AfD. Tone 19:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the result of the concurrent RfD, I am creating a redirect to Transsexualism#Alternative terminology. --Tone 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Harry Benjamin's Syndrome (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-existent disease. Not recognized in any book of official diagnoses. Article recreated by same editors to circumvent delete/redirect decision of Harry Benjamin Syndrome. See previous delete/redirect consensus. This term is non-notable; the only reliable source that uses the term currently included at the article says "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" is synonymous with transsexualism: “the transsexual disorder known as Harry Benjamin Syndrome.” Previously deleted article averaged 2 visits a day. This obscure term should be a redirect that reflects how Harry Benjamin Syndrome is handled. Jokestress (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator: Per CheckUser evidence, here and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlotteGoiar, I've removed some of the repetitive SPA notices and redacted some of the off-topic sockpuppetry discussions that were present in this revision of the discussion, leaving the discussions that focus upon the article at hand. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That one article that calls HBS a type of transsexualism is non-credible and lying. We coined the term and didn't authorize them to speak on behalf of the word we coined. It was published by a person with an agenda. Delete BOTH articles without ANY redirection as per Wikipedia policy. Since we coined the term and Wikipedia is not a soapbox, either delete both without redirects or let us keep just one and come up with credible sources. There ARE credible sources in Spanish and Italian which more than prove that HBS is not a type of TSism, and the OTRS team has verified this on the Spanish page.--74.124.187.76 (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and comment per nominator. Also, I'm not sure what 74.124.187.76 is trying to say with regards to coining this term. Care to clarify a bit more than vaguely stating "we coined it"? XenocideTalk|Contributions 23:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. User Jokestress, Andrea James, an open Harry Benjamin's Syndrome (HBS) phobic person who is strongly against this patient advocacy movement, she has not a voice to speak for the HBS community as has been pointed out by another user on the discussion page of the HBS article, and her comments, arguments, etc, they should not be considered neutral nor objective here because her clear and open hate to this patient advocacy movement, a movement widely documented in the HBS article, and a terminology in fact officially used by prominent doctors specialized in this field and even the Health Department of Spain's government as it is been proven on the article which contains more than enough reliable sources. An article about HBS Phobia will be created soon with all the accumulated proof of hatred against this patient advocacy movement from people like Andrea James. --CharlotteGoiar (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. More sources showing that the terms are synonymous, supporting a redirect: "Other people with less spectacular transgender conditions such as Harry Benjamin's Syndrome (transsexuality)..." [2] "Transsexualism is sometimes known as Harry Benjamin's syndrome (HBS)." [3] "Harry Benjamin discovered the syndrome we call Transsexualism." [4] The article on Transsexualism already discusses the term, so a redirect should be done per consensus on Harry Benjamin Syndrome. Jokestress (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article should remain because it reflects the reality of a precise term used by doctors today and it reflects the reality of a patient advocacy movement emerging from a few years ago. --CharlotteGoiar (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment while i am very curious about this articles subject, and cannot quite grasp its connection to the phenomenon of transexualism, i can say this: its very telling that the main site for advocacy for this syndrome has an entire page devoted to an exegesis of intersex as related to the bible [5]. NO medically oriented site trying to document a medical condition would dream of including such material. regardless of the sites support for intersex people being included in "gods plan" (at least i think they are supportive of this, not that its directly relevant), this means that this site is absolutely not useful as an objective, medically sound source of information on transsexualism of any sort. If this site/subject has a lot of attention, then it is possible to rewrite this article as being about the social movement represented by HBS sites like this. any critiques they have of other modalities, particularly medical/psychiatric, for exploring transexualism must be seen as social, not medical critiques. any legitimate medical research quoted by HBS must be separated out from HBS and considered in the light of medical peer review, etc. If there are not enough references to be found for HBS being a social movement, then the article must be deleted for nonnotability. and ok, these ARE just my thoughts, so i could be wrong, but i dont think so. as i said at first, this is hard for a relative newcomer to these issues to grasp, so i dont have a firm view of whether we SHOULD delete or rewrite. This article would benefit from expert opinion. I dont know how to advocate for that ethically, so maybe someone else knows how to draw in other editors fairly. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - this is an attempt to undo the consensus formed at the AfD of "Harry Benjamin Syndrome", which was closed a few months ago as redirect to Transsexualism. All redirects formed in this squabble should be deleted and salted; the remaining redirect should be protected as it seems absolutely clear that things have certainly gotten out of hand. Both sides have been ignoring constructive suggestions to them at the Harry Benjamin Syndrome RfD, and this AfD is not helping matters as the heat is already quite intense. Everything should be returned to a point two weeks ago... and then, a civil discussion be made at the appropriate venue. There has been too much forum shopping going on here as it is. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article can't be speedily deleted, as it's not an exact recreation of the version that was deleted. It's different (in fact, I dare say it's worse than the original version, judging just by the quality of sources and the writing style), so it doesn't fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. Regular deletion after AfD discussion, though, is fine. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and keep the redirect, protecting it if necessary. The sources given are totally inconsistent: the principle site, [6] at various places claims it as very rare, but also says it is the most common cause of what they term "true Transsexualism" -- contra the assertion above by 74.124.187.76. The question of whether the two terms are synonymous is unanswerable, because the sources are inconsistent. In this context, I would regard none as truly reliable; they have all been contaminated by propaganda. All we can do is report the variation in terminology, but not canonize it in one way or another. The extent to which human feelings correspond to human biology is not to be solved by squabbling over definitions. The question of determining the biological basis of this is confused, not clarified , by this aberrant terminology. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because I have found no convincing support for the academic or scientific validity of this term. Unable to figure out what the difference was between HBS and TG, I went to the self-published HBS site that is linked repeatedly in the article and I perused this page of it; I also read part of the Nature review that is repeatedly cited on the HBS page. Based on my reading of it, the Nature article does not support many of the claims it's being used for on the HBS page—in the typical spirit of science journalism, that page appears to be taking mundane observations (for example, a bird with half a female brain transplanted into it can't breed, big surprise there) and leaping to unsupported but flashy conclusions with them (i.e., the claim that "gender identity" is determined wholly by the neurobiological architecture of the brain). Anyway, by now I think I understand the difference that editors are claiming between HBS and TG (that HBS is a physical disorder and TG is a psychological state), but I don't see scientific evidence to back it up and I don't see evidence that HBS is recognized by the academic or scientific communities. No opinion on whether the article should be redirected or deleted, but at the very least it should not remain an article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. First off, I can see lots of TG Men discussing here and in another related pages about Harry Benjamin's Syndrome, these people's arguments should not be considered neutral nor objective for the discussion of the current topic. They have a clear agenda and and they often show an open hate towards this particular patient advocacy movement (all this will be reported soon online on several websites including on a new specific HBS Phobia wikipedia article on several languages). The main purpose of this article is not to claim for a new disease but to refine a precise diagnostic for the type VI of primary transsexualism which is stated to be a form of intersexualism by dozens of medical experts on this condition today [7]. We should rely on FACTS and medicine, the term transsexualism is not longer suitable for this very precise type VI of patients, because the etiology of their condition is intersexual as Harry Benjamin himself pointed out. To rely in the opinions and arguments of transgender men with a clear agenda behind is not serious at all, as I said, is not objective judgement. Wikipedia's articles about Harry Benjamin's Syndrome in Spanish and in Italian keeps online and the references provided on these articles had been proved realiable and verified by the OTRS team of Wikipedia in these countries. In this English version however, it clearly appears a conflict of interest in the publication of this article, and this violates Wikipedia policy. But the REAL MAIN PURPOSE of this article, beyond all of what I mentioned, is just only to reflect the reality of an absolutely real patient advocacy movement (if it would not exist these TG men would be not so active here and in another places to block it) who is the reality of a minority group who identifies with this definition following the advance in facts in Medicine and this is very widely showed by dozens of blogs, sites, etc, on the internet, just Google for Harry Benjamin's Syndrome [8] at this moment of the search 51.900 entries resulted from the search. So it is a social reality and a terminological fact that we cannot deny, and that it deserves its own page on Wikipedia.
This article should Keep, of course, we must rely on these facts and in the conclusions of doctors and Medicine, and above all, PATIENT FACT, not to rely in the conclusions of TG men that supports an opposite agenda to the purposes of this minority of people that suffer this precise condition. If Wikipedia keeps online an article about Queer Theory [9] which is just that, a theory, not more than a theory, then the Harry Benjamin's Syndrome article should be keep too, as the social movement who identifies with it exists as much as the one who identifies with that "queer theory".
And I will not comment more about this. The situation of this problem of HBS Phobia that some TG people suffer from, it will be soon exposed widely on the internet, and eventually other articles will appear on Wikipedia and in other informational resources on the internet about the wide progress of this patient advocacy movement, so what you decide to do or not here will be seen in a short future as just something anecdotal in the history of this patient advocacy movemement. --CharlotteGoiar (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Off-topic discussion removed. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And by the way... first of all, saying that editors are haters is not helpful, do you have evidence to back this up? And why should it affect the deletion debate anyway? Deletion debates are swayed by references to Wikipedia policy, not by ad hominem attacks; saying "the people voting 'delete' are bad people" doesn't get articles deleted.
Next, about your repeated comments that this is a precise medical diagnostic...do you have any medical sources confirming this? (a diagnostic manual or some such.)
Finally, I am not TG, nor are several of the other people who have commented here. You're doing yourself no good by making assumptions about people and trying to discredit them without any actual evidence. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom. No more really needs saying. Has nothing to do with phobias and everything to do with non-notability. (The vitriol from CharlotteGoiar didn't help any, either.) B.Rossow talkcontr 14:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepbecause I have found enough convincing support for the scientific validity of this term on the sources given by Goiar and a lot of evidence of the existence of this patient advocacy movement both online and offline. Especially online Google shows it. It is vital to differentiate between HBS and TG for the adequate medical understanding and treatment of the first group. This article help to many people who suffer this condition to be informed about it and understand it properly, without queer ideology involved. TG people should refrain from write their opinions here because they don't have the condition, they don't understand it, and many of them are strongly against it (because is different to their TG lifestyle choices and agenda). And yes, Goiar comments on HBS-phobia are completely right, this page's discussion and the old one they speaks by themselves about this. But if you want further evidence of this just read the hundreds of posts on online TG forums of hate about the HBS community. Read articles as the ones written by HFarmer (another TG who participated in the old "consensus" they got among TGs about the old HBS article) or just take a walk by TG sites like Laura's Playground to feel all the hate-HBS-phobia that they spit all the time. You cannot erase the HBS community by deleting this article, you only create more hate between both communities by doing that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk)- Sock-puppetry struck. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did you find scientific proof? Can you link me to sources in peer-reviewed scholarly journals? I already read the Nature source cited on Goiar's website and it doesn't support any of the pseudoscientific claims made there. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scientific proof and medical use of the term: In the sources provided by Goiar. But if you aren't able to recognize them, this is not my problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk)
- Keep. As the authoress of this article, I hereby demand respect for Harry Benjamin's Syndrome article, since it's been properly proved in this discussion that there is a big group of supporters of this terminology, who reject being tagged as "Transsexuals"; there is enough proof of the wide use of the term, which can be checked by means of Google, as well as by the different articles about the fact that exist in other languages in Wikipedia. That's why I think it must be saved from deletion. Regards. Marta314 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is getting respect. were discussing it right here, right now. demanding respect doesnt help the argument to keep. there seems to be a lack of credible sources to show that HBS is a valid medical diagnosis at this time. fascinating research perhaps. and if there is a significant population rejecting "transsexuals" in favor of HBS, that may be notable, but unfortunately, this begins to approach the margins of notability. transsexuals are a small minority of the human population. it appears that most transsexuals accept or identify with a single, fairly well defined approach to their situation. This may well be recognized one day as an incomplete or misplaced approach, but as of today its NOT. a small minority disagrees with this as a form of labeling? good, in fact, great, more power to all people to self identify as they desire and seek acceptance for that identity, but that doesnt automatically mean this group has enough recognition OUTSIDE itself for an article right now. I havent seen enough evidence for this being a social phenomenon, let alone a medical breakthrough, for to justify an article. I know it really shouldnt have an article which reads like a medical diagnosis at this time. I suspect HBS is going to stay a minority, oppositional point of view within the scope of the article on transsexualism.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete G4 with optional protected redirect. This is transparently reposted content. Compare this revision (at Harry Benjamin Syndrome -- no possessive) with the first revision of the current article. The same user, Marta314 was the creator of both linked revisions. The current article was created on 21 September, after the redirect left from the previous article was protected on 19 September to end an edit war by IP user 74.124.187.76. All three active contributors to the two versions of this article (74.124.187.76, Marta314, and CharlotteGoair) are primarily or wholly single purpose accounts who have defended their position with similar invective, claiming phobia, bias, or persecution by the transsexual community. Despite their claims, even ignoring the G4 reposting and examining this article on its merits, there has never been a source provided that satisfies WP:MEDRS, and no more than passing mentions in any reliable source whatsoever. Claims that there are foreign-language reliable sources to support the Spanish or Italian versions are further spurious, as those articles do not have any additional sourcing that provided here. Sir Landmass Weevil (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read my comment above? This article is not speedyable, it has sources added and much of the content has been rewritten. It should be deleted, but through regular deletion, not speedy (see my own delete rationale above). Please focus on the correct reasons for deletion; incorrectly calling for speedy deletion isn't going to help. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrespective of whether the current version is "substantially identical" to the deleted one or not, then, it still lacks anything to satisfy WP:RS. Of the 11 sources cited, 7 are to the same advocacy group website. One is an internet petition site. One is a personal testamonial. One is an article in Biological Psychiatry that does not address the term (but does include "transsexualism" in its abstract keywords). And one is the trivial BBC mention that earned the previous version a redirect rather than outright deletion. Sir Landmass Weevil (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read my comment above? This article is not speedyable, it has sources added and much of the content has been rewritten. It should be deleted, but through regular deletion, not speedy (see my own delete rationale above). Please focus on the correct reasons for deletion; incorrectly calling for speedy deletion isn't going to help. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Transsexualism. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it.Is a very valuable and reliable resource in spite of the biased views of some people here. IMO transgender people are not the ones who should decide it, Harry Benjamin's Syndrome is a term used by some doctors and by a community of people who identify with it, not with transgenderism. Your excuses for to boycott this article are not worth enough in comparison with the positive comments and votes given here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk)- Sock-puppetry struck. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another useless ad hominem; who says that all the people participating in this discussion are transgender? Please focus on the issues, not the editors. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As others have said, the cited sources do not demonstrate the existence of the condition. Reconsider if HBS, or the movement supporting it, receive substantial coverage in reliable sources. And it should go without saying that the gender or gender identity of the posters to this discussion is of no importance whatever. PhGustaf (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, this article looks like a unique view on what the RS seem to assert is the same condition, and thus may fall under WP:POVFORK. PhGustaf (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- you and these other ones are wrong, the cited sources demonstrate the existence of the condition, is a refinement of what was previosuly wrongly know as Type VI True transsexualism. If you don't fall in this category it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 23 September 2009
- — 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- you and these other ones are wrong, the cited sources demonstrate the existence of the condition, is a refinement of what was previosuly wrongly know as Type VI True transsexualism. If you don't fall in this category it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 23 September 2009
- Furthermore, this article looks like a unique view on what the RS seem to assert is the same condition, and thus may fall under WP:POVFORK. PhGustaf (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A redirect would apparently be inaccurate, according to those who have defined the term in the article and above. Without reliable sourcing that would make clear that there in fact is any distinction from the proposed redirect target, the term as defined by the article is not notable at this point, and the article should await (possible) confirmation of a speculative theory that although interesting does not establish that there is any phenomenon distinguishable from the proposed redirect target. Steveozone (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion of sock-puppetry removed. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reliable sources back up the HB'S article and its movement. Keep it, it's very good. There is not conceptual connection at all between HBS and transsexualism/transgenderism based on modern research for what was know as true transsexualism before. Transsexualism is an outdated term for people with Harry Benjamin's Syndrome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 23 September 2009
- — 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Not only is an outdated term as you say, but the fact is that HBS is NOT transsexualism, but intersexualism, as considered today by the medical experts in the field, as cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 23 September 2009
- In relation to what transgender leader User Jokestress said at the top of this page: Very poor argument to rely in what a journalist writes about a completely new term. And by saying that is a non-existent disease you are saying that primary transsexualism (its old concept) does not exist. So, you don't understand the topic of this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 23 September 2009
- Off-topic discussion of not having accounts removed. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: [Off-topic discussion of sockpuppetry removed. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)] Please also note that shb-info.org (again owned by someone named Charlotte Goiar) is virtually the only cited source of information for this article. All other issues aside, there's an incredible WP:COI problem here; citing a website one owns and administers as proof of anything is laughable. I'm not sure anything else needs to be said. --B.Rossow · talk 16:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps of interest to those with less time on their hands is a snippet from Goiar's own website: "Charlotte Goiar in Spain decided to attempt to popularise the term 'Harry Benjamin’s Syndrome' (HBS), as it follows the naming conventions of intersex conditions. [...] HBS as a term is still a 'work in progress'". [10] --B.Rossow · talk 16:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [Off-topic discussion of sockpuppetry removed. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)] On the other hand to say that all sources given in this article are referring only to her website is a funny lie because they are not, as everyone can see. As others have said, TGs biased arguments here are not credible at all, I am sorry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk • contribs) 16:50, September 23, 2009[reply]
- Goiar (or Guren, as she is also known) is apparently known outside the city as well ... though not in the favorable light she'd likely prefer: A slightly different take on Goiar and HBS. Not taking sides here; just sharing some interesting Ghits. FWIW, I'm not TG and have no agenda other than keeping BS off of Wikipedia. --B.Rossow · talk 17:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for provide us further evidence about the HBS phobia that is coming from the TG community. The link you posted about Laura Playground site is a wonderful example of this, as this is a TG site with a TG agenda and shows a huge HBS phobia. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk)
- Quick question: who is diagnosing these individuals with HBS, and what papers have they written on the subject? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick answer: some doctors as showed in the cited sources of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk)
- Goiar (or Guren, as she is also known) is apparently known outside the city as well ... though not in the favorable light she'd likely prefer: A slightly different take on Goiar and HBS. Not taking sides here; just sharing some interesting Ghits. FWIW, I'm not TG and have no agenda other than keeping BS off of Wikipedia. --B.Rossow · talk 17:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [Off-topic discussion of sockpuppetry removed. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)] On the other hand to say that all sources given in this article are referring only to her website is a funny lie because they are not, as everyone can see. As others have said, TGs biased arguments here are not credible at all, I am sorry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk • contribs) 16:50, September 23, 2009[reply]
- Perhaps of interest to those with less time on their hands is a snippet from Goiar's own website: "Charlotte Goiar in Spain decided to attempt to popularise the term 'Harry Benjamin’s Syndrome' (HBS), as it follows the naming conventions of intersex conditions. [...] HBS as a term is still a 'work in progress'". [10] --B.Rossow · talk 16:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has this dispute over this diagnosis been covered in reliable independent media? Is the subject notable and covered substantially by reliable independent sources? Please keep comments focused and relevant to the AfD. Arguments and soapboxing aren't constructive and make it hard for independent parties to assess the article and whether the subject meets inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, in lots of independent media Example One,Example Two -there is not reference to transsexuality here, Example Three -again not reference to transsexuality here, Example Four -again not mentioning of transsexuality here,Example Five -again without references to transsexuality, only to HBS and so on and on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk)
- The first two examples are the same article (2 is a Spanish translation of 1). The others appear to be just trivial mentions that happen to use the name HSB, they're not actually discussions of the dispute (which is what CoM asked for). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No trivial at all, these are full articles referring exclusively to Harry Benjamin's Syndrome without mention of transsexuality (except in Example One that the journalist confuses a bit the things, but not in Example Two where journalist Daniel Schweimler corrects the mistake). Anyway I wish you a good discussion here, I am off to a trip in a couple of hours, so don't miss me so much, goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk • contribs)
- Examples 1-2 have been covered. Example 3 refers to the subject of the article as a transsexual, directly contradicting "keep" supporters here. Example 4, astoundingly, refers to Goiar as a doctor. Is she? I can find ZERO other references to her being a doctor; if she is not, then the natural assumption is that either she misrepresented herself to the author of the article or the writer isn't concerned about facts and accuracy. Either way, the article is suspect at best. Example 5 just summarizes Example 4, which again is suspect at best. --B.Rossow · talk 19:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a broader article subject where this fringe diagnosis (if that's the accurate description) can be included appropriately? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See previous AfD where this was previously decided prior to the recreation of the article. --B.Rossow · talk 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As best I can glean from the references, HBS isn't even a "fringe diagnosis". It's just a word Claire M., by her own statement, "coined". What matters here is that the coinage hasn't caught on enough to be reported by reliable sources. If it were, it could be covered, fringe or not. Same with the movement supporting HBS. But neither is, so it's a redirect at most. The previous AfD includes the word "autocunniphilic". I wonder whether that boggler has the same coiner. PhGustaf (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See previous AfD where this was previously decided prior to the recreation of the article. --B.Rossow · talk 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a broader article subject where this fringe diagnosis (if that's the accurate description) can be included appropriately? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples 1-2 have been covered. Example 3 refers to the subject of the article as a transsexual, directly contradicting "keep" supporters here. Example 4, astoundingly, refers to Goiar as a doctor. Is she? I can find ZERO other references to her being a doctor; if she is not, then the natural assumption is that either she misrepresented herself to the author of the article or the writer isn't concerned about facts and accuracy. Either way, the article is suspect at best. Example 5 just summarizes Example 4, which again is suspect at best. --B.Rossow · talk 19:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No trivial at all, these are full articles referring exclusively to Harry Benjamin's Syndrome without mention of transsexuality (except in Example One that the journalist confuses a bit the things, but not in Example Two where journalist Daniel Schweimler corrects the mistake). Anyway I wish you a good discussion here, I am off to a trip in a couple of hours, so don't miss me so much, goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk • contribs)
