Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 8

< 7 May	9 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art rain association

Not notable. I would expect any notable contemporary art project to have hits from Google News, but none of these appears to be about this association. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP, while the article has 340,000 Google hits, there are no reliable sources as far as I'm concerned. Ceranthor 23:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources, and the article itself is heavily promotional in nature which isn't surprising given the conflict of interest. - Whpq (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Gilbert (actor)

Does not pass WP:ENT. Credits include "Kid #5" and "Kid with the list". Wperdue (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMDB profile page for those interested. I'm not saying this proves notability. Ceranthor 23:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I copied and pasted this from the top of the main entry. It is from the original editor: Dear Wikipedia users please refrain from deleting the Brian Gilbert (actor) page it is to promote the actor Brian Gilbert and is an informative source that our company decided to put on wikipedia. I am Brian Gilbert the actor and I am on IMDB so as you can imagine I am very close to the subject of this wikipedia page. Wperdue (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. And gently Userfy back to the author. I feel for this youngster... I very much do. And can admire the work he put in to create a wiki article that looks properly encyclopedic.. surprising for a beginner. But he does not understand wikipedia requirements for sources, nor the wiki guidelines concerning COI and self-promotion, else he would not have made the plea that he did. His 2 minor roles might well become dozens over the next few years, and I would myself then be proud to reintroduce a properly sourced article for the lad. For now, I'd encourage him to seek Facebook and Myspace for "promoting" himself. Do more Brian. Make that splash. Then come on back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only solid reference really establishing notability is this from the NY Times. A few more like that and he'd be notable enough for an article. But not at this point. Dlabtot (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not establisdhed, and body of work does not indicate that it can be established at this time. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. Enigma^msg 22:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - COI, much?--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 12:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliophagy

The word is primarily used as a metaphor and I can find no reference to the disorder except only http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/b/bibliophagy/intro.htm which leads me to believe it is suspect. Pontificalibus (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. It was my first attempt at an article, and I had no idea that it was a type of metaphor. (: Chocolate Panic! (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can find only metaphorical uses and the article is all from the two listed websites. I don't think it's notable. Hekerui (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say something (since my other reply was short), when I googled the word for references, there were nine hundred and fifty-five results. Someone had posted it in the requested articles list, which was why I undertook the endeavor in the first place. I would agree and say delete--it really isn't all that important. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did do a good job with it, try again or check out the articles on Pica (disorder) or Bibliophile if you are interested in either topic. Drawn Some (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links! Chocolate Panic! (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seemed to be notable at first, but I couldn't find any reliable sources. Ceranthor 22:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G7 Author requested deletion above. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather the article go through the whole AfD process, since there is something there, and it may be revisited in the future. So I wouldn't consider a G7 vote appropriate analysis of the article. Prodego ^talk 01:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Becca Rice

Does not appear to meet WP:NMG Stifle (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. A google and google news search turn up absolutely nothing reliable - most are just social networking sites. Ceranthor 22:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 09:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Probably could be speedied; might as well let the AFD play out. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage - the best i could find is this, which may or may not be considered a reliable source, but isn't enough by itself in any case.--Michig (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent sources to verify the information in this article. Turbo900 (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. New information pertaining to a national championship win has appeared. Note: This closure replaces a mistaken "delete" closure by me. Sandstein 15:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kilcar GAA

One sentence article, states little other than location and existence of club. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Short, no notability stated. Delete.--Unionhawk ^Talk 15:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete-It doesn't even say what league they are in, so not bound to be notable. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 16:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at present. Club plays in Donegal Div 1 but has no record of national success in club championship that I can find. Would seem to fail WP:ORG on lack of national scope. Similar notability in football (soccer) project would also require this I think -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:GAA winner on county championship is notable . This club has won 5 Gnevin (talk) 22:39, 6 May 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 20:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Speedy keep per Gnevin. Sounds familiar for some reason... --can dle •wicke 21:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, apparently they were the top Gaeltacht side in the country just last year. So that would presumably count towards national recognition. I'll change to speedy keep. --can dle •wicke 21:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment also a "fifteen year trophy famine" suggests this is not the first time they've achieved something. --can dle •wicke 21:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syfy (disambiguation)