- The first two examples are the same article (2 is a Spanish translation of 1). The others appear to be just trivial mentions that happen to use the name HSB, they're not actually discussions of the dispute (which is what CoM asked for). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, in lots of independent media Example One,Example Two -there is not reference to transsexuality here, Example Three -again not reference to transsexuality here, Example Four -again not mentioning of transsexuality here,Example Five -again without references to transsexuality, only to HBS and so on and on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.153.211 (talk)
That's enough! I find shameful and disgusting the full "investigation" made up by users Brossow and Rjanag about the possible IPs used by user Charlotte Goiar and about her very person and her work User Brossow talk page (vid. comments above), trying to discredit her and her opinions about this matter. I created this article for the sole purpose of spreading knowledge on Harry Benjamin's Syndrome to all those people interested in it, not to query the spotless work of a person (Charlotte Goiar) whom I don't have the chance to know, but whose work helping people suffering from this Syndrome is simply praiseworthy, as can clearly be inferred from the work displayed on her website [11]. I think it is ridiculous the discuss over the "notability" and the "reliability" of the term "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome" and the suitability of an article on such Syndrome, after having seen that terms at least as "notable" and "reliable" as the one discussed, like Third genderThird sex, genderqueer or queer heterosexual, have their own safe place on Wikipedia with extensive articles entitled with them, and no one thinks about their deletion. Is it necessary to remind user Jokestress, who nominated this article for deletion, that not a single biologist or scientist would EVER state that there is a third sex in humans or a third gender? Do we have to remind the other users who objected to this article that a word so used in this discussion such as "transgender", in opposition to "transsexual", was almost unthinkable only ten years ago? What is a queer heterosexual? What right does theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick hold in order to create a "queer theory" and why doesn't the one who created the Harry Benjamin's Syndrome term have it as well, especially when it's being a syndrome treated by doctors all over the world for more than 40 years? I strongly believe that Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, can no longer remain indifferent to those terms such as "Third sex", "genderqueer" or "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome" that may not be officially recognized but which are a part of society, and have a reflection in newspapers, the Internet or mass media. This has been proved above with the external links of newspapers that mentioned the term which is being discussed. Nevertheless, since I see here that my article has made such bad reactions arise, with personal attacks being involved, I ask for the deletion of this article if it is considered to be of help in order to stop it. Thank you. Marta314 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many scientific and medical articles on gender reassignment and gender dysphoria that refer to Harry Benjamin and the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association. There are no scientific or medical articles that refer specifically to Harry Benjamin Syndrome as a specific type of gender dysphoria. It may be a colloquialism that is common among LBGT persons, but there are insufficient reliable sources to show this, and the current article suffers from soapboxing, synthesis and original research. As far as CharlotteGoiar is concerned, anyone may participate in article discussions on Wikipedia, but they are not allowed to pretend to be 3 different people. Thatcher 22:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section break and reconsideration
- Harry Benjamin is an important figure in the study of transsexualism. The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association was named for him and their standard of care for transgendered persons have been widely adopted. (Read, for example, the abtracts to PMID 16267416, PMID 12917087, and PMID 19556952.) It appears, however, that Harry Benjamin Syndrome is not a recognized medical term for sexual dysphoria due to chemical imbalances in the brain. Therefore most of this article is original research and possibly soapboxing; also misleading quoting of sources is a serious concern. Redirect to Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association. Thatcher 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC) (The current redirect of HBS to Transsexualism#Alternative_terminology is probably acceptable as well, although the text there needs some work. Thatcher 21:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points. The Harry Benjamin Association page, though, says the Association is dedicated to mainstream notions of gender dysphoria, and the HBS group distance themselves from that. I do see it as a matter of terminology, and the second link suggested works with that. PhGustaf (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Transsexualism#Alternative_terminology. This diagnosis is noted in the BBC news source and is at least mentioned in other news sources. Providing information to those searching for this term and noting that this diagnosis exists seems to be in the best interest of our readers. We can duke it out there over how the content should be phrased. :) The unsourced "incorrect" designation there now is a bit much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The BBC source says, "The decision ends a long-running legal process for Nati, who suffers from the transsexual disorder known as Harry Benjamin Syndrome". This sort of casual en passant mention is not, in my opinion, sufficient to establish HBS as a diagnosis. A scientific source would be good, but there don't seem to be any. You really don't want to trust most reporters with science. The redirect is fine. PhGustaf (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You suggest once again redirect to "Transsexualism"; may I ask you then why is not genderqueer redirected to transgender according to your reasoning? Thanks Marta314 (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe they should be. "Other crap exists so this should exist also" is not generally considered a valid argument in these discussions. The issue is, for example, whether there is sufficient reliable sources that support the creation of a separate article for the term, instead of as a brief mention in another article. Gender identification is extremely complex, and it would be a very foolish scientist who would say that all transgender and intersex persons are due to psychological trauma, or that all transgender and intersex is due to biological changes. Harry Benjamin Syndrome is referred to en passant in a BBC article and a Mirror article about the same case; it is use on some LGBT blogs and advocacy web sites. It may very well be a term used by some transgender/intersex persons to refer to themselves. At present, however, there are insufficient independent reliable sources to support a separate article, without relying on non-reliable sources and improper synthesis and original research. Thatcher 22:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am a neurobiologist, not an endocrinologist, so I decided to do some looking into this condition. I found nothing on pubmed which describes a specific condition by this name, tho this article may seem to back up the claims of such a condition- that brain gender is developed during fetal development and not later. However, since I could not find this specific condition listed anywhere in a reliable source, then I have to opine that it be deleted. My apologies to those who may find this offensive. I would advocate that articles in reliable scientific sources- or medical text books- may help turn the opinion. Basket of Puppies 23:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I think there is some research on brain development and how it relates to transgenderism, but there is no diagnosis or condition by the name of HBS so the article is original research by way of synthesis, perhaps to support a term that is colloquially used by some transgendered persons but with insufficient sources to support a stand alone article. Thatcher 23:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed; I am not a neurobiologist but a cognitive neuroscientist, and I too found nothing other than pseudoscience (including, regrettably, in the Nature article cited on Goiar's website... although, in Nature's defense, the Nature article itself isn't too bad, what's bad is the unfounded conclusions Goiar is leaping to from that article). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- also @BasketofPuppies: actually, the pubmed article you link above could be seen as evidence against HBS as Goiar construes it. Much of Goiar's website rants about how "physical gender" is not determined by hormones, but that the brain has gender independently (differentiated by neurocytological architecture itself). This article, though, says (in the abstract, at least; I haven't read the full article) that their conclusion is that brain and behavioral sex differentiation is caused by hormonal influence—just the opposite of what Goiar is trying to say. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is actually an extremely fascinating topic, but I doubt that this AfD is the appropriate place to discuss it. :) Is there a forum available for discussion? Basket of Puppies 01:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry but it is unfairly true to state that there are no scientific nor medical mentions of this Syndrome; in Charlotte Goiar's website there is a collection of articles signed by doctors on that Syndrome; take, for instance, this article signed by Argentinian Psychiatrist Doctor Ignacio A. Lutzky [12]; though it is in Spanish, I could translate it for you if you desire; it talks about Harry Benjamin's Syndrome as an intersex condition and a summary of the notion captured in the article nominated for deletion; that document is signed by a Doctor and it bears his professional association number, so I do not find a reason why we should suspect it is a fake; we find also an article by the Argentinian Surgeon Doctor Pablo Maldonado on Goiar's website, [13] that I could translate for you too, if you wish, and the proof that it is not a fake relies on the external link to his website; therefore, it cannot be said that there are no medical mentions of such Syndrome in pubmeds. Marta314 (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If these doctors wrote an article discussing HBS as a new diagnosis for a subset of TG patients (with differential diagnosis, etc), and it was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, then it would be acceptable as a reliable source. As the situation stands today, the term seems to be an informal term used by some doctors and some TG persons that is not officially recognized. You could potentially write an article that says "HBS is an informal term for a subset of TG persons used by some doctors" but you still need independently published reliable sources on this; letters from individual doctors posted on an advocacy web site is just not enough. Thatcher 13:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry but it is unfairly true to state that there are no scientific nor medical mentions of this Syndrome; in Charlotte Goiar's website there is a collection of articles signed by doctors on that Syndrome; take, for instance, this article signed by Argentinian Psychiatrist Doctor Ignacio A. Lutzky [12]; though it is in Spanish, I could translate it for you if you desire; it talks about Harry Benjamin's Syndrome as an intersex condition and a summary of the notion captured in the article nominated for deletion; that document is signed by a Doctor and it bears his professional association number, so I do not find a reason why we should suspect it is a fake; we find also an article by the Argentinian Surgeon Doctor Pablo Maldonado on Goiar's website, [13] that I could translate for you too, if you wish, and the proof that it is not a fake relies on the external link to his website; therefore, it cannot be said that there are no medical mentions of such Syndrome in pubmeds. Marta314 (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is actually an extremely fascinating topic, but I doubt that this AfD is the appropriate place to discuss it. :) Is there a forum available for discussion? Basket of Puppies 01:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User Thatcher, to say that "HBS is a subset of TGism" is the typical argument used by many TG people without any conceptual basis that supports it. If you want to be taken seriously then you should retract from expressing these false assumptions. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs)
- I don't have a view on HBS, having never heard of it before yesterday. The issue is that Wikipedia articles collect and summarize information from reliable independent sources. If the reliable independent sources say that HBS is a medical diagnosis for some TG patients, that's what the article will say. If the reliable independent sources say that HBS is a misnomer applied by some TG persons to themselves, that's what the article will say. If the reliable independent sources say that Harry Benjamin syndrome is a condition in freshwater aquaria caused by not changing the water often enough, that's what the Wikipedia article will say. The key is that there simple are no independent reliable sources describing Harry Benjamin Syndrome. Thatcher 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the reliable independent sources for to back up Wikipedia existing articles such as Third Sex or Queer Heterosexual? By the way the theory that gender identity is socially constructed is finally shattered and by contrast the theory that prenatally established brain and CNS structures determine innate gender feelings and gender identity is finally established quoting Lynn Conway: "These are dramatic, unprecedented, undeniable observations that shift the previous paradigm of thought, and do so in an area of science that had been subject to much misinformation and taboo. In Galileo's case, the shift was from an 'earth-centered universe' to a 'sun-centered universe'. In the cases here, the shift is away from a 'genitals + upbringing' theory of gender identity to a 'CNS neurobiological developmental' theory of gender identity. The implications of this paradigm shift are far reaching, especially for those who suffer from cross-gender identities. Instead of those gender feelings being considered to be "psychological", they can now be understood as being "neurological" in nature." further supporting the sourcing of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.150.80 (talk • contribs)
- Oh my goodness, you sure got us there! The long-standing theory of gender identity has finally been shattered...on someone's personal website! I especially love how she shatters the theory using a bunch of broken urls—a real shining beacon of science, there. We'd all better watch out....
- And by the way, the writer of that website, Lynn Conway, is described as a "transgender activist"...aren't those the people who are supposed to hate you so much? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've explained this before, this is the last time because I have more important things to do right now. The argument "Other crap exists so this should too" is not a valid argument for keeping this article; it may be a valid argument for reconsidering the other articles you mentioned. But Third sex has 78 references covering about 60+ independent reliable sources, so your argument doesn't even work there. There is an argument made here that "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" is the proper name for the condition formerly known as intense True Transsexualism. That is an argument made on an advocacy web site and is not a reliable source. There are articles cited on the web site under the heading "MEDICAL RESEARCH NEWS" that discuss various biological findings in transsexual persons, but none of them mention HBS, or define HBS as a condition, or adopt HBS as medical diagnosis. Writing an article here that cites these sources as proof that HBS is real is called original research and synthesis. Original research and synthesis are not allowed. Wikipedia only reports things that have already been published and widely adopted in reliable sources. The current article on transsexualism leaves much to be desired. It might be useful, for example, to discuss the scientific findings and social and cultural issues in separate articles, where findings on biological changes would be useful. But the simple fact is that Harry Benjamin Syndrome is a term adopted by an advocacy web site that is not supported or used by the medical and scientific community, and not even widely used in the TG community. Thatcher 15:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they criticized Galileo too, though hundreds of years later his ideas were common sense... As Galileo before being burnt, I rectify: I ask for the article's deletion (not a redirect, of course). Marta314 (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You should read the guidelines WP:Crystal and WP:Up and coming next big thing. Arguments saying "well, this is going to be really big in the future!" aren't helpful here; Wikipedia is only concerned with the state of the field now. If HBS is going to be the next Galileo, we can write about HBS after that happens. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I move to have this closed. Once the !votes of sockpuppets are discounted, the only person voting keep is the IP 213.x, who was also under suspicion of being a sockpuppet (the checkuser found no definitive evidence that it's connected with Goiar's IPs, but no definitive evidence that it's independent either). Even Marta314, the article's creator, has asked for it to be removed. Whether to delete or redirect it can be taken up elsewhere; it is already clear per WP:SNOW, though, that there is absolutely no consensus to keep the article, and leaving this AfD open will just encourage further disruption. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please let the discussion run its course. I don't see cause for a speedy close. The closer can weigh the arguments. Comments that are disruptive should be removed, but I encourage patience. There has actually been some good and interesting discussion and investigation in this process so let's finish what it according to normal procedures. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aswering Rjanag question: Lynn Conway is considered to be a transgender activist however she doesn't suffer from HBS phobia. She shows respect for the HBS community as showed in this very long article published at her website (Reference 8 of this article) where Harry Benjamin Syndrome is the term used for diagnosis, scroll down and read the entire page for to verify this. Therefore, we have another more independent source added to the many exposed above (mass media, Google, etc..). And by the way, she shatters the theory of gender as a social construct very well, further supporting the sourcing of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 11:56, September 25, 2009 (talk • contribs) 213.60.150.80
- First, you really need to start appending four ~ symbols to the end of your posts, so we can identify who is commenting. Please do so in the future.
- Second, what you've linked is just a personal account of her experiences, not a reliable secondary source. It's effectively a blog-style editorial, which does nothing to show this is anything more than a neologism. It really sounds like some people are trying to get this term to be commonly used, but it's not reached the point where we have books or scholarly papers on the subject, which means it's too new to warrant a Wikipedia article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I support people's right to self-refer as they wish, but in various place this encyclopedia presents HBS as a diagnosis using sources that do not refer to HBS specifically. It fails on various counts, such as WP:NEO, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and worse than this, it misrepresents HBS as a genuine diagnosis rather than a self-identity label, potentially misleading readers that such a diagnosis exists. Deleting the article will help avoid this for the article, and ensure that references to HBS elsewhere are forced to source themselves on their own merits. I have responded because of the notice on the Sexology project. I'd support it being kept if phrased in a way that avoided these problems, such as 'The HBS movement', but as it stands it is a poor article full of material that is unsourced, unreliable, or misusing source - hence the heavy tagging. Mish (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am hesitant to say that a term that is so widely used is a neologism or non-notable. Whether it has currency in medical or scientific circles or not does not prevent it from being notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Scholarly research and scientific acceptance are not necessary for this to be notable. Notability comes from outside medical circles at this point, though there are some doctors and governments that are using the term. 213.60.150.80 (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is widely used amongst people who use it self-referentially, which is a minority even within the trans community. Whether it is notable enough to include does not justify it being used to describe a medical syndrome that is not described as such by medical authorities. Scholarly research and scientific acceptance are necessary for it to be described as a medical syndrome. Do you have any description of or reference to this syndrome from an official government source (beyond the primary source originating from a Spanish Notary) or medical directive (ICD.10, for example)? Mish (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Don't even bother, MishMish...the IP is just going to point you to Goiar's self-published website over and over again.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is widely used amongst people who use it self-referentially, which is a minority even within the trans community. Whether it is notable enough to include does not justify it being used to describe a medical syndrome that is not described as such by medical authorities. Scholarly research and scientific acceptance are necessary for it to be described as a medical syndrome. Do you have any description of or reference to this syndrome from an official government source (beyond the primary source originating from a Spanish Notary) or medical directive (ICD.10, for example)? Mish (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I am pointing Conway's self-published website. Although there are other self-published websites as well as this one. 213.60.150.80 (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's the point we're trying to make. Self-published websites can only be used to show what a person has said, not to reference facts. In an article about Conway, we could cite that website for Conway's opinions. But it's not a valid source for demonstrating that HBS is a term used outside a fringe group in the TS community. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect – the only ocurrence in a book says its another term for transsexualism, and we already have an article on that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No redirects please; if it is a term used "outside a fringe group in the TS community" to differentiate between them and transsexuals, it is rather unfair to redirect it to them, don't you think so? Marta314 (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you've already said that many times, we already know what you think. But for what it's worth, it's not going to redirect to the whole transsexualism article; it would be redirected to the specific section that discusses HBS. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redirect, and protect - this was an attempt to circumvent consensus that was established a few months ago. Harry Benjamin's Syndrome was an article that was developed as it became evident that the people at WP:RfD (myself included) were taking no part of the edit war in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 19#Harry Benjamin Syndrome. This was an edit war at RfD; it's one here, and aside from a couple of people with agendas, there has been nothing new since the first AfD to indicate the need to overturn consensus. The similar Harry Benjamin Syndrome was protected as a result of the earlier edit war; the same should be done here after the article is converted into a redirect. Those who want an article of this name should heed Wikipedia policy and start convincing (and not by shouting over) the editors in the appropriate Wikiproject before the edit war could get even more out of hand.B.Wind (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Installation permitting guidance for hydrogen and fuel cells stationary applications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As can be seen from the Google searches, this thing has only 35 Google hits, and its 3 Google Scholar hits are in-house. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 23:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 14:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable, no secondary sources. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Starship Troupers (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 series by notable SF writer; no substantial sources, no assertion of notability. This one is basically a plot outline of a series that stalled after three non-notable books that went almost nowhere. Anything of value here, after being trimmed by 96-98%, could go in the article on Stasheff. Orange Mike | Talk 23:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not pass WP:BK along with lacking any independent sources. I've done a Google search and failed to find anything beyond entries on book databases. XenocideTalk|Contributions 23:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I should be able to dig up some reviews later. The series got a fair bit of coverage at the time, as I recall. I quite liked them on release, and remember reading reviews in the usual magazines. Unfortunately, they were released from 1991-1994, so while not technically predating the web, there are unlikely to be online reviews from reliable sources, hence the need to turn to print. As mentioned, the writer is notable, so a new series from him wasn't going to pass without commentary. - Bilby (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 14:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep and Major Revise first book may (barely) meet notability requirements. Article needs serious shortening. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I went ahead and deleted the extraneous plot summary stuff.Simonm223 (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteunable to find meaningful sources... there were passing "capsule" mentions in a LexisNexis search, but no meaningful reviews or other information that could be used to prove notability. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment So this: ^ Cassada, Jackie (September 15, 1991). "A Company of Stars". Library Journal 116 (15): 117. doesn't count?
- I don't know... the source didn't appear in my search, and I do not have access to it to judge its contents. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added that one. It is the usual Library Journal review. All the books were also reviewed in Locus, and appear to have been reviewed in Analog. I also remember reviews in SFX, but all are only available in print. - Bilby (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - most SF works are reviewed in Locus and one or more of the pulps; that doesn't make them necessarily fit the standard set out in WP:BK of "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.". LJ qualifies as a "work serving a general audience"; but not sure the others really do (except for trufen like myself). Heck, otherwise I'd argue that every book I reviewed for Dragon was thus made notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added that one. It is the usual Library Journal review. All the books were also reviewed in Locus, and appear to have been reviewed in Analog. I also remember reviews in SFX, but all are only available in print. - Bilby (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know... the source didn't appear in my search, and I do not have access to it to judge its contents. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, although I suspect SFX is for a more general audience than Locus. That said, this series would have been reviewed elsewhere - Stasheff was of note at the time. But a 1991 release makes online reviews unlikely. - Bilby (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, If SFX you are talking about is the UK mag I have most issues. Give me details and I will look it up. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing deletion nomination - reliable sources have been provided. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that a good deal of this article was removed by this edit. I would agree that the plot summary was overly long, but WP:PLOT is quite clear that "Plot-only description of fictional works." are inappropriate, whereas "A concise plot summary is sometimes appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." Anarchangel (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I replied on the relevant talk page to your concerns. Not averse to restoration of a concise plot summary. What was there was not concise. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Robo.to (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not pass GNG due to the fact that there is only a single reliable source listed. Further, I'm not sure what the policy for Apple applications is, but if every one had an article there would be over 10,000 new articles. XenocideTalk|Contributions 23:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:N.. South Bay (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete per author's request at the article page, and talk page. JamieS93 23:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CARE Pest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Care Pest & Wildlife Control – note that primary editor moved the article to this location after the start of the AfD.
Company with no indication of notability WP:CORP from reliable sources outside of a local scope. Contested PROD. Trying to assume good faith, but this is possibly spam (due to the user name of the primary editor) and there is no evidence that the "notable employees" section is anything more than WP:COI. --Kinu t/c 23:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not pass WP:CORP due to lack of significant coverage in the media, along with no reliable sources being provided to confirm notability. XenocideTalk|Contributions 23:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable, and article reads like promotional material.119.224.57.190 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 14:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I live in Vancouver and am familiar with the nature of the citations provided; the first and third are certainly trivial (in that they would offer nothing in the way of informed analysis or comment) and the second, CBC, is likely trivial. I see this media attention as a coatrack for the company's use of dogs to sniff out bedbugs (currently rampant in Vancouver); admittedly this is an interesting use of detection dogs, but one that lends no notability to the company, IMHO. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. The individual bios are particularly non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to BITS-Pilani,_Goa_Campus. Black Kite 23:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quark : Innovation Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article has no independent sources XenocideTalk|Contributions 23:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only reference is the school magazine. NO references found elsewise. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Recent edit shows reference to an article in a daily, mentioning presence of a notable dignitary at the event.
eNVy™ 01:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Still doesn't make it notable. Unless, of course, Magic Johnson showing up at your house makes your house notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If Magic Johnson showed up and an independent source reported it, it is notable. The link to an independent, verifiable and nationally accredited source is provided on the page as of this edit.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into BITS-Pilani, Goa Campus. There is some news media coverage of the 2009 festival [14], but it is largely a reprint of the organizer's press release [15], and thus borderline independent. However, the coverage is sufficient for verifiability purposes, and the festival can be mentioned in the article on the university. Abecedare (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Festival been cited by National Dailies The Hindu, Times of India and Robots Showcased at this festival have won the International RoboSoccer Event in USA this year Acyut. Former President of India Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam innaugrated and delivered lecture in 2009. International Performers Feeding the Fish among others drew crowds from across the nation to this event. Reference to Goa could be made as this is the largest Techical festival in this otherwise touristy region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.160.101 (talk)
- Merge. The 2009 article in the Times of India is a bit thin on details, but is coverage in a reliable source. The material from The Hindu appears to be more a press release than journalism, and not good enough to rely upon. Much of the article is largely self-sourced, and should probably be removed, but the well-referenced parts can be merged into the existing section in the BITS article. TheFeds 22:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Needs expansion and better sources. Tone 22:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Naseem Vicky (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 and WP:ENT . 1 mention in gnews [16]. created by an editor who was only on WP for 1 day. Unless someone can find something in Urdu... LibStar (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Seems to be notable in Pakisten. Unless Pakistani contributors provide reliable, verifiable and independent sources, this page is candidate to be deleted Rirunmot (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Received an award (or maybe an "award" from NME for a goofy video [17]; seems to be enough out there to infer notability from, despite lack of English-language sources. Article badly needs attention from editor familiar with general subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I don't read Urdu, all I can do is just pick out the Persian or Arabic words in Urdu text. But I see his name in lots of newspaper headlines on regular Google search and he seems to have some sort of involvement in theatre: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Patrol magazine (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 not established for internet magazine. Sources given are primary sources or from sources that are not reliable, such as a blog. Google search does not help. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I also can't find significant discussion of the magazine from reliable, third-party sources. ThemFromSpace 02:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 14:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One of many websites that hasn't attracted national attention. Mandsford (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MuZemike 23:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- U-S-A! cheer (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 poorly sourced, citations to an editorial that mentions the chant in passing, a youtube video and other poor sources. The article does nothing to establish the importance of this cheer or document it in any encyclopedic way. More a random collection of references to this cheer than a real article. Bonewah (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable, needs improvement and more sources, but there is no deadline. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Please do not delete this article. It may have its faults, but clearly and succinctly explains the origin of the cheer (with links to articles related to the Olympic games of that year) and a highly accurate exemplification of when it seems to be currently used in modern popular culture (i.e. the Simpsons and Springer example). Indeed, it was a context similar to this that prompted me to search for this article in the first place. Deleting it, or incorporating it as a subsection in a detailed and full account of the Olympics in which it occurred would be to minimize and distort the fact that the cheer now exists as a separate and unique entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.146.58.212 (talk • contribs) — 112.146.58.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and regular-strength improve. this article about freed Kuwaiti hostages suggests that the chant is known and used throughout the world (unless it developed spontaneously elsewhere), and this one discusses using the chant to drown out protestors. I think there's the germ of a decent article here, though I admit there's also a real chance of it veering into an essay.Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Coverage is sufficient. Needs work. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable New seeker (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Needs cleanup, not deletion. B.Rossow talkcontr 14:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think I might not be so inclined to delete this if the sources weren't so utterly awful. Bonewah (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article is pretty bad, but it does contain real content (I did learn something from it). Its problems can be resolved through normal editing. Gruntler (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There seems to be original research here. "Found pride vicariously through the players" has no source. I watched the you tube video and did not hear any USA chant, nor did the announcers make any comment about it. There is no source for the assertion that the "chant became a fixture of the remaining games." The article then makes the unsourced statement that it has been "spontaneously chanted" at events and attempts to prove this statement by giving several examples. As far as the examples given, delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not a good article, but it does seem to be a notable subject. The origin at the '80 Winter Olympics is verified by this NYT article:[18] and this book, Miracle on Ice:[19] It was chanted by WTC rescuers when Bush visited,[20] by sports fans when the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001,[21], by Kuwaiti hostages who were freed after the Gulf War:[22], by the crowd when Bush pitched at the Yankee's stadium in October 2001:[23], and by Americans watching Rambo in movie theatres:[24] It's iconic. It was also used at McCain rallies to drown out protesters:[25]. Also see this analysis of pro-Gulf War protests: "All over the country, whenever there was a pro-war demonstration, crowds chanted "USA USA!" The lack of specific content in the chant in favor of empty patriotism contrasted with the anti-war chants and slogans that always had a specific content".[26] Martha Nussbaum made a similar analysis: "I went to [a baseball game] at Chicago's Comiskey Park, the first game played there after September 11 - and a game against the Yankees, so there was a heightened awareness of the situation of New York and its people. Things began well, with a moving ceremony commemorating the firefighters who had lost their lives, and honoring local firefighters who had gone to New York afterwards to help out. There was even a lot of cheering when the Yankees took the field, a highly unusual transcendence of local attachments. But as the game went on and the beer flowed, one heard, increasingly, the chant "U-S-A. U-S-A," a chant left over from the Olympic hockey match in which the U. S. defeated Russia. This chant seemed to express a wish for America to defeat, abase, humiliate its enemies. Indeed, it soon became a general way of expressing the desire to crush one's enemies, whoever they were. When the umpire made a bad call that went against the Sox, the same group in the stands turned to him, chanting "U-S-A." In other words, anyone who crosses us is evil, and should be crushed."[27] Fences&Windows 23:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MuZemike 23:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CDS Invenio (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 find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently it's used to manage hundreds of thousands of papers on particle physics: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/. I would hold onto it. I also found some Google News articles from around 2005-06 if you search for 'CDSware'. Leoniceno (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 03:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 03:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. The software is indeed used a lot, but no significant coverage (under either name) is available through Google searches. If good indications of notability (not popularity) can be provided, the article can of course be kept. Fram (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Leoniceno. I also listed it for rescue. --Mokhov (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I am a new editor, but article does not seem to be sourced well. My search did not produce much result.Editor for hire (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC) — Editor for hire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Weak keep per Leoniceno. B.Rossow talkcontr 14:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Poker Pack (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 article should have been speedied as it was created by a single purpose account as a promotional advert. The notable individuals mentioned have articles. Existing article has no actual content except a list of accomplishmenst of the different individuals. Online mentions are press releases. 2005 (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is a notable poker group. The page needs sourcing and cleaning up but is primarily factual. Plenty of sources available - [28][29][30][31][32][33][34] etc TerriersFan (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Four of those six links are press releases or only mention the group in passing. Two could meet the minimum qualification for notability if someone was being generous. However, the entire existing article is a COI advert. A short stub could be made listing the players and using the Pokerlistings and Tightpoker articles as references. 2005 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine stub it (or I can in due course) because certainly the 'Tournament Success' section is OTT and unnecessary. I accept that there is a COI and I'm not defending the present form of the page. The point that I'm making is that this group is notable in poker circles and it is for editorial action, not deletion, to turn this into an objective article. TerriersFan (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Four of those six links are press releases or only mention the group in passing. Two could meet the minimum qualification for notability if someone was being generous. However, the entire existing article is a COI advert. A short stub could be made listing the players and using the Pokerlistings and Tightpoker articles as references. 2005 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete I fail to see the relevance or notability. Not every group of people on the planet merits an entry here. B.Rossow talkcontr 14:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete A pity because he's well deserving of more notability, but I cannot disagree with the arguments below. Kevin (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contrary to what the biography states, there's nothing I can find that proves Church is notable. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, nothing to indicate notability. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 14:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hookers & Blow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Band appears to be non-notable, and it seems unlikely that any band won an Emmy. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A supergroup won an emmy for best cover band after performing at a Hard Rock Cafe? Not likely. No sources, no info, this doesn't seem likely at all. Aside from bad formatting, this sounds like a fantasy rock band. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Looks like a hoax to me.- RUL3R*trolling*vandalism 02:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- My bad. There actually exists a band with this name! Anyway, delete as a non notable band. No published albums, seems to be a live-performance cover band, or something similar. - RUL3R*trolling*vandalism 02:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 13:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nomination thw subject is an unknown. BC Rocky (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Telephone Game (Movie) (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 PROD. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Massive self-promotion; note how it says more about the cast and crew than about the film. An earlier version of the article actually contained exernal links to each person's individual website!
No non-superficial Ghits; most are self-published, with a couple of basic directory listings. Author's claim that the film will become notable once it's been screened at festivals contravenes Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. The JPStalk to me 21:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. OK, so when the author's claims are met, we can have an article. Unfortunately, we're not a crystal ball, so we have no way of verifying that it will be notable until then - so we delete for now, and recreate if/when it does happen. Good luck. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm the one who put up the original PROD. This is much like an album coming out independently next year. Just too early. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 02:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 14:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lemme know when it comes to a theater. Mandsford (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Best of Fish Dish (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 find significant coverage for this album Joe Chill (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage that I can find, either. B.Rossow talkcontr 14:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Some of the arguments presented during this AfD are confusing to say the least, but regardless, it appears that there is no consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trek73 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As per article talk page, there seems to be a lack of notability to support this article. The references given after the last AfD are pretty lacking, they simply describe the game as having been played in a university and by two people in particular. I checked (as per the article talk page) on Google, Googlebooks and Googlenews and could find nothing else other than personal websites on the game. Perhaps my Google-fu is weak, but I would like it noted that I had searched and am not using this Afd for general article cleanup. Alastairward (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More comment later, but it might be worth checking out the sources claimed here. The sixth paragraph notes some places where the game was published in the 1970s. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That paragraph is discussing descendants of Mike Mayfield's Star Trek game (covered in depth at Star Trek (text game)), not Trek73 which is an unrelated game.--Chris Johnson (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. My mistake. Protonk (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No mistake, the article clearly talks about the Trek'73 under discussion here, and links to a port of it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Protonk was hoping to use the SCCS INTERFACE and Peoples Computer Company journal publications as sources for this article. I was pointing out that those were about a different game. The article discusses Trek73 later on but doesn't point to any publications about it. --Chris Johnson (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Too bad that article is just floating on someone's web site. It could qualify as coverage for both versions of the game if it was a reliable source. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Protonk was hoping to use the SCCS INTERFACE and Peoples Computer Company journal publications as sources for this article. I was pointing out that those were about a different game. The article discusses Trek73 later on but doesn't point to any publications about it. --Chris Johnson (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No mistake, the article clearly talks about the Trek'73 under discussion here, and links to a port of it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. My mistake. Protonk (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That paragraph is discussing descendants of Mike Mayfield's Star Trek game (covered in depth at Star Trek (text game)), not Trek73 which is an unrelated game.--Chris Johnson (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Article in question is NOTE through Hackers, Steve Levy's widely read book which has its own article here. Link provided in the article, and mentioned in on the talk page. Passing mentioned, but several independent websites and personal histories round it out, including http://www.decodesystems.com/hp2000/] [35] [36] [37] etc. These demonstrate that it's not just "two people in particular", and the presence of many ports, some of them modern, demonstrate continued interest. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All I was looking for were some reliable, third party sources, that provide more than trivial mention of the source material. There are a lot of fan sites certainly, I found those through the Google search that I performed already. Alastairward (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much the entire history of early computing is not available via Internet research. Journals and magazines of the 1970s and 1980s have not been fully indexed and made available on line though Google Books says Trek73 has a mention in one of the issues of Byte magazine from 1976.
- The current on-line evidence of notability for Trek73, and games such as Adventure, is that there's continued fan interest 35 years later. One surprise is no one has written a recent RS article about how some of early computing devices and applications continue to attract interest today. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Marc, regarding your point about internet research, two out of four "references" already given in the article are from books. The information seems to be out there about such games, in this case it just seems that there isn't anything significant about it to merit a non-trivial article in a reliable source. Don't you think that there might be something to your second paragraph, that there doesn't seem to be a recent RS article given the supposed continued interest? Alastairward (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: An important piece of computing history notable per above and per the article. Previous AfD found no consensus for delete but led to a botched merge from which the article was rescued (note that Trek73 is a text Star Trek game but is not related to the Star Trek (text game)) --Kkmurray (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, wouldn't this notability be reflected in more than a trivial mention? Alastairward (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don’t think that the consensus view is that the references are trivial.--Kkmurray (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So I've been told, but nobody has been kind enough to elaborate. As I said before, all that seems to be sure from the references, is that the game was worked upon by certain programmers and was popular in an American university. Surely if there's something more to be taken from them, you or the others building this consensus can simply state it? Why else would this have reached AfD? Alastairward (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don’t think that the consensus view is that the references are trivial.--Kkmurray (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I know that "I remember playing this" is not an argument for keep, but it was one of the early computer games, with results printed on teletype, and popular at college computer labs. Citation to verifiable sources is enough to confirm notability. Mandsford (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than Maury Markowitz's second link above, I can see no sources which are both reliable (by our standards; people's recollections on their personal websites are not really sufficient) and non-trivial. It is important to reiterate that merely being played by a number of people in the early days of computing is not sufficient for us; we must rely predominantly on non-trivial secondary sources upon which to base the article, and there's only one of them right now. I'm willing to accept that such sources may well exist, but if those strongly arguing for a keep are going to break the cycle of this getting repeatedly AFDed then they have to be located and added to the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So then you agree that link in question passes muster? So then it's a keep? Excellent! Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to elaborate on how it establishes notability (that's all I've been asking all along)? Alastairward (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Repectfully, I rather think you've missed the point of my comment. While I may be convinced that the article has potentially to be reliably sourced on this occasion, that there is one single solitary RS which gives the subject non-trivial coverage right now is problematic. That needs to be addressed to break this cycle. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I meant that question for Maury. Alastairward (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My reply was directed at Maury. I agree with your sentiments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I meant that question for Maury. Alastairward (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So then you agree that link in question passes muster? So then it's a keep? Excellent! Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I absolutely sucked at this game when I played it in the mid-70s using a teletype connected to the DG Nova at LHS. There, is that the reliable third party source or should I see if the teletype printouts are still at my mother's house? :-) Seriously - the game attracted a huge amount of attention. Look at this page for the number of ports. Each of those could be considered reliable independent coverage of the entire game and many are also fully referenced in that copies are available today. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they couldn't; ports are hardly independent sources. Once again, the issue here is that making out that such examples are evidence of adequate reliable sourcing may allow for the article to survive another AfD, but it will not remove the possibility of it being re-nominated in future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, by my count, only two of the linked games have anything to do with Trek73 (though a few other ports are mentioned in the text). The rest are different Trek games.--Chris Johnson (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that finding evidence of independent/reliable/secondary coverage from the 1973 to late 1970s period will be tough. One thought is Electronics (magazine) which was the "computer magazine" of the era. FWIW, a rewrite of the game may qualify as WP:GNG coverage if the independent sources show the developers put a great deal of effort in faithful duplication of the algorithms or other aspects. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is my main complaint when writing about early computer history. I call it "the internet black hole". Many topics that would be trivially easy to document today due to widespread internet presence and archiving went undocumented in the past because dead trees cost more money. And in the 70's it was considerably more expensive to publish than it is today, even in the same format. It's a bit sad that so much great history is locked up behind the paywalls of people like the IEEE and ACM and are unlikely to ever be set free. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That era is hardly unique. People did not stop documenting their experiences on pieces of dead plants just because there were new media available. We have many articles on subjects contemporary to that period which do not rely on first-hand accounts from students of the period in question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is my main complaint when writing about early computer history. I call it "the internet black hole". Many topics that would be trivially easy to document today due to widespread internet presence and archiving went undocumented in the past because dead trees cost more money. And in the 70's it was considerably more expensive to publish than it is today, even in the same format. It's a bit sad that so much great history is locked up behind the paywalls of people like the IEEE and ACM and are unlikely to ever be set free. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that finding evidence of independent/reliable/secondary coverage from the 1973 to late 1970s period will be tough. One thought is Electronics (magazine) which was the "computer magazine" of the era. FWIW, a rewrite of the game may qualify as WP:GNG coverage if the independent sources show the developers put a great deal of effort in faithful duplication of the algorithms or other aspects. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify the point about the number of ports from above, I can identify ten: Precursor $SPACE (Char, 1973), HP2000 BASIC TREK73 (Char, Perry, Lee, and Gee, 1973),[38] LHS BASIC version (Perkins, 1974), C Port (Pare, 1984), C Port (Williams, 1984), Combined Pare/Williams C port (Okamoto, Yee, 1985),[39] DOS Lattice C (Soussan, 1985), Turbo Pascal (Chu, 1985),[40] C/Curses version (Chu, 1990),[41] FreeBSD Port (Dillon, 1999).[42] --Kkmurray (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maury, this "internet black hole", is simply irrelevant. You have decided yourself that there is a great deal of history to this game, if only someone would produce a significant article on it in a reliable third party publication. That's just your own OR, if such a publication does not exist, even if you think it should, then that's that really. Notability has not been supplied, wishing hard that it should does nothing for this article. Alastairward (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Star Trek (text game). I simply don't see the sources needed for a standalone article. I realize Star Trek (text game) is primarily focused on the family of games descending from Mayfield's game, but I don't see any reason it can't be broadened to cover similar but independently created early Star Trek games like Trek73.--Chris Johnson (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The games are utterly unrelated in every possible way except their name. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Maury Markowitz and others. Given the date and topic this was darn notable for the time but unlikely to get coverage in the pre-web era. Hobit (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobit, may I ask if you would clarify please? You seem to be essentially saying that it's notable, but we can't cite that notability. That's the crux of the reason for the AfD, if it's so "darn notable" where's the cite? Alastairward (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great question. WP:N is a fine guidepost for what makes a subject notable--If there is significant coverage in RSes, it's notable and otherwise not. But it is a guideline, and not policy, for a reason. Sometimes the guideline is wrong. Here we have a topic that is important from a computer games history viewpoint but that isn't a topic covered very well by RSes. So we be _darn_ sure we are meeting WP:V and write the best article we can because we believe the topic is notable in the dictionary definition meaning "worthy of note" even if it doesn't meet the goalpost set by WP:N. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had an article deleted that I believed was notable and had similar sources to back it up. I've had articles deleted or merged that other users have been adamant were notable. None of which matter since nobody could provide sources to prove they really were notable. Nobody has done so for this article, all we have in essence is the word of the editors here. Assuming good faith is all well and good, but we can't include things on someone's promise alone. You might very well point out that this isn't a paper encyclopaedia, why not have an article on everything? Well, that would pretty much open the flood gates to so many articles that we couldn't spend the time to verify what we're adding. To counter what you said, I say that the twin goals of notable articles backed up by verified sources are worth maintaining and this article just doesn't cut it. All we can say from the sources for sure is that it was a university project and really that's it. Alastairward (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we can verify that it was felt to be an important project years ago. And yes, we trust editor's opinions. That's why we have discussions. Hobit (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had an article deleted that I believed was notable and had similar sources to back it up. I've had articles deleted or merged that other users have been adamant were notable. None of which matter since nobody could provide sources to prove they really were notable. Nobody has done so for this article, all we have in essence is the word of the editors here. Assuming good faith is all well and good, but we can't include things on someone's promise alone. You might very well point out that this isn't a paper encyclopaedia, why not have an article on everything? Well, that would pretty much open the flood gates to so many articles that we couldn't spend the time to verify what we're adding. To counter what you said, I say that the twin goals of notable articles backed up by verified sources are worth maintaining and this article just doesn't cut it. All we can say from the sources for sure is that it was a university project and really that's it. Alastairward (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great question. WP:N is a fine guidepost for what makes a subject notable--If there is significant coverage in RSes, it's notable and otherwise not. But it is a guideline, and not policy, for a reason. Sometimes the guideline is wrong. Here we have a topic that is important from a computer games history viewpoint but that isn't a topic covered very well by RSes. So we be _darn_ sure we are meeting WP:V and write the best article we can because we believe the topic is notable in the dictionary definition meaning "worthy of note" even if it doesn't meet the goalpost set by WP:N. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the sticking point, we can't verify anything other than the opinion of fans online and while it's good to know other editors are being honest, that's not the bar for the inclusion of material in Wikipedia. We have discussions not just to provide opinions, but to provide opinions on the material being added and how it can be verified and proved to be notable. Alastairward (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepEven I tried to play this game. I'd apologize for not documenting this at the time in a reliable-source fashion; I had no notion of Wikipedia's desires then. htom (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it's time to add Category:Wikipedians who have played Trek73? :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 05:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More OR? Simply remembering the game does not constitute a reliable source nor does it supply notability. Alastairward (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two separate questions here. A) Does this meet WP:N and B) does this meet WP:V. I think we have near consensus that this doesn't meet WP:N but should be kept anyways (WP:IAR if you want a rule for that, but WP:N is a guideline and not policy for a reason). Are you arguing past that and saying we can't verify the existence of the game or anywhere near enough stuff to be able to make a decent stub? Hobit (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very true. WP:NOTABILITY can be trumped if editors explain themselves well enough. A mitigating factor is the age of this game - and the editors! - which makes it harder to find reliable sources, though contemporary computer magazines will almost certainly have covered it. The game is obviously popular, which can sometimes act as a guide in lieu of significant coverage in reliable sources, though it's not a precedent I want to see set often. Fences&Windows 18:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two separate questions here. A) Does this meet WP:N and B) does this meet WP:V. I think we have near consensus that this doesn't meet WP:N but should be kept anyways (WP:IAR if you want a rule for that, but WP:N is a guideline and not policy for a reason). Are you arguing past that and saying we can't verify the existence of the game or anywhere near enough stuff to be able to make a decent stub? Hobit (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More OR? Simply remembering the game does not constitute a reliable source nor does it supply notability. Alastairward (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Hiberniantears. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Illuminati X (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable group, in my opinion fails WP:BAND. Prod template was removed with following edit summary: "why would the article be deleted? this is a rising rap group, just because you have not heard of it does not mean it is "not a notable music group". please do not delete article thanks". I still think it doesn't meet our criteria. Google Search for "Illuminati X" hip hop is not helpful. Vejvančický (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 19:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Vitale (author) (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:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Multiple editors have posted to the talk page, both noting the article's spam/advertising/vanity appearance, and its use of primary sources to websites that refer back to each other. I would tend to agree. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article does not make any claims that would qualify the subject as notable. Google books has 455 hits but after adding '-inauthor:"Joe Vitale"' to the search request that dropped it to three all of which are quotation books that take their material from WP. With Google Scholar using '-(author:"Joe Vitale" OR author:"J Vitale")' cut the list down from 325 to 60 and all 60 of these are authored by Joe Vitale. There's a lot of noise in Google News as Joe Vitale is a common name. After subtracting the musician, hockey player, soccer player, battalion chief, etc. I'm still at 719 hits from random people. I then added (metaphysics OR guru OR metaphysician). While the subject is mentioned in plenty of articles none of the ones I saw had significant coverage. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Marc Kupper and nom B.Rossow talkcontr 13:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 19:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Waste Management (t.a.t.u Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
http://dl1.tatu.ru/trailers/WasteManagement%20en.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.163.93 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Waste Management(Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although the article claims to have confirmed songs for this album, I searched Google and couldn't even find a release date, much less confirmed songs. This article thus fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL for now. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A press release from the tatu website (tatu.ru) confirming the album, and the news item from the site as well. The title was recently changed to "Happy Smiles" (from "Waste Management"). No real third-party sources available, but I guess this would not fail WP:CRYSTAL? JUJUTACULAR | TALK 21:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, speedy redirect both articles to Happy Smiles. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums &
. I personally don't see the point in a redirect due to the non-plausible nature of the title as a search term. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per other comments; at the very least, t.A.T.u isn't properly capitalized as per the proper name of the group B.Rossow talkcontr 13:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Waste Management (t.a.t.u Album), but Redirect Waste Management(Album) - since it is in use in a hatnote at Waste Management, and would be valuable to redirect those searching for it. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 14:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If the second is to be redirected, which I'm not particularly in favor of, at least fix the spacing. -- B.Rossow talkcontr 15:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Either way really. Delete both and remove the hatnote, or... delete Waste Management (t.a.t.u Album), move Waste Management(Album) to Waste Management (Album) and redirect it to Vesyolye Ulybki (Happy Smiles), and fix the hatnote. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete article becuase 1. i made it. 2. it is waste management the south america people have confirmed it. Happy smilies is the name of the internation russian album (See itunes and Velski Ubliki page) therefore cannot be named Happy smilies (in english and russian)
Also The american metrosexual please check tatu's english forum at www.tatu.ru/en/, click forum and then all about tatu. then click on Confirmed infomation un-confirmed infomation and Waste management speculation, You can see it all there, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.158.107 (talk)
- Delete - the album didn't retain this title, and the term is not useful for a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What Jujutacular said. A don't need to keep this article as the name has changed and the title isn't a plausible redirect, but Waste Management (Album) should be a redirect. Fences&Windows 21:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete per "Snowball" is a good name for a cute fluffy white kitten, as well as for the outcome of this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Raising a kitten (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 at least the second recreation of substantially the same article. Taking it to AfD so it can be speedied if created again, or merged appropriately (there is no content though).