Unnecessary dab. I have found no proof of "syfy" being short for syphillis, and even if it were, the matter could easily be solved with a hatnote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is minor coverage on syfy possibly being the plural form of the polish word syf, but it translates to "total bloody mess" with only minor references found to Syphillis.[1] I just don't see there being enough coverage to really justify having it listed as a nickname, particularly when it appears that if it is one, it isn't an English one. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Urban Dictionary is ABSOLUTELY NOT a reliable reference but it confirms the slang usage meaning "syphilis" as being Polish in origin. Drawn Some (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & Keep The ironic thing is that the first person that tried to delete the page I created is that he thought the reference to the SciFi channel was unnecessary and it should be an automatic redirect to syphilis. Hmmph. τßōиЄ2001 (ǂ ) 13:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIC, WP:NEO. — Rankiri (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's borderline WP:OR, undoubtedly WP:NEO, and probably WP:NOTDIC. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 03:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have to agree with Drawn Some that Urban Dictionary is not a reliable reference. Anyone can edit it anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turbo900 (talk • contribs) 23:20, May 12, 2009

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Only the nominator thinks this article should be deleted. (NAC)--Unionhawk ^Talk 19:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–Japan relations

They've "agreed to boost dialogue" (stop me if you've heard that one before), but show little evidence of meaningful interactions. Plus, no third-party sources actually deal with this relationship, meaning it fails WP:N. Armenian imports from Japan are $5.8 million and exports are $600,000; needless to say, that's not much in Armenia's $17 billion economy, and a mere accounting error in Japan's $4.3 trillion one. There's a tiny diaspora community, but even that has its own article, so there's no plausible reason to keep. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think its about time we came to a formal general consensus over whether these international relations articles meet requirements or not. Nobody would ever dream of deleting the US-UK relations article or the UK-Japanese relations article for instance. The problem lies in that different countries have differing levels of intergration. From a neutral viewpoint these international relations articles should be notable subjects. Unfortunately most were started without any real content. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an ongoing discussion here, but we know neither how long it will go on nor if it will achieve results. Of course no one would dream of deleting those two because even books have been written specifically about those relations. For Armenia-Japan, that is simply not the case. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I humbly proffer for your consideration ISBN 9994110101. Not that I can claim to have seen a copy. It's assuredly in Armenian and it appears that at least some of it is also in Japanese. Conceivably there's a little bit in English, too: it does appear to have a title in each of the three languages. -- Hoary (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe it is not correct to assert that these bilateral relations articles have inherent notability. Even if we assume that Wikipedia, as a unique reference work, should include almanac-type entries, one still needs to establish the notability of the specific entry under consideration to decide whether it should be included or not. There are currently about 193 nations in the world, so unless it is being asserted that the 37,056 articles on bilateral relations between them are automatically notable, some evidence needs to be presented that each specific relationship is notable enough to warrant an article. Thus, no blanket decision can be made regarding them. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps you missed some of the other articles. There are articles about actual "set in stone" agreements that have been signed. Take for example [2], which states "Armenian Trade and Industry Minister Karen Chshmarityan and Chairman of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Takao Kawakami signed a two-year programme on 'The development of Armenia's mining industry'". Another article states, "Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan today held talks with Japanese Foreign Minister Makiko Tanaka. Vardan Oskanyan thanked the Japanese government for its continuous support for Armenia in areas such as the economy". There is also a nice circa 1920 New York Times article that discusses Japans recognition of Armenia[3]. Finally here is one last source [4]. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. There's a lot of Japanese money floating around. That some of it has made its way into the Armenian mining industry is neither surprising nor particularly significant - we're not told of an especially big impact on the Japanese economy from that deal.

2. That's the same visit I pointed to. Yes, the President of Armenia once visited Japan. And...? Visits happen all the time; there's zero evidence this one had any impact beyond the week it happened and the headlines then generated.

3. That Japan recognised the Democratic Republic of Armenia is noted in that article; to duplicate that content would be futile.