Wikipedia is not a howto guide. Shadowjams (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. My words exactly :) Favonian (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 20:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination - WP:NOTMANUAL. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/redirect – Already covered under Kittens. ShoesssS Talk 20:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete per nom and per Yoniah. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is funny, but im afraid it has to go. 74.249.145.231 (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has no sources. 74.249.145.231 (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Delete: This is a how-to guide. Joe Chill (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't think of anything else to say other than WP may soon be experiencing snowy conditions. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable, unreferenced New seeker (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Kittens need a lot of sleep, but they also need a lot of exersize.You also need to trim kittens nails and treat them for fleas,ticks, and ear mites before they get them! Kittens about 1-3 months should be about 7oz-1.5 lbs." I'd add that "Snowball" is a good name for a cute fluffy white kitten, as well as for the outcome of this discussion. This looks like someone's school assignment, but WP:NOTHOWTO applies. Mandsford (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I might change my !vote/nom to cute Shadowjams (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by TimVickers. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meat on the Bone (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 speedy/contested PROD. A non notable term. Only source is a forum post, not a reliable source. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 20:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable neologism. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I put the first AfD (with a very similar rationale) on it but something went wrong and it didn't appear on the article and then this AfD got started shortly afterwards. I propose we use this one and ignore my one as it hasn't had any votes. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I closed the first AfD per your request. For future reference: you can close an AfD by adding {{subst:afdtop}} to the top of the AfD and {{afdbottom}} to the bottom of the article. See WP:NAC. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 21:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – To be honest, I have heard of the phrase and was actually able to pull up a number of references and scholarly works as shown here on Google News [43] and here on Google Scholar [44]. However, the piece, as currently written would have to be completely discarded and written from scratch. If someone has the time and energy to start a new, I would be happy to support. However, as it stands, delete. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 20:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume you mean about actual meat sold or served on the bone as a food item, rather than as a euphemism for something else. If so, I agree. There was the whole kerfuffle about beef on the bone during the UK BSE scare. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly…I have also heard the expression used in terms of a proposed project or idea such as “…this proposal/idea has some real Meat On The Bone”. But like I said above, the current piece could almost be classified as nonsense. ShoesssS Talk 20:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume you mean about actual meat sold or served on the bone as a food item, rather than as a euphemism for something else. If so, I agree. There was the whole kerfuffle about beef on the bone during the UK BSE scare. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. I see no indication that this is a widespread cultural phenomenon. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 20:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Best of the Rest (And Then Some) (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 find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Thorough Google search reveals virtually no hits other than retail and torrent sites. B.Rossow talkcontr 20:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Little House with an Orange Roof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Don't get me wrong; I love this series and read it maniacally every single time there's a new chapter out. But frankly, this page has been given enough chances to survive. A Google search of this in English leads to those oh-so-legendary illegal scanlation sites that should never be linked to. A search in Japanese on Google leads to a reference-less JA wiki page, the official publisher's official page, an apparent blogger review, and tons of retail sites. Neither WP:N nor WP:NB are met. The page itself has no lead and is made up of just a list of characters and their descriptions. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 19:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 19:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Survived a PROD attempt. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 19:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on a cursory review of the sources Nocturne brought forth and my own limited search, I agree that this does not meet GNG requirements. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:DONOTWANT Testmasterflex (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That really ought to be a blue link. NW (Talk) 04:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:BK and WP:N. Just not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't been licensed, especially given its apparently addictive properties it inspires in fans such as the nominator. But then, I'm also surprised to learn it finished its run -- somehow I had the impression it was still being serialized -- but that's neither here nor there. I'm not finding anything to suggest it does in fact pass WP:BK, so delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't remind me of the addictive qualities of manga <_< ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 15:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- lol I don't even get the logic here. Why would someone nominate an article about a series they love for deletion instead of expanding it and stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norse Am Legend (talk • contribs) 21:05, September 22, 2009
- Let's pretend I absolutely love my best friend's band. He's in a no-name, unsigned, absolutely-in-no-way-notable band, and it has a Wikipedia page. Should I go spruce up the page with information I know but can't verify through references? I sure hope not. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 05:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This "band" is "signed" - its been published in Japan, ran 8 volumes. 76.99.63.186 (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, bad example then, since WP:BAND only requires it to be signed from some large-esque recording company. In the case of WP:NB, you need to have reviews or an anime adaption which is clearly not the case. The point remains that this article doesn't have notability in the context of its specific type (books, not bands). ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 16:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well man, you could've at least put in a little effort and improved the article a bit. You may not be able to cite some guy at IGN who said "this character looks cool", but you can pretty easily source all publication, story and character information. "Non-notablity" doesn't at all prevent the creation of a comprehensive, nicely sourced and well written article. And since the first thing most people check in regards to obscure subjects like this is Wikipedia, this is potentially harming the series' chances of gaining "notability" because you're actively barring people from getting interested, lessening the chances of a localized release. This whole line of thinking just sort of baffles me, because I thought people tended to want to see things they like succeed and become more popular. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, Wikipedia should not be a vessel by which stuff gains notability. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure the actual scanlations will increase a series's popularity, and fyi, I am helping out. Furthermore, in terms of sourcing the publication, story and character information, do you seriously think it's pretty easy? If you've worked with Japanese sources, you'll know that they tend to delete old pages without archives. Furthermore, I don't read Japanese, so all my work is largely done through Google Translator, which has issues of its own. I made a few anime pages into featured content during my prime, but it is seriously difficult to source these series that haven't been licensed in the U.S. In any event, I really wish Japanese magazines published their reviews of mangas and animes online instead of keeping them in print form; think about how many more articles we could prove the notability of! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 20:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the sourcing being "pretty easy" I was referring to primary sourcing through the work itself since you don't really need a third party to note basic facts about story and characters. The difficulty in finding Japanese third party sources that almost assuredly exist is a very depressing matter though. Also, most unlicensed manga doesn't really get popular through the simple release of scanlations, they rely on places like forums and online encyclopedias to spread news of their existence and get people interested. I'm not saying WP should be bulletin board for advertising trivial subjects; things like long-running, published series of books are hardly trivial by real standards. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, Wikipedia should not be a vessel by which stuff gains notability. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure the actual scanlations will increase a series's popularity, and fyi, I am helping out. Furthermore, in terms of sourcing the publication, story and character information, do you seriously think it's pretty easy? If you've worked with Japanese sources, you'll know that they tend to delete old pages without archives. Furthermore, I don't read Japanese, so all my work is largely done through Google Translator, which has issues of its own. I made a few anime pages into featured content during my prime, but it is seriously difficult to source these series that haven't been licensed in the U.S. In any event, I really wish Japanese magazines published their reviews of mangas and animes online instead of keeping them in print form; think about how many more articles we could prove the notability of! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 20:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well man, you could've at least put in a little effort and improved the article a bit. You may not be able to cite some guy at IGN who said "this character looks cool", but you can pretty easily source all publication, story and character information. "Non-notablity" doesn't at all prevent the creation of a comprehensive, nicely sourced and well written article. And since the first thing most people check in regards to obscure subjects like this is Wikipedia, this is potentially harming the series' chances of gaining "notability" because you're actively barring people from getting interested, lessening the chances of a localized release. This whole line of thinking just sort of baffles me, because I thought people tended to want to see things they like succeed and become more popular. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, bad example then, since WP:BAND only requires it to be signed from some large-esque recording company. In the case of WP:NB, you need to have reviews or an anime adaption which is clearly not the case. The point remains that this article doesn't have notability in the context of its specific type (books, not bands). ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 16:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This "band" is "signed" - its been published in Japan, ran 8 volumes. 76.99.63.186 (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's pretend I absolutely love my best friend's band. He's in a no-name, unsigned, absolutely-in-no-way-notable band, and it has a Wikipedia page. Should I go spruce up the page with information I know but can't verify through references? I sure hope not. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 05:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- lol I don't even get the logic here. Why would someone nominate an article about a series they love for deletion instead of expanding it and stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norse Am Legend (talk • contribs) 21:05, September 22, 2009
- Don't remind me of the addictive qualities of manga <_< ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 15:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orUserfy Lack enough evidence of notability. This series isn't licensed in France, Germany, Spain & Italy so evidence of notability won't come from that avenue. Suggest userfy if anyone is willing to have it in its user space checking for evidence of notability on a regular basis. --KrebMarkt 13:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I'd also say userfy, but the series has ended. Unless it does get licensed or an anime (which given the author's track record is not impossible) such evidence is unlikely. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the one who brought that option, i guess i should assume consequence of it. Please instead of delete, userfy this article into my user space. I will check every 4 months for anime adaptation (WP:BK #3) and licensing in NA & Europe which would bring the needed RS coverage (WP:BK #1) --KrebMarkt 21:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also say userfy, but the series has ended. Unless it does get licensed or an anime (which given the author's track record is not impossible) such evidence is unlikely. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Published in a magazine with a monthly circulation of Circulation 359,792, it having more potential readers than some bestselling novels. A notable magazine does not keep a manga series around for years, or bother publishing that many volumes collecting it all, if it isn't continuing to do well. Dream Focus 01:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The magazine the manga was serialized in is completely irrelevant and unrelated to the manga's notability. —Farix (t | c) 02:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you link to BK just to be passive aggressive, or does it actually have relevance to what that guy said? Though I didn't look very hard, there appears to be nothing in that policy page about works serialized in such ways that manga are and it's probable that staying published in a major magazine like that for years, and even being published in one in the first place is no easy feat. It's not at all dissimilar to getting a television show on the air, and even the most stupidly minor, canceled-after-one-episode TV shows get articles without a problem here. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your response is confrontational in and of itself, fyi. Regardless, I have to admit that I feel that series that have been serialized in notable magazines do deserve articles, like the point you made about TV shows. However, consensus doesn't exist among WP:ANIME for this to be the case which is quite unfortunate. Perhaps a proposal should be attempted again? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 21:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there was ever really a proposal in the first place, and manga just kind of fell under the standards of novels and comics published in more standard ways. I'd support some sort of proposal to change this. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally tried this a while back (like, four-ish months ago) and it got shot down so fast it wasn't even funny. It's redlinked so I could escape the ire of having failed so badly. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 21:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's a pity. I don't think it would hurt to try again though, maybe this time just bring it up as a proposal for change in BK or something instead of a whole new policy. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not invested enough in this whole keep/delete nonsense to go push proposals. I just follow whatever rules are laid out before me. I've got no interest in leading anything here. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 21:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, me either. whooo apathy! - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not invested enough in this whole keep/delete nonsense to go push proposals. I just follow whatever rules are laid out before me. I've got no interest in leading anything here. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 21:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's a pity. I don't think it would hurt to try again though, maybe this time just bring it up as a proposal for change in BK or something instead of a whole new policy. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally tried this a while back (like, four-ish months ago) and it got shot down so fast it wasn't even funny. It's redlinked so I could escape the ire of having failed so badly. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 21:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, per consensus, it's not up to a WikiProject alone to decide the relevant inclusion guidelines are -- which means WP:MANGA can't decide on its own that the magazine a series is in is enough to pass WP:BK, but instead the larger community has agree. WP:MANGA itself has, repeatedly, agreed that WP:BK is the (as a minumum) appropriate guideline for manga, regardless of individual support for possible additional clauses ... none of which, however, has gotten any traction in the larger wikicommunity. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also a pity. I'd love to see some discussions regarding this subject, if only to affirm my assumption of how they went. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussions are not archived, so Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) has them all. There are multiples. The main one dealing with manga would be the "Graphic novels" discussion. For the project side of the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 34#WP:MOS-AM and Notability -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those who decided this are a dozen or so people, who argue constantly until the other side gives up, and most people don't participate at all after seeing pages of discussion about something already there. There has never been any strawpolling, to see what the consensus of everyone else. Just those who gather together at various projects, rush over at once and make changes, ganging up on anyone who is against them. Wikipedia is not mindless rule following, people suppose to discuss things, and decide how things are best to be done, the guidelines nothing more than a suggestion, not actually policy. That's why most bestselling novels are kept, even when not meeting the notability guidelines, despite some people's determination to delete them simply based on rules. Here [45] is a fine example of that. If you believe the article should be kept, don't hesitate to say so just because some are waving around a rule book they published themselves, without any input from any reasonable number of people. Dream Focus 13:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting that that is always the only one you ever bring up like that and you continue arguing it was kept because of the sales numbers when it was not. Anyone reading that would also see that several "keep" sayers indicating it should be merged to a list of the novels of the series, and others actually showing the third-party coverage required, not just "oh, its a best seller so its notable". There are plenty of others that have closed as delete or merge that were also "best sellers", but of course they just were the result of the mythical cabal's you like to claim are responsible for all deletions and policies and guidelines. However, as you argue that for anything you disagree with (while anything you agree with magically has the "reasonable" number of participants), I'm sure you will not agree with that summary and will continue to just ignore all consensus because you don't agree with it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hilarious irony and delusions aside, what exactly happened in that BK discussion? One second, Sandifer was citing logical arguments for some sort of change in manga standards based on the radically different ways they're published compared to Western comics(while Nohansen was going "lolwut" the whole time), but then all of a sudden it's decided that manga should stay under BK while comics and graphic novels go directly under N. This is illogical and the exact opposite of what should've happened based on the way that discussion was headed. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was basically decided to maintain the status quo - manga has always used WP:BK, so this was continued. Comics always has used WP:N only, so this was continued. Basically consensus was - no change needed and to eliminate the inappropriately created "6th" guideline added by the anime/manga project long ago (which, as an aside, would still not save this particular article). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are far better forums for this than this page. Yes, I realize I contributed to this, but no, this discussion should probably stop here and continue elsewhere. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 18:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was basically decided to maintain the status quo - manga has always used WP:BK, so this was continued. Comics always has used WP:N only, so this was continued. Basically consensus was - no change needed and to eliminate the inappropriately created "6th" guideline added by the anime/manga project long ago (which, as an aside, would still not save this particular article). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hilarious irony and delusions aside, what exactly happened in that BK discussion? One second, Sandifer was citing logical arguments for some sort of change in manga standards based on the radically different ways they're published compared to Western comics(while Nohansen was going "lolwut" the whole time), but then all of a sudden it's decided that manga should stay under BK while comics and graphic novels go directly under N. This is illogical and the exact opposite of what should've happened based on the way that discussion was headed. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting that that is always the only one you ever bring up like that and you continue arguing it was kept because of the sales numbers when it was not. Anyone reading that would also see that several "keep" sayers indicating it should be merged to a list of the novels of the series, and others actually showing the third-party coverage required, not just "oh, its a best seller so its notable". There are plenty of others that have closed as delete or merge that were also "best sellers", but of course they just were the result of the mythical cabal's you like to claim are responsible for all deletions and policies and guidelines. However, as you argue that for anything you disagree with (while anything you agree with magically has the "reasonable" number of participants), I'm sure you will not agree with that summary and will continue to just ignore all consensus because you don't agree with it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those who decided this are a dozen or so people, who argue constantly until the other side gives up, and most people don't participate at all after seeing pages of discussion about something already there. There has never been any strawpolling, to see what the consensus of everyone else. Just those who gather together at various projects, rush over at once and make changes, ganging up on anyone who is against them. Wikipedia is not mindless rule following, people suppose to discuss things, and decide how things are best to be done, the guidelines nothing more than a suggestion, not actually policy. That's why most bestselling novels are kept, even when not meeting the notability guidelines, despite some people's determination to delete them simply based on rules. Here [45] is a fine example of that. If you believe the article should be kept, don't hesitate to say so just because some are waving around a rule book they published themselves, without any input from any reasonable number of people. Dream Focus 13:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussions are not archived, so Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) has them all. There are multiples. The main one dealing with manga would be the "Graphic novels" discussion. For the project side of the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 34#WP:MOS-AM and Notability -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also a pity. I'd love to see some discussions regarding this subject, if only to affirm my assumption of how they went. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there was ever really a proposal in the first place, and manga just kind of fell under the standards of novels and comics published in more standard ways. I'd support some sort of proposal to change this. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your response is confrontational in and of itself, fyi. Regardless, I have to admit that I feel that series that have been serialized in notable magazines do deserve articles, like the point you made about TV shows. However, consensus doesn't exist among WP:ANIME for this to be the case which is quite unfortunate. Perhaps a proposal should be attempted again? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 21:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you link to BK just to be passive aggressive, or does it actually have relevance to what that guy said? Though I didn't look very hard, there appears to be nothing in that policy page about works serialized in such ways that manga are and it's probable that staying published in a major magazine like that for years, and even being published in one in the first place is no easy feat. It's not at all dissimilar to getting a television show on the air, and even the most stupidly minor, canceled-after-one-episode TV shows get articles without a problem here. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The magazine the manga was serialized in is completely irrelevant and unrelated to the manga's notability. —Farix (t | c) 02:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability.--Cúchullain t/c 20:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or userfy per User:KrebMarkt's request I cannot find sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2011 in music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball springs to mind here - this only consists of two artists who may return then (without sources), and three who may release albums then: one I don't think mentions 2011 and the other group's news page definitely doesn't mention 2011 either. In any case, isn't September 2009 a little early to start talking about 2011's music? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As per nom, and fails WP:CRYSTAL. Frmatt (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 19:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete per WP:CRYSTAL. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate sometime next year (or whenever there is enough for an article). youngamerican (wtf?) 12:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but come back soon. Mandsford (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL/not enough information. Shark96z (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete per all the above. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until more verifiability. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DeleteThe arguments regarding the trivial nature of the published coverage are compelling. Kevin (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ira Seidenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP with no third party sources. Probable autobiography. Prod was removed with significant cleanup, but no suitable sources added. I can find passing mentions of him in Google, such as in [46], but no substantial biographies or reviews of his work gadfium 19:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —gadfium 19:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with nom -- almost certainly written and edited mainly by non-notable subject himself. B.Rossow talkcontr 20:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep – rewrite yes. However, I was able to find, which I believe is just enough, 3rd party – creditable – verifiable – independent sources, to warrant inclusion here on Wikipedia as shown here [47]. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 21:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Those mentions in news articles number 10 in total, and they are just that -- mentions, not features, four of which are from more than a decade ago and none of which establishes his notability. Simply having one's name listed in a few articles isn't enough or every petty criminal whose case goes to court would be eligible for inclusion here. -- B.Rossow talkcontr 13:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well first, he is not a petty criminal, but rather a performer. Second, did you read all the reviews? They are not just passing mentions. But rather talk about Mr. Seidenstein Specifically . Three, the reviews range in date from 1989 through 2008. To me that enhances the argument for notability in that his achievements are not fleeting but carry for two decades. Is he the next Penn or Teller probably not, but in my opinion has earned a spot here on Wikipedia. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 15:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, I actually did read all the reviews. In four of the 10 listings, his name only appears in a list of credits within a review or notice of no more than a few sentences. In one his name only appears in a photo caption. Three of the articles are not available. In the other two, which are merely performance notices or reviews, his mentions are cursory and not the focus of the article. (Note that the latter article opens with "Less than 10 people saw the opening [...]".) That his name pops up from time to time in minor reviews of non-notable performances doesn't improve my opinion. I never said he was a petty criminal but was simply using that as another example of a type of person whose name might appear in a smattering of articles yet still not be noteworthy. Performer, politician, paedophile -- I don't care what someone does or did; if it's non-notable it doesn't belong here. -- B.Rossow talkcontr 15:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well first, he is not a petty criminal, but rather a performer. Second, did you read all the reviews? They are not just passing mentions. But rather talk about Mr. Seidenstein Specifically . Three, the reviews range in date from 1989 through 2008. To me that enhances the argument for notability in that his achievements are not fleeting but carry for two decades. Is he the next Penn or Teller probably not, but in my opinion has earned a spot here on Wikipedia. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 15:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Those mentions in news articles number 10 in total, and they are just that -- mentions, not features, four of which are from more than a decade ago and none of which establishes his notability. Simply having one's name listed in a few articles isn't enough or every petty criminal whose case goes to court would be eligible for inclusion here. -- B.Rossow talkcontr 13:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The findings of B.Rossow, especially the context of being peripheral mentions rather than dedicated write-ups, confirm for me the non-notability in this case. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Article Speedy Deleted R3. NON-ADMIN CLOSURE Frmatt (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Catagory:Hungary geographical name conversion templates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
R3 Typo created in error (Catagory instead of Category). Sorry about that. SimonTrew (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deleted. I'll let someone most used to AFD close this.-gadfium 19:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (and rename per discussion) Black Kite 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Masons Red Owl (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 notability. Part of a brand that's only mentioned in the Gamble-Skogmo article. I see no point in merging one individual store, even if it is one of the only remaining ones of that sort. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as "Red Owl stores". The chain is better known than this individual store. --Soc8675309 (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Soc8675309. - Denimadept (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep and rename per Soc8675309 B.Rossow talkcontr 20:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm all for a rewrite/rename, plenty of sources here. But I'd rather it be a new article as "Masons Red Owl" is an unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Though only a couple stores now remain, the chain has a notable past. "Mason's Red Owl" is a plausable search term, since for some time it was the only one. Jonathunder (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename per Soc8675309. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 19:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Game of Diplomacy (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 book about notable game I've played for almost four decades. The main sources are publications dedicated to the game, which don't constitute the requisite substantial coverage. Fails WP:BOOK. Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with nom based on looking at article and lack of sources/apparent non-notability. Article itself says the book isn't particularly well-regarded. B.Rossow talkcontr 18:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response - the article says it is well-regarded within the narrow pool of those at whom it is aimed, although they point out its flaws. But it fails our tests for general notability. After all, a very poorly-regarded work can still be notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable, passes WP:Notability_(books) New seeker (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Minor book that fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). No significant coverage in independent sources. Location (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm a fan of the game, but I proposed informally last year that the book didn't meet notability criteria. Since then no one has produced any reliable independent sources. This book deserves a note and a link to the online text in the main Diplomacy article, but not an article of its own. -- Meyer (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete There is one book review in a specialized publication. If there were another review in a less specialized publication (say a general game site) that was reliable I'd move to keep. There is a mention here Hobit (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. The 2 main sources noted here as proof of notability seem to confer notability on Rosas Farms rather than Al Rosas specifically, as he is not the main subject of either article.. The controversy, as poorly sourced as it is, offers no indication of notability either. Kevin (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This result was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 29. Result now No consensus. Kevin (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Al Rosas (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 has been a source of controversy, having been extensively edited by the subject or someone closely related as Tsunami812 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). It contained a significant amount of unsubstantiated fluff and claims without third party sources. At some point other editors added material about a controversy that the subject was involved in, at this point the COI editor and multiple IPs attempted to remove the controversy section multiple times. It has been protected for periods due to sourced content removal. None of the other claims have had sources added. Having removed the unsubstantiated claims, what is left is borderline for establishing notability i think. I highly doubt the article would exist were it not for the subject being self promotional or other parties attempting to discredit the subject. Today someone one again attempted to remove it all and place a threat for which they have been indefinitely blocked, but I think the community should weigh in on the state of this article which has never really contained a version that satisfies both notability and BLP concerns. A problem is that the controversies surrounding this subject are mostly based in the blogosphere and have not received significant mainstream coverage, nor has any lawsuit been actually been filed, leaving the claims as online allegations. WP:ONEVENT is also of relevance i think. Mfield (Oi!) 17:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Self-promotion, NN. B.Rossow talkcontr 18:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:BIO.South Bay (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - [48] and [49] desontrate notability. A Google news search has more results with many behind pay walls. COI editting and NPOV adherence need to be addressed but the subject does appear to be notable. -- Whpq (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notability is satisfied per references provided by Whpq. (I created this article but only after deleting a previous version of it as spam - the spamvertisement concern is valid and this article, if kept, will need to be scrubbed to remove COI) Kimchi.sg (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Without the puffery, it's now largely an attack page. Which is much worse.--Cúchullain t/c 20:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer Cuchullain, this article contains negatively-unsourced information and reads like an attack page. The controversy section is sourced to blogs and other unreliable sources. The IPs were correct in removing the sourced content; the controversy section is devoid of reliable sources and is a blatant violation of WP:BLP.The sources provided by Whpq are both passing mentions that do not establish notability. The other sources in the article are either passing mentions or press releases. This marginally notable individual fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How do the Boston Globe and Ocala articles come off as "passing mentions"? The Boston Globe article is specifically about Al Rosa and his wife and farm. There is no other topic. Ditto for the Ocala article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. I searched for "Al Rosas" in both articles but only found him mentioned twice in the Boston Globe and twice in the Ocala. After looking more closely at the sources, the sources do provide significant information about Rosas. If the controversies section is removed and not re-added, I will be content with a keep. Cunard (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking at the sources again. I agree the current state of the article is deplorable. -- Whpq (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. I searched for "Al Rosas" in both articles but only found him mentioned twice in the Boston Globe and twice in the Ocala. After looking more closely at the sources, the sources do provide significant information about Rosas. If the controversies section is removed and not re-added, I will be content with a keep. Cunard (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How do the Boston Globe and Ocala articles come off as "passing mentions"? The Boston Globe article is specifically about Al Rosa and his wife and farm. There is no other topic. Ditto for the Ocala article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of coverage in Florida Trend (June 1, 2008), Boston Globe (November 2, 2008) and Ocala Star-Banner (October 8, 2007). Those articles, taken together, are definitely sufficient for notability. TheFeds 23:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. The consensus below is that there are sufficient sources to establish notability and that other outstanding issues can be dealt with via the ordinary editorial process. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Sieradski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Due to COI and Notability issues. As it states in the COI guidelines, "do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." As one editor has noted in the talk page, "27 edits were made anonymously by someone from the JTA's IP address while the subject was employed there." There is also an issue of Notability. With regard to the notability guidelines, the article seems to be full of original research. Also some sources (eg. "Jewish Socialist") may not be considered reliable. Each singular event presented in the article is generally from one source of information, each with very few (if any) secondary sources. Many of the links and sources are clearly not independent of the subject at hand (eg. created for purposes self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, etc.) **My apologies if I might have done this wrong. This is the first time for me to try nominating an article for deletion. Anything anyone can do to help me clean this up, would be appreciated. Getitrightfolks (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Getitrightfolks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per nom.Neutral - COI alone isn't a basis for deletion. Cleanup does seem more appropriate per later comments below. B.Rossow talkcontr 18:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm always suspicious of nominators whose sole (listed) contribs are in connection with the article nominated for AfD. There seems to be a distinct COI involved here, and a lot of work by the nominator on the article. Apart from that, the article as it stands looks OK to me. Source material is sometimes difficult to get from totally neutral places - the more contentious the subject often the more difficult. I would regard the subject as being notable enough - more so than many of the martial arts fighters, porn 'stars' and minor rappers (chosen as examples only) that get articles. Yes, I do know that there is a rule that because A has an article, it doesn't mean B should. There's also a rule that the length of time an article has been up should be disregarded, so the four years this has been here are irrelevant. Peridon (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification I should stress that I find COI more in the nomination than in the article... Peridon (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, subject passes WP:BIO, with coverage in the Forward and Jewish Week, among others. COI is not a reason to delete; article might need cleanup, but nominating on the basis of COI is misguided. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can't speak to the COI aspect, but there's no question in my mind that in terms of notability, he qualifies. He was invited to speak in front of the General Assembly 2 years ago, and that's a major accomplishment in and of itself. He also is well-known in progressive circles, and as an IT person, for Federations and other Jewish organizations. And his writing is notable and has itself been covered in bigger venues.
- — Rebmoti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
NeutralDelete He was indeed invited to speak in front of the General Assembly but so were others who do not have Wikipedia entries. My issue isn't with Sieradski himself, but rather with the fact that the entry was mostly authored by him. I think he's somewhat notable, but he has to stop editing the entry when people try to add in sourced and accurate biographical information that he doesn't like. Wrongtired18 (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Clarification I changed my mind for the following reasons. Most of the acclaim he has received was as a result of his involvement with the Jewschool blog: look at the dates. He hasn't been involved with them for 2 years now and he can be considered more of a formerly notable blogger. His organization Matzat does not have a web site and there is every indication that he was the "Director" and sole employee - basically a freelance Web designer with a portfolio of non-profit organizations. His work as an activist is either un-sourced or of limited notability. His concert for Lebanon raised "about $1000" and his Gaza demonstration attracted "under 50 people" according to the very sources cited. For the past two years he has worked at the JTA and now at Repair the world in what are essentially middle management type positions. If Sieradski is notable then so are dozens and dozens and dozens of other Jewish and other bloggers who have had as much, if not more of an impact than he has. Wrongtired18 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that notability is not temporary. If there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish him as notable, it doesn't matter that he no longer holds the role that made him notable. As for those other bloggers, if it's true that they are equally notable, then perhaps they should have articles as well. It's not a zero-sum competition. --RL0919 (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then let me be really, really clear. I don't think he is or ever was sufficiently notable. Yes he's had coverage in the parochial Jewish press, but I don't believe that everyone that receives coverage from The Jewish Week or the Forward is notable. If so Wikipedia could legitimately be flooded by articles about individuals whose accomplishments are extremely limited. Twenty years from now is anyone going to care about a concert fundraiser that the organizers described as disappointing that raised around $1000? Are we going to care about a rally that drew under 50 people? Then we have or had links to a Tikkun Magazine interview that is only online on Mr. Sieradski's blog, a Jewish Standard interview that is also only online on Mr. Sieradski's blog, a B'nai Brith Magazine article that isn't online anywhere, and an article that put him in the company of 36 other young Jewish individuals with a potential to make some changes. It was mentioned here also that 2 years ago Mr. Sieradski spoke at the General Assembly. Please note that this is the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities, not the United Nations, and he was one of 7 speakers featured in that session. There are so many other elements in this article that are unsourced that once all of those are taken out, very little of any significance remains. Consequently I have no choice but to call for the deletion of this entry. Wrongtired18 (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me recommend that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The fact that an article appeared in a national magazine is relevant even if the article "isn't online anywhere" or if it's "only online on [the subject's] blog" (see WP:Convenience link). You see, there are amazing places called libraries where people can go to look up back issues of printed magazines. Anyway, that Tikkun interview that's "only online on Mr. Sieradski's blog" is also available on Tikkun's website, which makes me wonder how much truth there is in your other assertions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected. I couldn't however help but notice the selective quoting of said Tikkun article. Both you and Mr. Sieradski cited the quote as if it said that Sieradski was at the time "one of the most recognized Jewish literary voices on the Internet." The actual quote was that Mr. Sieradski was "Fast becoming one of the most recognized Jewish literary voices on the Internet." It's perhaps a subtle distinction, but there is a difference between one's potential, which the Tikkun Magazine article cited and the impression that said potential had already been accomplished, which your edits implied. Thank you for the clarification. As to my other assertions that are now suspect, I took them directly from the sources cited in the article. For instance, Mr. Sieradski's Lebanon fundraiser that raised "about $1000" - that's a direct quote from the article cited, which also mentioned the disappointment of the three organizers. My other assertion was that "50 people at the most" participated in Sieradski's Gaza war rally, that too was a direct quote from the article cited. As far as notability goes, I doubt I can find B'nai Brith Magazine at my local library for although it is glossy it's more of a glorified newsletter sent to members of B'nai Brith. Other acclaim earned by Sieradski came from his home state Jewish paper, the New Jersey Jewish Standard. The article referenced points to a broken link on Sieradski's former blog and a search on the Jewish Standard Web site returns no results for an article written by Stephen I. Weiss. Are there any other assertions that I have made that you feel are suspect? I have sources for all of them. I still feel Sieradski is not sufficiently notable, but those of you who feel he is, please, when editing his article, at least have the courtesy of not putting in broken links, and make at least some effort at presenting information in an unbiased manner. Wrongtired18 (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification I changed my mind for the following reasons. Most of the acclaim he has received was as a result of his involvement with the Jewschool blog: look at the dates. He hasn't been involved with them for 2 years now and he can be considered more of a formerly notable blogger. His organization Matzat does not have a web site and there is every indication that he was the "Director" and sole employee - basically a freelance Web designer with a portfolio of non-profit organizations. His work as an activist is either un-sourced or of limited notability. His concert for Lebanon raised "about $1000" and his Gaza demonstration attracted "under 50 people" according to the very sources cited. For the past two years he has worked at the JTA and now at Repair the world in what are essentially middle management type positions. If Sieradski is notable then so are dozens and dozens and dozens of other Jewish and other bloggers who have had as much, if not more of an impact than he has. Wrongtired18 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Wrongtired18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Also, please note the canvassing issues and possible vote stacking happening here. Please note, my guess is that "Rebmoti" probably came here as a response to this, since he has no other contributions to the project. --Getitrightfolks (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Getitrightfolks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- DeleteNotability. I haven't read anything that is notable enough for Wikipedia. If you have to create and maintain your own wikipedia page - you're not Notable enough. Its not bad to not be notable, I'm not notable either :/ --AdamHyman (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2009 (PST)
- — Adamhyman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep. COI is obviously a problem for this article, but as other editors have pointed out, COI is not in itself a reason for deletion. Coverage of the subject by respectable publications like The Forward and Tikkun seems to establish sufficient notability for an article. --RL0919 (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Seems to meet notability criterion. More than enough mainstream sources about Sieradski. The fact that there has been a COI problem in the past is not a reason for deletion. Nor is the fact that Sieradski has either failed to read our basic guidelines for acceptable behavior on Wikipedia or has read them and apparently doesn't care. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject meets WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Certainly fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage, only a couple of secondary sources which are unclear if independant of the subject. The others sources in the article are from non-RS blogs and other NN sites. Perhaps in the future if their is something notable from this person, but someone who has created a couple of blogs and worked for a news organization is not. --Shuki (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? So is the Christian Science Monitor not notable, or is it unclear if it is independent of the subject? Same question for Editor & Publisher, Tikkun, The Jerusalem Post, The Jewish Week and The Forward. I can understand discounting a couple of the cited articles because the coverage is primarily about an event he helped organize rather than himself personally, but other items are profiles and interviews, which clearly constitute direct coverage of the subject by reliable sources. --RL0919 (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I see lots of drama surrounding this article, on both sides (I was not canvassed; I had no idea who the guy was when I arrived here). What else do I see? This article has been around about 4 years now. I also see numerous news hits about the subject, and many seem significant about this 2004 "Jooglebomb" event (clearly Jew puns surround this guy, "Jewcy"? haha), including [50] (cnet referencing his "influential Web log Jewschool"). There also appear to be other news articles as well about other events, [[51]] (2006 event), so the notability threshold is met. Article should be improved, but deletion discussion is a time waster. --Milowent (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Although we are neutral, we would not go so far as to suggest that this individual warrants wikipedia notoriety. Much of the commentary in the original wiki entry was a bit slanderous and inflammatory, and we have observed very condescending and offensive tweets from this individual's twitter account @mobius1ski. That same account as well as @JIDF have been used in the last few days to canvass support for this individuals' wiki. This individual may be somewhat notable, but the edits and entries in the wiki need to be more truthful and accurate. Intelcenter (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Intelcenter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep per Milowent. MuffledThud (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with Milowent that there's too much drama on this page coming in from off-wiki, but ignoring all of that it does seem that he meets WP:N. The article may or may not be overly promotional, but that can and should be fixed if the subject meets our threshold for inclusion. -- Atama頭 23:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources provided by Milowent are passing mentions, so they do not establish notability. However, this article from the Christian Science Monitor provides nontrivial coverage about Sieradski, so there is some notability. There are also this article and this article from The New York Post but they appear to be coverage of a single event. I can find little biographical details about Sieradski. This person is marginally notable, so I will go with weak keep. Cunard (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Tyrenius. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redclover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Likely hoax, or at the very most some kind of non-notable pseudo-secret gang. No references. Speedy delete tag removed multiple times by anon IPs. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable or verifiable. Possible speedy delete (db-club). Hairhorn (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A secret club? Yeah, it's so secret that Google's never heard of it. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Secret society that purports to have connections to better grades, and then says it may become public - which is also WP:CRYSTAL. Hoax is possible, but WP:N failure is definite. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a current teacher that Northcote High and I am investigating into this claim. I have heard of this "society" has been around for a while. However the claim that they will come public is a WP:CRYSTAL I know. But many students at the school also recognize the so called 'society' as to be true and that they look up to their followers. I need to bring the Clovers down so I need as much info as I can get. Do not delete until the investigation is complete. I have been editing this page to suite my investigation. Thanks. Ms. Sinclair--- Student welfare coordinator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.91.88 (talk)
- Speedy delete as originally tagged. No claim of notability. Re-tagged. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per author request (see below) by User:Orangemike. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Po'Ki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
New product; a google search and google news search aren't turning up notability. Was deleted via prod, but article creator asked for the article to be restored and has not addressed the prod issues. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Explains this game (which seems to be a variant of Yahtzee), but it only says that some unique dice that are new can be used - which tells me it's a poor attempt at WP:SPAM. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP It is not a poor attempt at spam, or an advertisement or I would have included the link to the games website, which is under construction. This was my poor attempt at writing about my newly invented "Poker Dice". I understand now that an article must be "verifiable", but at this point I cannot do that. The game is currently Patent Pending, and in the Copyright Office at this moment and I am unable to provide anymore information about the dice or card games at this time. The world famous game "Yahtzee" is played with dice that have 1 to 6 dots on them, my dice have all 52 card faces and is played as a "Poker Game" with a "Blackjack Bonus Round", not even close.Thanks for your time :)Coryi711 (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. If you can't provide verification, why they're notable, or any reliable sources pertaining to this, then the article must go. Just because it's not yet verifiable is doubly so as per WP:CRYSTAL. Given all this, and that this article, by your own admission, will not stand up to this debate, why should we keep this? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dennis the Tiger Why so agressive, bad Karma dude?.."why should we keep this?" You don't have to keep it, I died 2 years ago, heart failure at 44 and had a AICD installed, I got zapped twice in a minute by the defibrillator a couple of weeks ago, so I just wanted to get the word out about the game before I croaked, is all..... Can't blame a guy for trying....Coryi711 (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't answer the question. The cardiac issues you are having are no doubt unpleasant, but to be honest, we need to be objective here. At the end of the day, I still see an article that 1) doesn't fit into Wikipedia's standards, 2) has a keep !vote that doesn't fit into Wikipedia's guidelines (and in fact admits as much), and 3) is written by somebody that has issues with their ticker. I apologize for the hostile tone, but at the end fo the day, it doesn't explain why we should keep it - thus I ask again (with a rephrase), what's the rationale behind the keep? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. By the article creator's admission they just invented the game. Good luck with it, and come back when multiple reliable sources have given indepth coverage to the game. Fences&Windows 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Please forget everything about this topic, this never happened, this was a waste of your time and mine, and I truly apologize for that..you are correct "D'tigger" now is not the time to release this information...Thank you for the Good luck gesture Fences&Windows, and good luck to you in your life as well....and "D'tigger" you seem more heart less than I am, and I don't have one....Oh and I was blocked from editing, I was asked to go play in the sandbox, then the next thing I know is I got blocked by some Prince saying I was deleting things, if something got deleted, I'm sorry...I thought it was like a words program,and you could move and change things around, sorry if it caused any trouble, I was just trying to learn..I have been unable to contact an administrator about that also.....Coryi711 (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Contact Air. — Jake Wartenberg 17:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lufthansa Flight 288 (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 could be merged into Contact Air (which was done already, actually). This aviation accident did not result in any injuries, maybe not even the plane is beyond repair. I don't think this is worth having an entry of its own, it's just not important enough. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Minor news event, and I do mean minor. One time I drove my car over a pothole and blew out two tires, and that didn't get a WP article.Borock (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working on it, and it will be called "1998 Hoboken pothole incident". As to this one,
delete -- nothing that merits an article.It sometimes happens that the landing gear doesn't deploy. Mandsford (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Neutral A commercial airliner doing a belly landing is far more serious then blowing out a couple of tires in a car, but overall, this article is not especially notable. Googlemeister (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could have been killed too. Anyway many more people die in car accidents than plane.Borock (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working on it, and it will be called "1998 Hoboken pothole incident". As to this one,
- Delete It really has no significance whatsoever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.46.3 (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Contact Air, as a reasonable search term, essentially per WP:NOTNEWS. It's already mostly out of the news, and it's quite enough to have it as an incident in Contact Air and, possibly, Franz Müntefering. Amalthea 22:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: You know, the deletionists are getting too strong in the English Wikipedia. I think the article should be kept. The incident seems pretty notable to me regardless what an editor not in the plane thinks. Why do you always need over 100 dead people to make an incident notable anyway?Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I look at it more as trying to rein in WP:AIRCRASH, an essay written ins such away that it indirectly includes almost every accident that ever happened on a scheduled flight. No other project that I know of-- athletes, TV episodes, elections -- casts such a broad net over what should be kept. If we had a similar guideline for every time a crime was committed (i.e., there was an investigation; a famous person was there; there were calls for reform; etc.) we'd be filled with articles about muggings. So it meets WP:AIRCRASH, big deal. Geez, is there anything that doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH? It's too ridiculous to be considered a guideline. Mandsford (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:AIRCRASH as German Social Democrat Party leader Franz Müntefering was on board per BBC News source. It also appears to be the worst accident suffered by Contact Air to date. Mjroots (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think the incident was important enough to mention in Mr. Muntefering's own article? If not why is it that important for the rest of us?Borock (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (for now anyway). I't not especially notable, but let's at least wait and see if the aircraft is written off. It was carrying a notable person and it may also be the most serious incident to date for the airline. Too often people are too quick to delete. 84.9.39.16 (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A bit off-topic, but look here. Redirect or delete? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Contact Air Flight LH 288. If this article is deleted there are many others which can also fall.--Cyber Fox (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See talk page of tge Lufthansa Flight 288 article, I've already noted that it should be at the Contact Air Flight 288 title, but it is bad form to move while AfD debate is running. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've redirected Contact air flight 288 to Lufthansa Flight 288 for now, since the one under discussion has more content. The rest should be hammered out at the talk page, I agree. Amalthea 10:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See talk page of tge Lufthansa Flight 288 article, I've already noted that it should be at the Contact Air Flight 288 title, but it is bad form to move while AfD debate is running. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect add the words "due to undercarriage failure" to the section at Contact Air (which I'm about to do) and that article says everything that needs to be said about this non-notable incident. It is worth noting that the current WP:AIRCRASH criteria are likely to be replaced shortly with the new, more strict, criteria at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability#Revising WP:AIRCRASH - Thryduulf's fourth draft. Your input into the discussion would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thryduulf, the accident would still rate as a Level 3 accident on the new scale as the worst suffered by Contact Air at the time it occurred. So why the Delete? Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that is the only criteria it matches, a merger to the Contact Air article is more appropriate than a stand-alone article. However there is nothing to merge as all the details are already in the target article. The notable person wasn't significantly involved (he was just a passenger), there were no (significant) injuries, and there are unlikely to be any long-term effects for the airport or aviation in general. If there are any for the airline then they are best covered on the airline's article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources found above and the Social Democratic Party leader on board. Plus, as with such crashes involving a landing gear failures and the number of Fokker 100's currently in service (estimated to be about 100), this will no doubt prompt intense investigation and affect safety and maintenance regulations for years to come.--Oakshade (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Until any such investigations and/or changes to safety and maintenance regulations actually happen the majority of your comment is just crystal ballism. Also, the verifiability of the article has never been in question, and what part did the SDP Chairman actually play in the incident? Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only willful ignorance to believe no such investigations will take place. It's German Luftfahrt-Bundesamt law anyway that all accidents must be investigated. --Oakshade (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because an investigation takes place doesn't mean it (the investigation) is notable, that it makes the incident notable, or that its findings will be significant. Doubly so if there is an investigation after every incident. Thryduulf (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Contact Air Flight 288, failing that redirect and merge into Contact Air. The keep reasons as per posters above seem pretty convincing. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 08:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:N in that it is a news event that is not worthy of notice. -Atmoz (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Thryduulf and the new proposed criteria. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete technically it does meet the criteria set in WP:AIRCRASH,as there's a notable person on board and it's likely gonna be the most serious accident for Contact Air to the date. However, this event itself doesn't seem to be that notable, as the notable person is not injured nor killed in the accident to my knowledge(thus not worth mentioning in his biography article as well). I think this accident is worth a section(Accidents and Incidents) in the article about Contact Air, but not a separate article. Considering WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not a guideline, I'd say delete for this. Blodance (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Contact Air per Thryduulf (above). He/she proposed some Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability#Revising WP:AIRCRASH - sensible reforms to WP:AIRCRASH that would allow information to be preserved in an appropriate location, whether by name of the airline, or the type of accident, or the major personage involved. I despise the "anything goes" essay that is called WP:AIRCRASH. It excludes nothing, and only encourages the recentism that characterizes a lot of articles (i.e., it's notable if it was on CNN today; hey, I want to be the very first person to write about this). The essay is generally invoked to stifle debate over legitimate questions about whether something meets WP:N. Similar to articles that are entitled "2009 ____ incident", the airline incidents are called "(name of airline) Flight (number)". If an Eastern Airlines had had a belly-flop landing in 1962, I don't think anybody would write an article about it. There is nothing historically significant about this incident that merits its own article. Mandsford (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:AIRCRASH and non-local newscoverage. Agathoclea (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE The very significantly revised WP:AIRCRASH guidelines are now live per consensus on the talk page. References to the guidelines prior to 11:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC) likely refer to the previous version. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria in the newly revised WP:AIRCRASH guidelines. The politician onboard wasn't "significantly involved" in this minor incident. B.Rossow talkcontr 19:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable New seeker (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Complete lack of notability. Safety issues are minimal, the cause of the u/c malfunction is either already known to the airworthiness authorities or is inconsequential (unlikely to happen again)Petebutt (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Due to the complete revision of WP:AIRCRASH, is this being treated as a completely new AfD discussion, or do earlier opinions expressed still count? Would it be better to do a procedural "no consensus" close and immediately open a new AfD for this, with all parties who participated in the above debate notified? Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say the closing admin can sort it out, and based on new opinions following the relist, and assuming that you don't find it more likely that it is kept based on the change to WP:AIRCRASH, I don't see a need to notify people. Amalthea 16:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is a concern that the new WP:AIRCRASH makes it more likely to be kept, there is an opposite concern that the new WP:AIRCRASH makes it more likely to be deleted. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm? It was my understanding that the new one is more restrictive, in particular with this case. Wrong? Amalthea 17:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that myself and two other editors referenced the new version (then the draft version) in our comments. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As it was then a draft version, those comments should have no bearing on the decision. I quoted according to what was the established WP:AIRCRASH at the time it was quoted, which is the one that should be taken into account for my comments. Comments posted after the new version went live should be taken note of according to the current WP:AIRCRASH. You see how this is getting messy and why it might be better to scrap this AfD, start a new one and notify all editors involved (I'm prepared to do this last bit if it will help). Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well actually, the notability guidelines set up by a WikiProject don't necessarily represent consensus. They might, but since a WikiPoject tends to consist of people especially interested in a topic, their standards are sometimes different than what the wider community would think. If people quote such a project guideline, I'm guessing they are either agreeing with it or abiding by the WikiProject standards.