4. Primary source, and anyway, receiving ambassadors is truly routine, and scraping the bottom of the "notability" barrel. We may as well recognise there isn't much here, and not strain to pretend there is. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations task force deletions. – Hoary (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — Hoary (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If "there's a lot of J. money and some of it is going into A." there are significant relations between the two. The sources are enough to support an article. DGG (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that is not the case. You might have declared that that constitutes evidence of notable relations, but your conclusion is not validated by sources discussing "Armenia–Japan relations", and thus breaches WP:PSTS. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If $5.8 million looks like a mere accounting error then I sincerely hope to be the beneficiary of the occasional mere accounting error. And there's an entire (if obscure) book devoted to the matter as well. -- Hoary 09:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, now. The context was quite clear: compared to the Japanese GDP of $4.3 trillion, $5.8 million is indeed an accounting error. But the book makes me curious: is there a link to a record? - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup: see the article as I revised it: I provide the link to one record and invite readers to try feeding the ISBN to WorldCat (which has two records for it). [comment slightly revised after first posting] -- Hoary (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that it's normal practice to keep articles on subjects about which whole books have been published, such as the one found by Hoary. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Armenia PM stated "Armenia's authorities attach importance to consistent development of relations with Japan"[5]. Smile a While (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind that that source is self-published - what else was he going to say when receiving an ambassador? "Remember Pearl Harbor?" Friendly words spoken to a diplomat don't really constitute evidence of anything. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Marcusmax and these were English language sources alone. There's probably much more Japanese and Armenian sources. --Oakshade (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. People are unconvinced he meets WP:PROF. The political post mentioned by DGG is not mentioned in the article and thus difficult to take into account (would that be an all-Palestinian elected body or a "parliament" of Hamas the organization?) Sandstein 05:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal

WP:BLP1E. Coverage of this person is limited to one recent event. Policy is clear: Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

His other claim to notability is that he is the head of the Islamic Law departement at al-Medina University, but there is no indication that he passes WP:PROF. Atmoz (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Wouldn't that fulfill requirement #6 of WP:PROF? Drawn Some (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF in that The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity and The person has held a major highest-level ...appointed academic post at an academic institution Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Highest-level" in this context means president or provost of the university, not just a department head as he seems to be. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails on academic grounds - --Saynara (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non notable, only claim to fame is being on a list William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable as per WP:PROF and doubly so in the context of the travel ban Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:PROF, see User:Þjóðólfr's comment above. Oren0 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Delete. Doesn't actually meet WP:PROF as I had thought. Oren0 (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as WP:PROF (chairman of a dept.) and as a politician. The Hamas parliament counts. The legitimacy of the government is not at issue. additional notability from the recent news event. What the article needs is expansion.DGG (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Fails on academic grounds. May be notable on political grounds. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. Department chair is not the "highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution" per criterion 6. That would be president of the university (or chancellor, or whatever the particular uni calls it). His only other claim to notability is being listed on the list which is insufficient per policy as quoted by the nom. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The department chair and WP:BIAS had me leaning toward keep. However, the lack of any sourced accomplishments beyond being the department chair is a big problem. Symplectic Map (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yunis Al Astal

WP:BLP1E. Coverage of this person is limited to one recent event. Policy is clear: Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Atmoz (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – He is a MP, which is cited and refenced, and is of itself, an accepted reason for inclusion here at Wikipedia under notability guide lines. Thanks - ShoesssS ^Talk 19:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you mean one of the sub-guidelines for notability, because he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In the 2 sources in the article, he is mentioned trivially in both of them. Because someone is a Hamas MP, that makes them notable? If it does, I disagree with it. -Atmoz (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Than I am sorry and you should start requesting AFDS for every Congressman - Senator - British MP - and every other elected official in the free world. However, sorry to say, one of the notability guide lines here at Wikipedia says, if elected you are in. Though you may disagree with either the politics or Agenda policy says otherwise. Thanks - ShoesssS ^Talk 23:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? -Atmoz (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, and your point? ShoesssS ^Talk 23:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps produce them, please? -Atmoz (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In that they are already referenced and cited in the piece itself, I believe you are proposing a fallacious argument. However, to satisfy other editors that will visit this discussion, this should do [http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61582]. Thanks - ShoesssS ^Talk 00:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a Hamas MP is enough. Another point: there are about 74 Hamas MPs - This guy is the only one to be named and shamed by the British Home Secretary. Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non notable, only claim to fame is being on a list William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being a Hamas MP is notable, being the only one banned from the UK is very notable. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does not establish that he passes notability criteria even for WP:POLITICIAN. Where is the significant coverage in secondary sources (aside for the newsbite?). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN: "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges." The question to ask is whether the Hamas parliament counts for this guideline, but I think we throw out any semblance of WP:NPOV if we claim that Hamas's parliament confers less notability than all 50 US state legislatures, members of which qualify under this guideline. Oren0 (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as a politician. The Hamas parliament counts. The legitimacy of the government is not at issue. additional notability from the recent news event. What the article needs is expansion.DGG (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article certainly meets the politician requirement which alone is adequate for inclusion, especially given the unique status of that parliament being the first ever for the Hamas organization over a territory they now control for the first time. Also, given the unprecedented nature of Britain's actions in openly designating a very small group of people for exclusion from the country, the targets of that action should certainly be fleshed out as to the views, actions, etc., that culminated in such targeting. He is not simply "on a list," but is notable for the very reasons the British Home Secretary found him so uniquely notable (which in itself rebuts the notion that he is "low-profile")--his activities in inciting to violence and his leadership in Hamas in those efforts. As such, he certainly meets the primary definition of WP:BIO of being " 'worthy of notice'; that is, 'significant, interesting, or unusual' ." Given the recent nature of his international notoriety, further development by outside, independent sources is also likely. I agree that the article needs to be further developed in regard to the above. --John G. Miles (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above and expand to include more secondary sources. Symplectic Map (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safwat Hijazi