In particular, WP:AIRCRASH is neither binding nor necessarily pre- or descriptive, and everyone who commented before the break and mentioned it was aware of the discussed revisement anyway. Again, I would let the closing admin sort it out. If they think a restart is best, they have my blessing, but in my opinion it's not necessary. Amalthea 17:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well actually, the notability guidelines set up by a WikiProject don't necessarily represent consensus. They might, but since a WikiPoject tends to consist of people especially interested in a topic, their standards are sometimes different than what the wider community would think. If people quote such a project guideline, I'm guessing they are either agreeing with it or abiding by the WikiProject standards.
- As it was then a draft version, those comments should have no bearing on the decision. I quoted according to what was the established WP:AIRCRASH at the time it was quoted, which is the one that should be taken into account for my comments. Comments posted after the new version went live should be taken note of according to the current WP:AIRCRASH. You see how this is getting messy and why it might be better to scrap this AfD, start a new one and notify all editors involved (I'm prepared to do this last bit if it will help). Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is a concern that the new WP:AIRCRASH makes it more likely to be kept, there is an opposite concern that the new WP:AIRCRASH makes it more likely to be deleted. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say the closing admin can sort it out, and based on new opinions following the relist, and assuming that you don't find it more likely that it is kept based on the change to WP:AIRCRASH, I don't see a need to notify people. Amalthea 16:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and redirect-and fix-just because then we'd have to delete hundred other air crash related articles. And also, this made the news so it is notable! Antonio Kim Possible's Fantasy Martin dime aqui! 10:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not deny that the accident is notable. But an article of its own does not make sense to me. The important piece of information is already included in Contact Air. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I quote from Wikipedia:Notability: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability ... Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." So just because something made the news does not necessarily mean it is notable. The incident happened on 14 September, on 15 September of the 12 news reports known to google, there were just 5 independent English results [52] (including duplicates and German articles there were 12). On 16 September there was only one relevant news article mentioning it [53], between 17 September and today there have been no relevant news reports [54]. I think that's a very good example of something that was only very temporarily newsworthy and so not notable at all. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In anything up to 2 years time, a report will be published into the accident which will give the "continued coverage". The problem is, if the article is deleted now, it makes it a lot harder to recreate it once the report is out. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles can be undeleted at any time (see Wikipedia:Deletion review). Basing the notability of an article on the existence and/or content of a report that has not yet been released (and may not be for another 2 years) and even then may or may not say anything notable, is WP:CRYSTAL at its finest. Anyway, I disagree that two separate bursts of news reporting separated by up to two years (assuming that there is any news reporting about the report - it's not guaranteed) constitutes continuing coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That same criteria was the one used to delete Milivi Adams, even through she has a street named after her, she has a school named after her, her photo is on every corner in Vieques, and she made the Puerto Rican newspaper many times. When she was deleted 4 years after her death, there was only a few mentions left. That same criteria was used by the user who tried to delete Charlie Zaa. It may not be notable to you but it sure is to many others! Besides, my vote will stay at keep anyways. Antonio Your wife's man Martin dime aqui! 08:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles can be undeleted at any time (see Wikipedia:Deletion review). Basing the notability of an article on the existence and/or content of a report that has not yet been released (and may not be for another 2 years) and even then may or may not say anything notable, is WP:CRYSTAL at its finest. Anyway, I disagree that two separate bursts of news reporting separated by up to two years (assuming that there is any news reporting about the report - it's not guaranteed) constitutes continuing coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In anything up to 2 years time, a report will be published into the accident which will give the "continued coverage". The problem is, if the article is deleted now, it makes it a lot harder to recreate it once the report is out. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Contact Air "This could be merged into Contact Air (which was done already, actually)" and per WP:MAD, if not kept. To delete this would be to disrespect the GFDL, and if we don't respect it, how can we expect anyone else to? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chemenish (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/original research; title is a non-notable neologism, probably made up by the creator of the article. snigbrook (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSpeedy Delete per nom. WP:WPINAD. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Strong delete. Complete BS. Oh, and the original author posted some "links" on my talk page about Youtube videos that supposedly verify this. What a load of crap! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unfortunately contested PROD. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Ale_Jrbtalk 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thra aahhht this pony 'n' trap.: This Matheson Lang may 'eaven and 'ell exist, but there's absolutely nuffin' aahhht there abaht it, and nah way ter verify it.[55] --Milowent (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Two Ghits, both of them Wikipedia. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I live in the north of England and I've never heard of it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it should be deleted, but that's not a valid reason. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could have repeated the arguments on the number of hits on GNews as usual, but that would have been less exciting. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it should be deleted, but that's not a valid reason. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:MADEUP. Fences&Windows 00:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Non-notable original research, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 17:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Like most other articles created by now-banned User:CltFn, this one is a puff piece that lacks reliable, third-party sources. The real purpose of this article is to inflate the credentials of Bat Ye'or, who is rather tendentiously described as a "historian and expert on Islamic culture" despite her lack of any academic standing. This book has never received any notice or discussion outside the walled garden of anti-Islam agitprop. No reviews by neutral sources like major newspapers, magazines, scholarly journals, etc. Fails WP:V, WP:NPOV, and the notability guidelines in WP:BK. *** Crotalus *** 16:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk)
- Comment -- This is actually an article about a book, of the not an article on the status Dhimmi under Islam. Whether it is a notable one I am not qualified to judge. The underlying subject, the oppressive attitude of Islam to other religions living in Muslim-controlled lands is an important one, but I hope that WP has articles on this elsewhere. Assuming that the article correctly reports the book's content, it seems to me a legitmate article. The only "unbalanced" item may be the assertions about the author's importance. Having not seen the book I am not qualified to say more. Another question is whether WP is an appropriate forum for reviewing books. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I checked google books and found hundreds of books that cite this book. With statements like "For the Islamic policy towards Jews and Christians see Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi. Jews and Christians under Islam, London 1985". The article is poorly sourced and in dire need of improvement of every sort. It would be nice to waste less time on politically-motivated DKYs.Historicist (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll ignore your assumption of bad faith. How can we write an article that meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:NPOV, while basing our article on reliable third-party sources as policy requires? Saying that the book was cited by other books doesn't help us write an encyclopedia article. Where are the book reviews, discussions of the book, etc., in reliable sources? If no one in the mainstream bothered to review the book, how notable can it be and why should we have an article on it? *** Crotalus *** 15:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep a simple search shows plenty of sources. AfD is not for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no evidence that this book ever received any mainstream attention. The article cites no reliable, third-party sources — just a single radio interview with the author, which lacks independence and hardly establishes any level of notability. It was created in June 2005 by a a now-banned user who repeatedly engaged in anti-Muslim POV pushing. The lack of mainstream attention means that it is not only impossible to meet verifiability, but also impossible to write a neutral article as our policies require. Any article would invariably give undue weight to fringe anti-Islam sources. An examination of the requirements of WP:BK also shows that this article falls short. *** Crotalus *** 15:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep and improve refs A single radio interview is a notable source. Certainly notability is weak but article may be worthy of inclusion.Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google search brings up plenty of unique reviews.Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The radio interview is a trivial mention — we need sources that focus on the book, not just mention it in passing. There are lots of Google hits but that doesn't mean that any of them are reliable sources. We need reliable, non-trivial, third-party sources to keep the article. The article doesn't seem to meet the book notability guidelines — is there any reason why those guidelines shouldn't be followed in this case? *** Crotalus *** 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just going by past experience. I've seen less notable articles kept for less.Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed. I think that the article just needs some attention and a better chance to be properly sourced. Billbowery (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, if it doesn't happen during the AFD itself, it never will, and we'll just wind up going through the same thing again 6 months or a year down the road. I've seen this happen too many times before — vague claims that sure, an article sucks now, but it can be improved. Unless such claims are backed up with specific cites, they are worthless, and almost never followed up on. *** Crotalus *** 13:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A "better chance"? It's had four years to be properly sourced. How much more of a chance does it need? -- B.Rossow talkcontr 19:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 17:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Butterfingers (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. Hasn't even been released, so fails WP:NSONGS. Prefer to redirect but two attempts have been reverted. Delete for now, with no prejudice against recreation upon achieving notability requirements for songs. Wolfer68 (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 17:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons stated by Wolfer68. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 17:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ScreenConnect (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 software. Cannot find independent coverage. Haakon (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom (non-notable), fails WP:N - DustyRain (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 17:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Untitled Fourth Album (Avril Lavigne album) (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. WP:HAMMER. Unsourced. Untitled. Unconfirmed track list (despite what the article says). Wolfer68 (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete only because a track listing isn't available yet. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NALBUMS - a title would help, too. JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A Google search is unable to find the album's title (I thought I had found it, but it turned out to be on unreliable sources). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I recall seeing two articles about this album a month or two ago. It was not notable then, it did not have a confirmed, complete tracklist then, nor confirmed title. Nor does it now. Fails WP:NALBUMS. talkingbirds 22:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a textbook case of WP:HAMMER. Nothing exists yet. Until something exists, it needs to stay away. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete , STOP!!.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER. Rlendog (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER (but minor credit to the author for not calling it "Avril Lavigne's Fourth Sudio Album") and complete lack of reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic contact#Mediterranean Antiquity. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fuente Magna (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 potential OoPA, may be a wp:hoax regardless only reliable source is a stub, not sufficient to confirm WP:N Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Also want to add that article should be Salted as commentary on talk page suggests it may have previously been deleted and re-created. see hereSimonm223 (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- we can address this when we come to that turn. The article hasnt been deleted before, but I note it has been around since 2005, based on the 1985 article addressing it. By our current standards (or even our 2005 standards, but we didn't patrol such articles for notability with any rigour back then), this isn't in any way sufficient for a standalone article. If the article contains a claim to pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic contact, it might be mentioned in a short paragraph in that article. --dab (𒁳) 17:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
deletepending the provision of actual WP:RS establishing notability. --dab (𒁳) 17:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- in fact, I think a merge to section to Pre-Columbian_trans-Atlantic_contact#Fringe_theories may be arguable. We'll see if such a section will survive in the "contact" article, which is patrolled much more rigorously for notability of fringe theories. --dab (𒁳) 17:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is referenced as an OOPart (Out-of-place artifact). I recommend retaining it. Most OOParts have small articles, although some have large ones. Almost all are frauds, hoaxes, or otherwise lack provenance -- that does not mean they shouldn't have an entry. Alternatively I would be OK with having the article be a redirect to the OOPart page, with each "small article" OOPart just having a section on that page. Most people will come to it after looking up OOPart. SunSw0rd (talk)
- Comment
Above suggestion would be problematic as per WP:DUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATEalthough there are references to this being an OoPA there are no reliable sources suggesting this position, as has been discussed on the talk page for the article.Simonm223 (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Agreed that this probably does not warrant an article but as a number of un-reliable sources pop up in a Google Search and the artefact does seem to exist in a museum it probably is worth a small mention as a disputed artefact. That it has been referenced in at least one (albeit not very notable) published work of fiction may also be worth a mention. It is unfortunate that no source positively identifies it as a fake or at least wrongly identified artefact.—Ash (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Concurs Ok, you all convinced me, merge is fine. Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and indef protect the redirect after threats (to recreate) on talk page. 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbal (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (threats) I can not see where the threats are on the talk page, perhaps you could include a diff?—Ash (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Threats to keep recreating the page, as it was linked from Out of place artifact, another awful (though probably notable) article. Clarification added. Verbal chat 09:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (threats) I can not see where the threats are on the talk page, perhaps you could include a diff?—Ash (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, don't merge:
- It is a crappy, stubby article, but one that could have promise if someone would put work into it (and snag a photo). Given how long it's been known about, and the age of the theory about it being Sumerian, it's certainly notable. Not well known, but well enough known. So deletion would be wrong. Take a look at Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head which gives a good idea of where this article can go, just with a bit of work.
- Merging is equally wrong, as the object's discovery predates the fringe theory about it by what, a good three and a half decades? Certainly mentioning the theory here, and linking here from Pre-Columbian_trans-Atlantic_contact#Fringe_theories, is a great idea. But merging gives a wrong impression about the artifact itself.
- hm, precisely because it has been known for a long time, and nobody has written anything about it, neither scholarly, nor fiction, nor pop culture, we can safely assume it is completely unnotable. Hell, we even need to resort to archive.org to get a decent web page about the thing. --dab (𒁳) 14:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Concur; I agreed that a Merge would be more appropriate than a delete would be but I stand by my original statement that this object is not independently notable from the parent topic. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic contact#Mediterranean Antiquity. There simply aren't enough reliable sources discussing it to warrant a separate page. There's a website from the University of California, Riverside, that talks about it,[56] though E. Fred Legner's expertise is in biological pest control.[57] A book mentions it here. p.s. Dbachmann, the use of the hoax tag on articles such as this is inappropriate, as if there is a hoax it is not being conducted by Wikipedia editors. We don't use it on Piltdown Man. Fences&Windows 20:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant merge (or delete) Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head has an article in a reputable journal, it is not comparable. Fences and Windows, the book is not only by a specialist in software, he users worldmysteries.com as his source, so it's not independent from the web page which itself is not a reliable source. So on two counts the mention in the book is irrelevant I believe. And we do use the hoax tag on Piltdown Man -- it isn't for hoaxes created by Wikipedia editors. The UCal website is odd as it says "For educational purposes only; do not review, quote or abstract" - and anything that takes Clyde Winters seriously is hardly reliable. Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete, or Merge and see if the materials ends up staying in Pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic contact. ClovisPt (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Provisional_IRA_East_Tyrone_Brigade. (except Patrick Kelly, per ONIH - this one to be left open for a short while to see if it can be improved) Black Kite 22:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Declan Arthurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As part of this AFD I'm also nominating Seamus Donnelly (Irish republican), Eugene Kelly (Irish republican), Gerry O'Callaghan, Tony Gormley and Patrick Joseph Kelly as their articles are all based on the same single event.
These articles were previously nominated for deletion. The result of that discussion was to merge them to Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade.
The original concerns still seem valid based on WP:N, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and particularly, WP:ONEEVENT. The subjects don’t seem to have done anything notable besides being killed in the Loughgall ambush and what notable content on them there is should be added there since there appears to be very little on their lives to create anything more than a perma-stub. The Declan Arthurs article highlights this. There are seven refs, which looks promising, but the 1st, 5th, 6th and 7th deal with the Loughall incident. The 2nd appears to be from an Irish Republican commemorative website and fails WP:RS. The 3rd and 4th aren’t even about him, they’re about his brother. There was previously an eighth ref there which I removed as no part of it supported the claim that “in January 1987, Arthurs spent all but seven days in Gough Barracks with no charges being brought” and it deals with the Loughall ambush and not Arthurs’ life. Others have even more problems, the Seamus Donnelly article has nothing other than a brief line or two and two refs, one not a reliable source and the other about Loughgall. During the previous afd on Tony Gormley it was claimed that Gormley was notable for other attacks. However nearly 3 years have passed since then and there is still no hint that the article can be improved to standalone status. As 22 years have passed since the deaths of all involved it’s unlikely that any new information will come to light on their activities. Valenciano (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with nominator. The main purpose of the article appears to be as a memorial. Mooretwin (talk) 08:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeep Patrick Kelly Article can be expanded, as was explained in the first AFD and also when it was overturned. Various books detail Kelly's activites prior to 1987, as has already been explained also. 2 lines of K303 13:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a keep to all or only to Patrick Kelly? Valenciano (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just keep for Patrick Kelly, no real opinion on the rest. 2 lines of K303 13:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment: This AfD was malformed and now fixed. I relisted it because the original AfD was easily overlooked. Please consider this the first week of discussion. Tim Song (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all into one article and fundamentally rewrite from a neutral point of view. The bias in this article is so massive it is visible from space. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and rewrite for NPOV. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Obviously promotional, seems to be agreement of that in the discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Green Park Ltd (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 indication of notability, in the article or elsewhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I find no indication of notability to the standard of WP:CORP. "38th Fastest Growing entrepreneurial business in the UK" and finalist for some awards is not enough. When searching note that there are other companies by the same name, e.g. here. The article was input by Green Park Ltd (talk · contribs). JohnCD (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can see nothing notable about this obvious attempt at self-promotion. No pages link to it. No mentions in Google News. Derek Andrews (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable as mentioned by others. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article is pure promotion. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is some notability but I can only find one source[58] that has a significant amount of information. Other possible sources[59][60] but I don't think there is enough for the the relevant guidelines (WP:GNG/WP:CORP). snigbrook (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G11, was already tagged and declined by the same user, so retagging. ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, no, it was I who declined the speedy. Still trying to make up may mind about the AfD. Favonian (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've looked fairly carefully, but the only source I found (other than snigbrook's results) was this one, and that's just not enough. Favonian (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No indication of notability, in the article or elsewhere. A Google search for Green Park Ltd gives hits for a Turkish playground equipment manufacturer company, a hotel company in Scotland, "Trust for African Schools", etc etc, but at least the first few dozen hits make no mention of this company. A search for "Green Park Ltd" interim to force results for this company results in a total of 9 hits, one of which is this Wikipedia article, and all of the rest are Green Park Ltd's own web pages. (Apart from www.green-park.co.uk there are pages on globaltalentpartners.com and diverse-leaders.com, but both of these have the same page design as those on www.green-park.co.uk, and all of them have a copyright note for Green Park Ltd at the bottom of the page.) I can find nothing at all anywhere that could be considered significant third party coverage of the company. (The one "source" mentioned above by Favonian quotes from the company, but does not discuss the company or give it any significant coverage. The first source which snigbrook gives has a little more, but could still not be described as substantial coverage.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As everyone else has said, non-notable. Google doesn't prove notability of this subject. Netalarmtalk 21:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CORP. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 17:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dennis King (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 doesn't seem to meet the general notability guideline because there are not sufficient reliable, third-party sources that focus specifically on the subject. Some of the references are either from the subject himself, or from unreliable sources like Lyndon LaRouche's PAC. There are only 3 sources that could reasonably be considered reliable. One of them, an article in The Nation, mentions Dennis King only a single time. Another is a book review in The New York Times of one of King's works. Still, the subject here is the book, not King himself, and there is very little biographical information to be had here. There is also an interview with King conducted by the Chicago Sun-Times, but this interview focuses mostly on LaRouche and tells us little to nothing about King himself. The bottom line is that we can't write a biography of Dennis King because we don't have the appropriate sources to allow us to do that. *** Crotalus *** 15:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps the article should be re-named to be about his book, which seems to be his sole claim to fame. I suggest this because there are hundreds of source citations to his book at the various LaRouche articles, and the Wikipedia reader ought to have some background information on King available, so as to be able to evaluate the use of his book as a source. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Crotalus horridus is correct that the subject does not appear to meet the basic notability guidelines. His book is notable, but I suggest that an article about it be started from scratch to avoid WP:COATRACK issues. Will Beback talk 22:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Crotalus. I don't see much of a justification for Dennis King being notable. Being able to, and willing to, talk loudly largely on the subject of LaRouche is not a tenet of notability in itself. Achromatic (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the arguments above. I learned of this discussion via a thread on Wikipedia Review which did not ask participants to vote a certain way. Cla68 (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 17:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Front line (as expression) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dictionary definition. Article was prodded for that reason shortly after its creation in March 2009; prod was removed by article's creator with a defense that rather misses the point ("This definition isn't currently explained elsewhere on Wikipedia or Wiktionary, so we must create a new article for it"). The point being, of course, that there's no reason for an article that does nothing, or can do nothing, besides define a word or phrase. (And this definition is now included in Wiktionary, whether or not it was there in March 2009.)
I would request that anyone who votes to keep this article offer up a suggestion for a new title, as the current one obviously does nothing to disambiguate the topic, but the topic is so vague I can't think what else would be appropriate. Propaniac (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As creator of that article, I appreciate it is WP:DICDEF and I *thought* I had marked it for transclusion into Wiktionary (perhaps such a marking got removed when it was.) No need for it here now. I would not be too didactic about dicdefs that are not in Wiktionary though; we have to get them in there somehow, and personally I am busy enough on Wikipedia without learning another Wiki. Being a WP:PNT regular (apparently) I am well aware of the occasional annoyance when it seems another editor has not really made an effort when creating the article, but I don't in this case that's really justified (I forget what article it was used on, but it definitely needed to be linked from it – or perhaps better, reworded on that article, which for some reason I was reluctant to do.) SimonTrew (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, are you saying you support deletion? (Also, are you saying that you think it's a good idea to create Wikipedia articles containing only dictionary definitions, because it's easier for you to do that and mark them for transclusion than to learn how to edit Wiktionary? That is really terrible advice. Especially if you're then going to deny prods so that in order to delete these dictionary definitions you no longer care about after they've been transcluded, they have to go through the AFD process. I really hope you're not saying this is a good method to "get [those definitions] into [Wiktionary] somehow.") Propaniac (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:DICDEF. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is already in Wiktionary where it belongs. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Rocco Siffredi. — Jake Wartenberg 17:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rosa Caracciolo (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:PORNBIO. Only other claim to notability is the supposed Miss Hungary title, but that claim is contradicted by the available, reliably sourced listings of pageant winners, which don't show any of the names, referenced or unreferenced, the article subject has reportedly used. While there are many online references to the title, they all apparently are based on non-independent, unreliable promotional material promoting the films the article subject appears in. Article repeatedly deleted in past by PROD and speedy processes, but it keeps coming back, so AFD needed for more binding resolution. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Its a fairly borderline case, but I'd say just on the side of notable. Subject has a bit of RS coverage ([61][62]) which is more than just about all porn stars get. I suspect the "Miss Hungary" title comes from a pageant other than the Miss World feeder competition, which would explain the discrepancy. Obviously that would diminish its value, but not remove it entirely. If deemed not notable, the article should be redirected to her husband - Rocco Siffredi - as she is obviously notable at least in that regard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Rocco Siffredi, as per ThaddeusB. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the Rocco Siffredi article, which already mentions her. She hasn't received much media coverage, except for brief mentions in articles about Rocco. Epbr123 (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Rocco Siffredi if the Miss Hungary title can not be verified. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 17:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Videotape (video) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nice stop-go animated short but, regrettably, YouTube content that does not establish notability fails inclusion criteria. I42 (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication that there is any independent coverage at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clearly non-notable youtube vid. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 19:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Symptoms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rock band whose record of gigs is maybe enough to save them from speedy deletion by WP:CSD#A7, but who have released only two self-published EPs and do not meet the notability criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. JohnCD (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks notability. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Lectonar. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bushizam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Claims notability but no ghits to back up claims i could find. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rosenkowitz sextuplets (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 about sextuplets which does not thoroughly state notability. Simply being born and surviving should is not encyclopedic. TM 14:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Being first fully surviving set of sextuplets generating sufficient coverage to establish notability. Whether the circumstance "should" be enough to generate notability is irrelevant to actual notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per reasons stated by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I quickly added two refs to support notability claim. --Milowent (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added enough now there's no doubt this will be kept. suggest nom. be withdrawn. --Milowent (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per wolfowitz.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Keep Keep Keep Keep Keep Oh give me a break. Believe it or not, it was big news back in the 1970s when sextuplets were born and survived. Maybe we should delete the Dionne quintuplets article as well, since being born and surviving is not encyclopedic? Mandsford (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 19:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Visual MP3 Splitter & Joiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
spammy article about unremarkable software which lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Creator contested prod and repeatedly removes reference maintenance tags on this and similar articles about software from that same website. RadioFan (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason above, additionally the only references on any of these articles are either blogs are listings on shareware list sites which do little to demonstrate notability.:
- MIDI to MP3 Converter for Mac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Free M4a to MP3 Converter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- MP3 Tag Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Advanced File Recovery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- MP3 Recorder Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Audio CD Burner Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete - entirely non-notable software that does the same as hundreds of other software packages, and created by a user account with a history of creating spam articles. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blatant WP:ARTSPAM. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all of these - clearly fail our standards of software notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Move to Article Incubator. Clearly a notable topic, but as mentioned before, this is merely a collection of OR and SYNTH that does little to enlighten the reader as to that topic. Black Kite 22:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-Cold War era (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 page appears to be OR with SYNTH. The sourcing is a couple of newspaper articles and a non RS website (the link currently goes to a page saying "ass"). Although the term is in common usage, it is not defined clearly enough in lots of RS for this article to be able to get anywhere without SYNTH. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm very surprised by the nomination. It's a phrase that's been used in 3000 books, 15,000 news stories, and 35,000 scholarly articles, so I think there's a clear case for notability, and no real issues with improper synthesis. The currently poor sourcing is no reason for deletion. Fences&Windows 21:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I might !vote later, but let me first say (and I sincerely don't mean to offend anyone here) that this article is quite bad, perhaps irremediably so in terms of conception and scope such that it warrants deletion. What it the actual topic of the article? If it is really about the "post-Cold War era," (to the extent that that term has any agreed upon meaning, which it largely doesn't) then it should be about the history of the entire world during that time period, which it obviously is not. Is it about post-Cold War U.S./Russian (and ex-Soviet Union satellite states? or no?) relations? Then it should be called that. Is it about diplomatic history between Western powers in general during this time period, or economic history, or both? Is the fact that there is absolutely no agreed upon outer limit to the "Post-Cold War era", or indeed agreement that "Post-Cold War era" is a coherent or useful term, problematic? I think so. Post-WWII history is what I study, and I don't know what this article is supposed to be or how to turn it into something that makes sense. The fact that the term is clearly used does not mean we should have an article with that exact title, at least not if we, at the moment, have no idea what the content should be. I'm interested to hear what others, including those who have worked on this, have to say about it, but the article as it currently stands is not really acceptable encyclopedia content in my view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the issues you raise condemn the article, indeed they probably give us more material to work with. I will try to improve it - there's more than 50,000 potential sources to work from - but if editors still want to get rid of the article at the end of the discussion, an alternative to deletion is to move it to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator where it can be worked on away from articlespace. Fences&Windows 23:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of course the phrase is used. The wide use of a phrase does not mean that it is used consistently or coherently enough for there to be a distinct encyclopaedia article on it. (My favourite oft-cited but unencyclopaedic phrase is "British intransigence", which gets thousands of hits, including 400 on google scholar). The post-cold war period is defined by not being the cold war, and there not being the Soviet-US stand off and the predictability that that brought. I am not convinced that there is enough material without the necessity of OR/SYNTH, or content forking from articles with a narrower scope (unless we want to assemble the end of history theories of people like Francis Fukuyama, in which case the article would be very different indeed.) For example, is it post-cold war Europe, or is it the international system in general? What is the difference between this article and one on the collapse of the Eastern Bloc? (which is not a period so much as a series of definable events) If you do put some effort into improving it Fences, make sure that there are some over-arching RS sources that provide a structure.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I agree that the article is quite bad. I think this article should probably be wiped down to a stub, but not deleted. As Fences notes above, it is a very widely used phrase, used to indicate the current epoch of international history.—Perceval 02:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the problem is that there is little or no agreement whether the term actually indicates "the current epoch of international history", or whether it is even a meaningful historical epoch at all. It's even worse than "Post-1945 U.S. history", which is a recognized period in academic history, but whose "end point" is entirely unclear. The problem is akin to someone in 1655, with the Peace of Westphalia in their minds, calling their time the "Post-Awful Terrible War" period. While it could have been (but obviously wasn't, I'm joking here) a meaningful term at the time, there is no real analytical strength to it and thus not much to build an encyclopedia article on. There's a similar problem here which could probably be resolved with a lot of good sources discussing the very idea of the "Post-Cold War Era" and its inadequacies, but we don't have that now and without it I think this article likely does more harm than good. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're right that there isn't one commonly accepted definition. But I think that's something you will find dominates nearly any term used in the social sciences. There is no one accepted definition of sovereignty for example, but the idea which is implicit in NPOV is to represent the state-of-the-debate as accurately as we can. I agree with you that the article as it stands is bad. But I do not agree that the solution is to delete the article outright. Wiping it down to a stub and starting from scratch is the far more reasonable solution.—Perceval 17:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course social science terms are nearly always contested. But then there are terms which are so ill-defined that there isn't really even a debate about them. I think that's largely the case here. What is the "state-of-the-debate" on "the post-cold war era?" I'm not aware that there really is one to speak of, other than various individual people making remarks from time to time about the "Post-Cold War era" (though that doesn't happen much anymore). I think my analogy about how people might have referred to their era in 1655 is a bit more apt than a reference to sovereignty, which is a concept with an enormous scholarly literature. Stubbing this article down would be better, but what would it say? "The Post-Cold War era started after the end of the Cold War era and either stopped sometime after that or is still continuing, or the term should not be used at all, and it's not clear whether it applies to the whole world or just relations between major powers or what exactly was going on during whatever time it was (is?) occurring"? Obviously I exaggerate, but I genuinely would not know what to write. If we don't have an idea for specific content right now (and no one is really proposing anything) I think the existence of this article probably does more harm than good. Maybe the "article incubator" (which I'd never heard of, I'm guessing it's new) is a good place for this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- This is a poor article, but the topic is a significnat one. Speculation on the end of the era (now) is premature WP:OR. The "background" section would be better described as "Cold War" and linked to a main article on that. The article needs a lot of work, but that is a reason for improvement, not deletion. My only query is whether there is a better article onm the subject already. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kenneth Regan (murderer) (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:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 02:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As Dominic says. Kevin (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unremarkable local criminal. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Murder of Amarjit Chohan and tag for clean-up. The murders were, of course, one event, however, they were not "unremarkable" and they have been addressed more than briefly in local publications. Referred to as "high-profile murders of millionaire businessman Amarjit Chohan" and family: [63]. GNews also indicates substantial coverage across the UK and India, as well as a Chicago paper. Even reported in an Air Cargo trade publication: [64]. There are a couple write-ups about the murders in a book analyzing the khat trade here and business security here. Ordinary murders don't get this coverage. Location (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to vote in an AfD if you would like to write an article about the event; you can just do it. A four-sentence biographical stub is not going to be "moved" to an article about an event. You are talking about an article which needs to be written from scratch. Dominic·t 22:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm recommending what I think should be done, not voting. It doesn't appear that you or the other two editors recommending delete were aware of the coverage of this event. Location (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point. This is not an event; it is a biography. It may be true that there is enough coverage of an event to write an article about it, but this article is not it, and moving it to that name makes more sense. Even if the event had an article, this biographical article would still be unwarranted because of the lack of biographical sources for the subject of the article. Dominic·t 02:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm recommending what I think should be done, not voting. It doesn't appear that you or the other two editors recommending delete were aware of the coverage of this event. Location (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Location (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge. Though not mentioned in the article itself, the subject is one of only 50 offenders in the UK to be issued a whole life tariff. This is remarkable enough to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Consider merging with this article: List of prisoners with life tariffs --Whoosit (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Evil saltine (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable, minor criminal New seeker (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicole Cox (child actress) (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:ENT, simply having an ongoing role does not equate to notability. most coverage is passing mentions not in depth coverage [65]. LibStar (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, coupled with the fact that if she does succeed in acting, the parenthetical "child actress" would be obsolete. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ENT. Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 74 episodes of Passions is not exactly a passing fad. If deleted, let's allow her back when she gets a second role someplace and a bit more covergae. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- we can't make judgements on future notability as per WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What Crystal? If the article is deleted and her career does not proceed, it won't be returning. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- we let any deleted article back as per WP:RECREATE. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. But unless issues spoken of in its deletion are addressed, it will be right out again per G4. If/when she gets more coverage or further develops her young career , those issues may become addressable. If not, then not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- we let any deleted article back as per WP:RECREATE. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What Crystal? If the article is deleted and her career does not proceed, it won't be returning. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per G12 by Killiondude. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Makoto Shichida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
StewartNetAddict (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nominated for speedy deletion, fails NN.. creator meant to close and nominate for speedy. tedder (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Songs To Wear Pants To (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:NN mitchsurp (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and the result of the last AfD for this article was delete. Maybe I should have CSD'd this. -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonna close this and nominate for SD. -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sound Of Gospel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lots of red links, not to mention exactly 0 references. mitchsurp (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A Google search shows a fair amount of coverage, just because an article has red links or is unreferenced doesn't mean it should be deleted. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 13:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - AfD is not cleanup. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - could stand some attention though. Petersent (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tipton Town Ladies F.C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very self-serving, even listing the coaches phone number if you're interesting in training. Article was speedy deleted when it was called Tipton Ladies Football Club. mitchsurp (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable local sports team. GiantSnowman 09:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has played in a national comp, as discussed below. GiantSnowman 18:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-encyclopaedic and defintely not notable Spiderone 12:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I take it all back. Spiderone 19:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for men's teams consensual notability is that if teams have played in a national league/cup (including FA Cup, FA Trophy & FA Vase) they are notable. Would this team not meet that consensus as they have featured in the Women's FA Cup? Obviousy men's football has a much bigger structure, but isn't notability established across the board? --Jimbo[online] 13:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above and rename to Tipton Town L.F.C. --Jimbo[online] 20:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As Jimbo has stated, the general rule of thumb for footy teams is eligibility to play in national cup competitions - this team has played in the FA Cup, and therefore meet this requirement. Bettia (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Have played in the Women's FA Cup, so seems fine to me. 8lgm (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, assuming it does get kept, should probably be moved to Tipton Town L.F.C. 8lgm (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seems notable enough, but the name needs to be spelled out or at least properly punctuated. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Static Hype (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, non-notable radio program lacking GHits and GNEWS. Fails WP:NOTE ttonyb (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also note that the prod was declined. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not finding significant coverage in reliable sources RadioFan (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Twitter Power (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 meet the criteria for books, specifically significant coverage in multiple third-party sources. The only independant reference is a passing mention and a quote by the author in a story about Twitter. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - nomination refers only to the current state of the article. A quick search reveals several usable sources including: CNET mention, Review, News.com.au coverage, in depth review, review, more coverage, etc. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per ThaddeusB B.Rossow talkcontr 17:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pick up girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable per WP:BAND. Note that a previous version of the article contained quotes from a newsletter, a website and a blog. Evil saltine (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete , no notability whatsoever. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Cincinnati Reds minor league players. Tone 20:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Theodis Bowe (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 minor league baseball player. Since he exists and is a minor league baseball player, he's got a smattering of Ghits, but none are significant mention in reliable sources. Fails WP:ATHLETE by definition. Wikipedia is not a baseball scouting website. If he makes the Major Leagues, great, but chances are he won't and even if he does, it'll be several years from now (WP:CRYSTAL) and we wouldn't need an article like this about him (I don't think anyone really believes that high school baseball is notable enough for this much information about it). PROD continues to show its uselessness, as it was removed by the author. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added additional stats and references which is all that was said was required to take down the deletion notice. It's a notable article because "Bowe became the first athlete from Ellendale to be drafted by a professional sports team, the first athlete to ever be drafted straight out of high school from Milford High". The page is not only about his high school play as you claim and there are additional references available if you look up Theo Bowe as well as Theodis as you referenced. Superman7515 (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Merge per Spanneraol below. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which state that anyone who has "competed at the fully professional level of a sport" is notable. Since he has played professional minor league baseball, he meets this guideline.--TM 17:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However, minor league baseball is not considered fully professional.--Giants27(c|s) 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That opinion is very much disputed. Resolute 00:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Minor league baseball is a hierarchy of professional baseball leagues in North America that compete at levels below that of Major League Baseball", which would mean it is professional baseball as hierarchy is categorization of a group of people according to ability or status. Basically, professional baseball at a lower skill level. Not that I want to get into that argument. How about someone taking up Spanneraol on his suggestion to merge it into Cincinnati Reds minor league players? Superman7515 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That opinion is very much disputed. Resolute 00:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However, minor league baseball is not considered fully professional.--Giants27(c|s) 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There ya go, he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Superman7515 (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That tone is not helpful.And by no means are minor league baseball players notable simply for being minor league baseball players. That opens the door for many, many thousands, if not millions, of "articles" that stand next to no chance of growing beyond a sentence or two (size of this particular article was never the reason I brought it here, so please don't make that argument). WP:ATHLETE is, among other things, ridiculously poorly defined. If it's taken to mean a player like, say, Grier Jones merits an article, then it's very, very wrong and needs to be killed with fire. Probably does anyway. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I didn't intend to have a tone, I was simply greatful for the clarification.Superman7515 (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I apologize for my snippiness. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 04:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't intend to have a tone, I was simply greatful for the clarification.Superman7515 (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per google hits link presented by nominator. Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG. Minor league player ARE NOT notable for being minor league players since MiLB league are not FULLY professional.--Giants27(c|s) 23:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Delete per nom and Giants27. Past consensus has determined (repeatedly, ad nauseum) that minor league players are not covered by WP:ATHLETE. -Dewelar (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Changing vote to Merge per Spanneraol below. I keep forgetting those pages exist, which are the perfect place for information about players like Bowe. -Dewelar (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He was drafted in the 21st round. No way notable--Yankees10 23:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Cincinnati Reds minor league players.Spanneraol (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Dewelar. The minor-league pages are the catch-all for players who may at some point become notable, but do not yet meet WP:GNG. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non notable for the reasons mentioned above. Wizardman 02:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Cincinnati Reds minor league players. We have pages like that for every MLB organization for players like this. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further argumentIs there some standard for how long players are listed on those pages? If this guy ever makes the Majors, it'll probably be in about 2013 or 14. Long time to have content for somebody we don't otherwise think is notable. I see those pages (like Milwaukee Brewers minor league players) as being for players who are prominent at AA or AAA and likely to make the Majors if not this September probably sometime next season. Someone this deep in the minors and this non-notable doesn't need to be written about at all. Should notability be established at a later date, the article can be started then. Should "near notability" be established, he can be added to one of the minor league players pages (and that's the other thing, no reason at all to believe he'll stay in the Reds' system his whole time in the minors). I did an audit of articles on minor league baseball players, identifying around 300 that I believe need to be addressed, and Bowe is perhaps the least notable of them all. To merge his article would set the precedent for merging all of them, which in turn sets the precedent for writing something about every single player in the minor league system of every single team. And that shouldn't happen. Merge is not correct here. Deletion is. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 04:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I looked at the Brewers page you listed, and I see a lot of players in A-ball, a few in Double-A, and not many at all in Triple-A (and one guy, David Welch, who is notable enough for his own article, having played for Australia in the Baseball World Cup). The Minnesota Twins minor league players article is split evenly between Single-A and Double-A, with no Triple-A players at all. One player on the Brewers' page has been playing professionally for eight years. I don't see why this is a problem at all. -Dewelar (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then those pages ought to be trimmed, rather than more pages like them resulting. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 04:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the AAA players have enough sources about them that they have their own standalone articles. My approach with the Los Angeles Dodgers minor league players page is to primarily include AA players on the page.. with a few of the more promising Single-A players. I'd normally stay away from Rookie league guys but this one seems to have enough information about him to make it worth merging him... though it should be slimmed down a bit so as not to take up too much room on the page. Spanneraol (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then those pages ought to be trimmed, rather than more pages like them resulting. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 04:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I looked at the Brewers page you listed, and I see a lot of players in A-ball, a few in Double-A, and not many at all in Triple-A (and one guy, David Welch, who is notable enough for his own article, having played for Australia in the Baseball World Cup). The Minnesota Twins minor league players article is split evenly between Single-A and Double-A, with no Triple-A players at all. One player on the Brewers' page has been playing professionally for eight years. I don't see why this is a problem at all. -Dewelar (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Cincinnati Reds minor league players, once it's cut down to size. A 21st round pick from last year playing in the GCL does NOT meet criteria for a stand alone article. --Muboshgu (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or merge to Cincinnati Reds minor league players. Although like all minor league baseball players he is fully professional, and thus appears to meet [{WP:ATH]], consensus has been more restrictive than that. Historically, minor leaguers were (generally) only considered notable once they won an award, played a minor league all-star game or played a full season at AAA, although WP:BASEBALL seems to have changed this recently. And since Theodis Bowe has not reached AAA or been a minor league all-star, and his draft position is too low to warrant notability on that basis, and since I am not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (since stat pages don't count for this purpose) that would meet WP:N, redirect or merge is appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sierra Jade Gerban (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 and WP:ENT. simply making 2 appearances or having an IMDB listing does not cut it. nothing in gnews [66], and google reveals mainly directory listings. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and allow back when this youngster's career gets coverage. Her career fails WP:ENT and her notability fails WP:GNG. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn. The nominator has withdrawn and there are no outright delete !votes. However, 2 of the 3 !votes are for something other then keeping and WP:SK is unclear on this issue. Since both merging and redirecting are editorial decisions and can be done without AFD, I'm going to close this discussion as "nomination withdrawn" (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SEIU Local 1000 (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 evidence of notability. A single chapter of a worldwide union. Blargh29 (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Massive state-wide local representing around 90,000 state employees. Significant news coverage. Examples: [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76].--Chris Johnson (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chris JohnsonRedirect to parent article per Exit2DOS below. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Withdrawn by nominator - Those 10 sources are enough to convince me of its notability. --Blargh29 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with parent Article Service Employees International Union that happens to have a 'Notable locals' section. 3 sentences does not an Article make. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 21:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn - non-admin closure --Cyclopia (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In Heaven There is No Beer (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 indication that this meets WP:NSONGS RadioFan (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable performers, internationally sung (references to versions in English, German, Spanish and Dutch. Notable composer (Ernst Neubacher) was also an internationally known cinematographer. Performer by several college bands (internal links). Two movies allude to the song in their title, one a 1985 Sundance award winner, the other 2009. Pustelnik (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are numerous Google News results for the song, referencing versions of the song performed by Frankie Yankovich, Flaco Jimenez, and Brave Combo. Furthermore, the documentary itself is certainly a suitable source. This easily meets WP:GNG. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If On Wisconsin wasn't already my state song, this one would be it for sure. Very notable song in the American Midwest and among polka fans. Nate • (chatter) 04:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn while there may be no indication that the song charted, as is normally how songs meet notability guidelines, there are sufficient other 3rd party references to meet general notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Atari 7800. If more sources appear or the article can be expanded, the article can be split off again, but as of now, the consensus is to merge. NW (Talk) 01:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ProSystem (Emulator) (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 program doesn't assert notability. The one reference is from a how-to guide based upon emulation. This simply shows that it is just a mention of the program and its purpose, which does not indicate notability. TTN (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge to Atari 7800. AfD is not for cleanup. The reference used in this stub article meets WP:RS and actually contains more than "just a mention of the program and its purpose".