WP:BLP1E. Coverage of this person is limited to one recent event. Policy is clear: Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Atmoz (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was ready to accept the nominator's reasoning but when investigating the subject of the article I see that he has a long history of controversy and media coverage. I added a reference to an event in 2006 where he issued a fatwa and was investigated by the Egyptian judicial system. For some reason Google news is not pulling up all the news articles that a regular Google search is and I'm only looking in English. He's not exactly a household name but still notable. Drawn Some (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The 'bad boy list' isn't a random selection of people, it's a list of extremely notable individuals. Expand the article to improve coverage of the individual. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Drawn Some — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren0 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Ryno

WP:BLP1E. Coverage of this person is limited to one recent event. Policy is clear: Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Atmoz (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this guy was the leader of a group of mass murderers who admitted to killing 37 people and he was sentenced for killing 19. He was a juvenile and got 10 years. 37 murders is not one event, more of a career. Drawn Some (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge with Pavel Skachevsky Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non notable, only claim to fame is being on a list William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The 'bad boy list' isn't a random selection of people, it's a list of extremely notable individuals. Expand the article to improve coverage of the individual. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pavel Skachevsky. YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BLPs shouln't be merged. It would have to be a new article. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Create new article then, something like, but better than, 2007 Russian mass murders. YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of individuals banned from entering the United Kingdom. If later there is coverage for more than the one event, article can be recreated. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 03:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the most prolific serial killers in the world. How on earth does he not warrant a wikipedia page? 86.26.0.25 (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable for many obvious reasons. Nominator is full of whack. Proxy User (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Skachevsky

WP:BLP1E. Coverage of this person is limited to one recent event. Policy is clear: Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Atmoz (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this guy was also a nationalistic juvenile mass murderer with plenty of coverage. Apparently the guys the UK put on the bad boy list deserved it. Drawn Some (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge with Artur Ryno. Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not merge. The 'bad boy list' isn't a random selection of people, it's a list of extremely notable individuals. Expand the article to improve coverage. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Artur Ryno. YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really don't think you should merge WP:BLPs. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of individuals banned from entering the United Kingdom. If later there is coverage for more than the one event, article can be recreated. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 02:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the most prolific serial killers in the world. How on earth does he not warrant a wikipedia page? 86.26.0.25 (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or merge, but there is no valid argumet in support of deletion. Proxy User (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- besides the unanimous views below, and lack of sources and context, creator has now been blocked indefinitely as a vandal-only account. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kartbahn Racing

No reliable sources. Probably advertising but the article is such a mess I can't tell. The only thing that I can find is a go-kart racing track in Nova Scotia. If it's just this store then the lack of notability is plain. If it's something broader, I can't find it (and the state of the article is no help either). Shadowjams (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unintelligible, indiscriminate groups of words. Hekerui (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be advertising, no assertion of notability, no context. Hekerui isn't exaggerating - it is indeed an unintelligible, indiscriminate groups of words - there aren't any sentences, or punctuation. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After doing a little looking around Google hits. It would seem that this is not actually affiliated with the go-kart track in Nova Scotia. It seems that it's a sort of online "club" based in Europe that plays racing simulation games, and possibly makes modifications for such games. Found a couple of forums in German and in Spanish that some of them are members of. Regardless, they aren't notable. →^Jog_Con← 22:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 15:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced, non-notable list of indiscriminate information. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Additional Note: The AfD tag was removed from the article for a while, but has now been re-added as this is unresolved. Taelus (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It might be an online racing league. But who knows. The article is just a long list of stuff with no narrative text that provides anything in the way of context. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bimalendu Mukherjee

The given sources describe Mukherjee as a sitar teacher, but they are trivial mentions and don't provide a criterion of WP:TEACH, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:BIO. Notability does not automatically extend from son to father. Hekerui (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Hekerui (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Though there are no in-depth interviews concerning Bimalendu Mukherjee specifically, references to the individual by the people being interviewed use phrases such as “…a disciple of Pandit Shri Bimalendu Mukherjee’ or “…from sitar maestro Pandit Bimalendu Mukherjee” and even “…legendás Bimalendu Mukherjee’’. In that the people interviewed refer to the individual in such highly regarded terms, as shown here [6], in numerous interviews, in my opinion bestows and meets the inclusion guidelines as outlined under Creative professionals where it states “…The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors’. Thanks - ShoesssS ^Talk 19:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioning in sources such as The Hindu mets guidelines. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment references are also needed to provide verifiable content for an encyclopedia article, not just to establish notability. You can debate what trivial mentions are but you still need substance to write about. Drawn Some (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No, notability is notability and states so in the guidelines. As it is written in the notability guideline as shown here "... If a topic has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage from news sources.". Thanks - ShoesssS ^Talk 23:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is included in Who's who of Indian musicians published by Sangeet Natak Akademi (as seen on google books). I have expanded and added a few more print references to the article. Those plus the mentions noted by User:Shoessss clearly establish notability. Abecedare (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albury Road

non-notable residential road Ironholds (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete no assertion of notability. Quantpole (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Struck speedy, as doesn't apply, but you'd have thought a speedy tag would be appropriate for something like this! Quantpole (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete as a minor road. Only thing I have is A7 - hope that's close enough. Tagged. --63.64.30.2 (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speedy deletion tag. Criteria A7 only applies to people, organizations, or web content. It doesn't apply to roads. If you think other topics should be covered by A7, then feel free to discuss that at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. Calathan (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, good enough. Let it ride. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign that this is any more notable than any other mundane residential street in the world. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another short residential street. Wikipedia cannot have an article on every single street in the world. Dough4872 (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greatness

No way this can be expanded without violating NPOV. Also, there's no evidence "greatness" as such is a concept of particular significance to philosophy or history, aside from the idea of Carlyle's linked to here, nor does it necessarily make sense to assume that if historians refer to someone as "the Great" they are referencing a consistent, abstract idea of greatness--in fact Albertus Magnus would seem to have earned the moniker for very different qualities than the others mentioned in the article. Chick Bowen 18:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I'm not seeing an encyclopedia article here, it's a word to be defined, but it's not really a coherent subject to write about encyclopedically. I could see a disambiguation page or redirect here, if people think it would be useful. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding upon the "the Great" subject would duplicate List of people known as The Great (AfD discussion), note. Uncle G (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Chilliad. While there are surely lots of people with strong views on "greatness" it is hard to imagine an encyclopedia article about those views. Dictionaries of philosophy don't typically have entries for "greatness".Markdsgraham (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary: Voltaire's Dictionnaire philosophique has an entry for great/greatness (under the French title of "grand, grandeur", of course). Uncle G (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voltaire wasn't the only person to document greatness. Aristotle had a bit to say, about "greatness of soul" ("μεγαλοψυχια" — often misleadingly translated as "magnanimity"), in his Nicomachean Ethics. Nietzsche had the odd thing or two to say about "groß" versus "klein". Emerson wrote "Uses of Great Men". Even Plato got in on the act, in Parmenides.
And, yes, Hans J. Morgenthau and Jerry L. Walls (a professor of the philosophy of religion with a degree in philosophy) have written about it, too.
Far from there being "no evidence 'greatness' as such is a concept of particular significance to philosophy or history", there's evidence in abundance if one actually goes looking, some of it dating back two and one half millennia. Did anyone look?
The problem with this article is solved by writing — and by writing not in the cargo cultist let's-collect-people-known-as-The-Great-and-hope-that-an-article-magically-arises manner, but by using the actual sources that discuss this topic. (It should be noted, in fairness, that the current article doesn't do too much of this. In fact, at the time of nomination it was a verifiable stub. It wasn't hard to find a source supporting the first part of the introduction, for example.) It is not solved by deletion.
Greatness is good enough for Voltaire et al.. And, with the multiplicity and depths of sources available, it's good enough for us. This is a verifiable stub, with clear scope for significant expansion. (I suggest reading Voltaire, for starters.) Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, we keep those. Uncle G (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced. As you say, "greatness" is not the usual translation of the subject Aristotle discusses, nor do the various other thinkers you cite state that they are talking about the same thing. Indeed, most of them go out of their way to make clear that they are not--Emerson is interested in exemplarity, whereas Nietzsche in something that exists well outside of any moral sense of the term. Chick Bowen 16:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you haven't read them. You haven't read Voltaire, if you think that this is purely a concept in morality, since one doesn't have to read beyond the second paragraph of Voltaire to find that it is not. You haven't even read things like this if you think that "magnanimity" is the translation of Aristotle. And you clearly haven't read Nietzsche if you think that exemplars isn't what he was talking about, or indeed James F. Conant's commentary on Schopenhauer as Educator if you think that Emerson's and Nietzsche's discussions of greatness are not related. Go and read what philosophers have actually written on this subject over the past 2500 years. As I said, start with Voltaire. Uncle G (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are the ad hominems really necessary? I have read Voltaire, Nietzsche, etc. Obviously I take a different view of them then you do. My main point stands--if they are writing about an Aristotelian concept, then why don't they say so? They all address Aristotle in depth elsewhere. Your point is just that these various use of various terms are loosely related--I don't deny that. But are they the same concept? If you think that loose relation is enough for an article, fine, say so. Belittling me, however much you may enjoy it, is fine but it doesn't get you anywhere. Chick Bowen 01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are thousands of books on this topic. The nomination's presumption is therefore false. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That a book includes the word "greatness" in the title doesn't really mean it will contain anything useful for an encyclopedia article. 'Author A said Tom Brady had greatness. Author B said Winston Churchill had greatness.' sounds rather useless to me. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no shortage of information about this concept. Dream Focus 01:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are tonnes of sources. The article needs substantial improvement, but the topic deserves coverage. The book of the title has been cited 270+ times:[7]. Fences and windows (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable concept discussed by historians, philosophers, and other writers. It may be out of fashion today but it used to be much more widely popular. The first sentence needs to go as it is POV and serves as a general commentary about the topic rather than giving encyclopedic information about it. Sources to satisfy WP:N can be found here and Google Scholar. See also Great man theory. Once notability is established, the rest is left to cleanup. Them From Space 02:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator (2006)