Chris Kohler, an author with authority in this area goes on to state on page 156 of his book Retro Gaming Hacks (ISBN 0-596-00917-8): "If MESS is too messy for your tastes, and you're looking for an emulator that is strictly for the 7800, you have a couple of options. One is called ProSystem Emulator and the other is EMU7800. Of the two, ProSystem Emulator seems to be the most complete and compatible."
Considering the age and obscurity of the Atari 7800 console platform in general (as it never really caught on in the market), considering how few emulators exist for this platform, and considering how few emulator programs actually get written about in a published book, a book by a well known, notable author giving coverage to these is a pretty big deal.
Note that the nom previously redirected both the article and its talk page [77] [78] without any prior discussion or reason and immediately brought it to AfD when it was unredirected.
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a how-to guide, not a source that can be used to establish notability. It isn't being covered; it's telling the reader that "If you wish to emulate Atari 7800 games, use this or that. Here are a couple of things that can be done with them." With that argument, every single recipe out of a cookbook by a famous chef is instantly notable. TTN (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that book is not a "how-to guide" and it is not the only "source" available either. Your arguments thus far have been bogus and knowing your history, I see no point in any further discussions with you on this subject. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what exactly would you call it? Look at the index; every single one stems from the sentence "How to play retro games." He may throw some history and the like into it, but skip to any section and it is basically "to build/play/create/emulate/run/ect X, use/buy/download/ect Y." That is a guide, plain and simple. If you have actual sources that show notability, please actually add them. You seem to have the idea that many emulators are notable, but the actual case is that only MAME and maybe one or two others have a slight possibility to be formed into decent articles. There is no hope for the rest of them. TTN (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about we first address your creative use of false analogies and attempted redirection of this discussion?
Your "cookbook" analogy is quite creative but References and Sources are not required to be notable, only reliable. Chris Kohler's book is still a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines and the inline citation directly confirms the statement in this stub article. Furthermore, Chris Kohler (even though he himself is quite notable) did not write this software – he wrote a book that gives coverage to this software.
You are also implying that this is the only reference available for this software. If you spent more time researching subjects instead of starting arguments and/or arbitrarily redirecting them (and yes, I am well aware of your past ArbCom restrictions that barred you from initiating merge/redirect discussions or redirecting articles, which is exactly what you did to this and other emulator software articles), you'd find there is plenty of material out there that can be used to expand many of these articles.
Your ignorance and dislike of this subject area was also quite apparent when you decided to try to redirect MESS. [79] I also consider your mass removal of links of the articles you are redirecting to be disruptive [80] and User:Ham Pastrami has since followed up behind you and removed all mention of the emulators that you redirected and unlinked. [81]
--Tothwolf (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a source is considered reliable does not mean that it establishes notability in any article that it is included within. The book is a how-to guide to things like emulation, so all it is doing is confirming the existence of the program. That is not notability. Feel free to ask on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for more input. It's not that I don't like emulators (actually, I frequently use them), but simply the fact that these articles are essentially advertisements for them. They are not covered in reliable sources and the information is very trivial. There is nothing that needs to be covered within them that a simply table wouldn't suffice. If there is material that establishes notability, it is your job as the person asserting that they are notable to provide them, not me. As I have said, only MAME and maybe two other have an actual chance to become decent articles, so it is likely a pointless endeavor. TTN (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about we first address your creative use of false analogies and attempted redirection of this discussion?
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not notable without sources - merge to Atari 7800 An obscure emulator for an obscure platform with a few sentences in a large book on the general subject of emulation does not establish notability for an independent article. There are two sentences in this article now and misc info from the infobox can be written as another sentence in the Atari 7800 article. Miami33139 (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - No particular reason this should be out on its own. It's not any more notable than other 7800 emus, and arguably less so. --Teancum (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Atari 7800. There isn't enough material in the source (which I am looking at an actual copy of right now) to qualify as significant coverage. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was already deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- El Aluminium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. mitchsurp (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC) mitchsurp (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They're either premier (according to the article) or second division(according to Egyptian_Second_Division) - I can't find any notability standards for sporting clubs, but Wikipedia does have articles on sporting clubs on equivalent levels (AAA Baseball, for example.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to an existing article about the same club - Aluminium Nag Hammâdi. GiantSnowman 13:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per GS, better quality article on the club already exists -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to better article Spiderone 14:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Per above. GauchoDude (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The page seems to have been removed because of the person who made it. Spiderone 07:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. This is already the 5th AfD closed as keep... anyway, a possible mergre or other editorial issues can be discussed outside AfD. Tone 20:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anna_Svidersky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL. Nothing against the people who loved her, but almost everything here is already covered in her own part of Mourning Sickness --mitchsurp (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL and neither is this article. A memorial is for subjective and emotional tributes. The article is written according to wikipedia policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. It has been extensively discussed in great detail by a number of experienced editors to arrive at the current text, specifically to avoid inappropriate material. The only justification for the accusation of NOTMEMORIAL is the fact that she is dead, a rationale which would necessitate the deletion of a vast number of articles. I note that "almost everything" is covered in Mourning Sickness, so obviously everything is not covered. For everything to be covered adequately it would be necessary to transfer the text of the article into the mourning sickness article, which would be inappropriate and the reason we have a WP:SUMMARY methodology, so that people who wish to find out more can go to where the more detailed examination of the subject exists. The fact that she is considered to be important enough to merit her own section in the mourning sickness article is a reason to keep the article on her, not to delete it. The inclusion of some material from one article in a second is not a reason for deleting the first article. Sviderdsky has in a most unfortunate way achieved individual notability, rather more in fact than Mourning sickness. The fact that the latter received 473 views in August,[82] and Anna Svidersky received 3454,[83] speaks for that. As the article has been nominated four times before, the first "no consensus" and the last three all "keeps", I consider this nom to be inappropriate. WP:CCC, but there is no change of external circumstances to justify the expectation that it will in this case. Ty 02:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Contra Tyrenius, a MEMORIAL can be factual also and fail the test--the key factor is whether it gives information that would make a person notable. However, there was a non-consensus in May 06, a keep in May 08, and another in December 08. I think it is likely to be the consensus that in this case the specific phenomena concerning her are sufficient to make her notable. Personally, I'm not at all sure I agree, but this is probably within our standards. If it gets kept again, I think it would be highly improper to renominate unless our standards change for the much more restrictive. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely weak keep, and if kept, Rename to Death of Anna Svidersky. She is not notable as a person, her death is the thing that is notable here, if anything is. We do not normally keep articles on victims who were not otherwise notable and usually rename them to cover the event that suggests notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect and merge with the Mourning Sickness article, where she has a section devoted to her. The whole point of her notability is the sensation surrounding her death, right? It's not specifically her, as she did not become notable until some time after her death, regardless of what she might have done while alive (not listed anywhere in the article). mitchsurp (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable person and event, not an emotional memorial, per Ty. Crum375 (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per previous decisions, or at least redirect to Mourning sickness. I've never entirely understood why it is ok for assassins & killers to be notable for a single act, but not victims who have recived huge publicity. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- My logic remains unchanged from the previous AFD. Espescialy considering the deletion rationale is pretty much the same. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Deja Vu all over again"...Modernist (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No change in relevant circumstances, no new information, there no reason to overturn previous lack of consensus to delete. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - Not individually notable, and I don't think we make articles about the death of random people. Maybe merge with the relevant trial, if it exists.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 15:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or merge and redirect to the section about her on the Mourning sickness article. She is not notable for anything other than the reaction to her death, and that article can contain all the biographical detail about her that is needed for context without becoming a memorial. Therefore there is no need to keep this largely duplicative article, but the title should be retained as a redirect as a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think there is something to be said for consistency and precedent on this one....while this is probably a borderline case of notability, in my opinion, the previous verdicts on recent AfDs strongly argue for not revisiting this unless something has changed in the iterim (keeping in mind the "once notable, always notable" principle) Vartanza (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think the "keep" folks are missing a key factor: the article isn't even about the subject! Rather, it's about the murder and the aftermath. At the very least, redirect to Mourning sickness as outside of her friends and family the subject is regrettably non-notable. B.Rossow talkcontr 13:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - notable murder and example of "mournign sickness"; well-sourced story. Not my thing, but the ongoing consensus has been to keep this. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - passes WP:GNG, a notable murder. Seeing as Brossow (correctly) points out that the article is more about this girl's death than her life, perhaps it should be renamed to Murder of Anna Svidersky or equivalent. Also, seeing as this is the fifth nomination - and all the previous AfDs resulted in 'Keep' - perhaps we can show a little sense and not waste everyone's time in future with more pointless nominations. GiantSnowman 14:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chantelle Fontain (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) 06:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - one of my favourite models but fails GNG and PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication of any other basis for a claim to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Open source optics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Until yesterday, I was not aware this topic existed, and I still do not know it exists - my attempts to find any reliable confirmation failed so far. The article makes an impression of being referenced, but all the links are either on "open source" or on "optics", not on "open source optics". I myself can not imagine application of open source to optical design. Materialscientist (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Open design. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am not sure what would go in a merge. Also, optics usually means only electromagnetic radiation that behaves basically like visible light, as opposed to radio. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 15:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
WP:SYNTHESISerm, WP:NOTCASE (but you know what I mean). --Cybercobra (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ibrahim Abdullah (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 sources provided are not from reliable sources and the article itself does not truly state notability. The sources provided are from highly partisan organizations and newspapers (extreme pro-Israel publications) and YouTube, which I am to remove. The article is highly inflammatory and should not be kept unless a few reliable sources can be provided. TM 03:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In addition to the obvious POV concerns, I fail to see how this entry is encyclopedia-notable. Was he an important militant? Was Ibrahim ever mentioned in the news? Did he become a notable critic of Islam or anti-PLO activist? From what the article says (which is what Ibrahim says) Ibrahim was a Fatah fighter who took part in a failed and arguably minor attack on a bus in Israel. There are probably hundreds of Fatah fighters who participated in attacks against Israel, many of which did not fail. There are many more from other Palestinian armed groups. That doesn't make them notable enough to have their own articles on Wikipedia? --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The entire article seems to be based on one website and one newspaper article. I did a Google search and found that the entertainer Abdullah Ibrahim got all the hits. Yoninah (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Man Without A Head (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 find significant coverage for this film. The creator also has a conflict of interest. Joe Chill (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete COI isn't a reason to delete, but non-notability is, which is the case here. B.Rossow talkcontr 13:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said that it was a reason to delete. I brought it up because it shows that the film is most likely non-notable if someone who worked on the film was so desperate to create an article on the film themself. Joe Chill (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now. If this gets some independent coverage, allow it back. [84] MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Circus Promo Tour (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 not notable. Artists ALWAYS go on promo "tours", and promo "tours" are never notable because all the are are short performances and short interviews. They aren't even tours. Other artists don't have promo tour pages ---Shadow (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Circus (Britney Spears album). PaulGS (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I really don't see the need for that. All of this information is already on that page. ---Shadow (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- River IQ test (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 to establish notability. A citation confirming its use as a standardized test in China would fix this. NeonMerlin[85] 01:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Nothing shows up as this being an IQ test. But I have heard of this "test" before. Netalarmtalk 06:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article claims why it is notable, but needs citing. A {{fact}} tag would be the better procedure so editors can find sources. PaulGS (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 19:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete.No sources, except for unreliable one. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC) However, it seems to be well known. Therefore, I am Neutral. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete WP:Trivia combined with lack of reliable sources makes me feel this should be deleted. I taught in China for a few years and never encountered this test problem. Furthermore a test composed of a single logic problem would not be standard test design in China. Simonm223 (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to River crossing puzzle, as this appears to be just another variation of the puzzle. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Absolutely unencyclopedic, unsourced, not valid as a redirect, only 349 Google hits. Abductive (reasoning) 21:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it is a variation on the river corossing puzzle, but with no sources to establish this as an actual IQ test used in China. -- Whpq (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cissy van Bennekom (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 and WP:ENT, nothing in gnews [86] . LibStar (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep She still played in several movies. Since it is in the 1930's it is quite normal to not have that many Internet references, since Internet was not even created. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 01:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless someone can establish a source other than IMDB establishing notability. Whitespider23 (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Dutch version of this article contains slightly more information. She appears to have been in a number of important early Dutch films. I have asked the original author of the Dutch article to help expand this, but even without expansion this is a valuable stub. Cmprince (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Note alternate spellings of her name: Ciccy v. Bennekom and Cissij van Bennekom. Under the spelling Cissy van Bennekom, she is found in a general google search and in several books. Under Ciccy v. Bennekom she is found on non-English websites. Under Cissij van Bennekom, she is found on non-English websites. We most definitely need input and assistance from German andd Dutch Wikipedians. So far, those are the only places online where I can find information about this Dutch actress from before World War II. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Invalid deletion ratonale, lack of online news sources for pre-World War II European performer has nil relation to notability. Appears to satisfy WP:ENT based on appearances in notable films. The fact that it may be difficult to expand an article beyond a short text is not grouds for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Greg McDermott (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not yet played for first team, fails WP:ATHLETE, had added a PROD but immediately removed by author. Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATH. Recreate if plays a first team game or if meets WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete has only played reserve grade according to this [87]. obviously if he actually makes top level the article can be recreated at that stage. LibStar (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG; recreate in future when one or both of these concerns are met. GiantSnowman 09:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - recreate if he makes an appearance Spiderone 12:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete youth player who fails WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-professional level. --Jimbo[online] 13:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleteDelete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- If you look at WP:CSD the reasons in the nom aren't eligible for speedy deletion. --Jimbo[online] 18:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete youth player, so significance coverage, currently fails WP:ATHLETE, recreate if and when--ClubOranjeT 09:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable New seeker (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Canola (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)
non-notable piece of software. Has one reference to a blog. Miami33139 (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Canola is one of the most popular pieces of software of the Maemo platform. There are numerous references to it, and just because "you" don't know it, doesn't mean it's not notable. Canola was one of the first applications on the Nokia mobile computers that showed the potential. It has a great number of followers and is highly customisable. http://openbossa.indt.org/canola/ https://garage.maemo.org/projects/canola/ http://maemo.org/downloads/product/OS2008/canola2/ http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?p=324540#post324540 http://etrunko.blogspot.com/2009/09/canola-on-n900.html --195.54.231.19 (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, IP, I ask you to show multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Not nerds, blogs, documentation and forums. Miami33139 (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless good sources can be found.
- Delete Non-notable and Wikipedia isn't a software directory. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Glyn Dix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
falls foul of WP:BLP1E, while the coverage fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Sad, horrible and all, but not encyclopaedia-worthy. The use of life tariffs does bring this a bit more importance than other murderers, but 1) it's not enough to justify keeping it and 2) it doesn't override BLP1E, the main problem here. Ironholds (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. B.Rossow talkcontr 17:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Text messaging. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Craig Crosbie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previous holder of the fastest texter, now not notable as surpassed by Text messaging#Records Bladeofgrass (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clearly not notable for anything that could not be covered in the aforementioned article. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have no strong opinion on the notability of the subject, but would point out that if he was ever notable then he still is. Notability is based on the existence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Such sources don't unwrite themselves when someone else surpasses a subject's achievement. This is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear you (WP:NTEMP). Would you support a merge and a re-direct to Text messaging#Records per WP:1E? Bladeofgrass (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the merge option presented above. It's a clear BLP1E, but as it's attracted so much attention it would be good to find a home somewhere. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above B.Rossow talkcontr 17:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Center_for_American_Progress#Criticism_of_.22The_Structural_Imbalance_of_Political_Talk_Radio.22. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio (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 report. WP:COATRACK article for Mark Lloyd. Brandon (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Center for American Progress, where it is already adequately covered. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources. --Dr.enh (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It had reliable sources until deleted by Dr.enh. As it was only one of many projects for Center for American Progress, it really belongs broken out, or as part as a larger article about localism or control of broadcast media.Bachcell (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A think tank (americanprogress.org) and commentary on townhall.com are not reliable sources WP:RS. All are POV, and the first is also a Self-published source --Dr.enh (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would wait for the AfD to close before these sources are removed. These may not be reliable, but they are not spamlinks either. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A think tank (americanprogress.org) and commentary on townhall.com are not reliable sources WP:RS. All are POV, and the first is also a Self-published source --Dr.enh (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Center for American Progress - Schrandit (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it seems like some may be arguing that we need reliable sources for the existence of this publication besides the publisher. the think tank is a reliable source for its own publications. we dont need any more, as its a noncontroversial issue that it was published. its notability, sources for its being commented on, etc. i agree we need more, or it may need to be merged with the think tank.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Center for American Progress, this is not independently notable. Simonm223 (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above RadioFan (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. NW (Talk) 01:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Superantispyware (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 software. ospalh (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SUPERAntiSpyware has nearly 20 million worldwide users, is recommended by Dell tech support (among others), is used as a tool on forums such as Majorgeeks and TechSupport Forum, and is available through major software retailers such as CompuCom, Software House International, Computer Troubleshooters, and Tiger Direct. It has as much merit as any other commercially available software mentioned in any other wikipedia entry.
Delete. Not notable, refs give only one mainstream indep. source, and that's only a review. Primarily a promotional article. Ohiostandard (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another advertisement for someone's pet software project. Fuzbaby (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A popular, reasonably-well-known piece of software that's often enough recommended for use by independent sources. Review of software in major magazine is strong indication of notability; exactly what other sort of coverage should we be looking for? Plausible search term, useful content -- that's what Wikipedia articles are supposed to provide. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom B.Rossow talkcontr 17:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Keep Just notable enough between the PC World review and this one I came across. Article definitely needs work. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Not Playin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN album, no hits online, no sources. →ROUX ₪ 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 00:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I found plenty of sources (here, for example). The article reads like an ad though, so keep and cleanup, but don't delete. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Klemen Pisk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cross-wiki spam, dubious notability, previously removed from french wiki (in french: fr:Discussion:Klemen_Pisk/Suppression).
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. —Eleassar my talk 11:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. --Eleassar my talk 11:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article does not make any claims of notability. Google Scholar only found trivial references plus a couple of citations. Trivial mention in three books plus many titles by Pisk himself. Trivial mention in Google News. I also checked using Klemena Piska which is a variant spelling. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above discussions B.Rossow talkcontr 17:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The issue of renaming can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Porcine petroleum (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 page title is a neologism that occurs only in the linked AP story and is not an industry or scientific term. The "technology" is a purely uncommercialized preliminary/original research from a single study. So-called "porcine petroleum" (a misnomer for specifically pig manure-derived synthetic petroleum, part of a more general process), has not been produced in commercial or economically significant quantities. Any references to this research belongs in another article. NTK (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My investigations show that NTK's assessment is correct. Mangoe (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although the technology is not commercialized, it is notable enough to get a media coverage by the mainstream sources. I agree that if there is better title (do you have any suggestion?), we could change it, and if necessary, we could expand it to cover more wide scope of synthetic petroleum derived from the biological waste. However, it needs a development of this article, not deletion. Beagel (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (and maybe move) - Article is sourced, there is media coverage and the subject seems worth an article in itself. The article needs love, but not deletion, for WP:DEADLINE. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept then rename pigs have not been around long enough to be turned into rock oil, the title is misleading. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep significant coverage in several third party sources, the fact that it is not yet commercially viable shouldn't matter for inclusion. As for the rename, the New York Times and National Geographic both simply call it 'Pig Oil'. J04n(talk page) 13:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is of low notability but does deserve a short article. It is referenced although industry or science journal links would be preferred over news articles. It certainly needs a better name. "Porcine petroleum" is a misnomer and it gets zero hit on google scholar. A better article name, until a name become common usage, would be Pig manure derived oil or suchlike. It is more descriptive and more accurate although a little PC. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uniboard (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:N, at least as far as a cursory Gnews search was able to determine. I'm treating this as a contested prod, since I prodded this article a few months back, and it was deleted, but the article creator re-created it. RayTalk 04:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I can't find significant coverage of this software. JUJUTACULAR | (TALK) 00:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Teng Moua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Third-party contested speedy. Long, unreferenced article about a Pokemon tournament contestant. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find reliable sources to establish notability. JUJUTACULAR | (TALK) 00:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable trivia. Simonm223 (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.