Contested PROD. No evidence of any awards, or independent critical review for this film. A search turns up no reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:NOTFILM ttonyb1 (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand ,or merge to Jeff Heimbuch as being one of the first films of a (minor) writer/director who is himself notable through The Ties That Bind. Works by notable directors of other notable works improve wiki by either being kept or merged to the director's article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this film is a short film which won second place in a student film festival with the only sourcing being a press release. None of this in any way establishes notability for this film. So I see no good argument for keeing this article based on it meeting notability. As for merging, I also remain unconvinced at this point of the Heimbuch's notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable 7 minute film made by a non-notable director that won second prize in a county film festival, supposedly. Drawn Some (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Oh yeah. Delete per my own comment above. -- Whpq (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Seven Lives Many Faces. Cirt (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Same Parents

Previous prod was: Non-notable single, doesn't seem to have charted

I've brought it to AfD to resolve the issue over notability of a single on an otherwise notable album, when that single doesn't itself chart. Shadowjams (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC) *Merge to the appropriate album? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Right now there's nothing to merge. It's a very stubby stub. Shadowjams (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, good point. Delete, then redirect, as per discussion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it, then.
The purpose of AfD is to decide whether this title should be a redlink on Wikipedia. When something's a plausible search term (for example, a single from a notable album) it shouldn't be a redlink.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Ok. Does that meant you think the song itself is not notable enough for its own page? That is the key question. Shadowjams (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. My point is that a redirect isn't a matter for AfD, so if you agree, this can be speedily closed per WP:SK ground 1.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not released as a single. Nothing notable about it. Delete, and I recommend that a redirect be made, afterwards. How's that? -Freekee (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 05:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The article can no longer be speedily closed as a redirect because someone has now !voted "delete", thus ensuring the discussion runs for the full 7 days.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 06:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France–Kosovo relations

First, one of the countries in the article (Kosovo) has only existed as an independent nation since February 2008. That pretty much precludes there being any significant, ongoing, overarching coverage of the topic per WP:GNG. Second, there is only one source referenced in the entire text, and it is a website of the French government. This does not satisfy the requirements for reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject as outlined in WP:GNG. Third, virtually all of the unreferenced, essay-like text in the remainder of the article has to do with the actions of France leading up to Kosovo's declaration of independence. Therefore those events by definition have nothing to do with relations between France and Kosovo as Kosovo did not exist. Fourth, the only referenced content of the article is the location of only one of the countries' embassies. This information might be better served elsewhere in Wikipedia, but for the fact that Wikipedia is not a directory and this article's referenced content makes it, at best, a poor directory listing. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think there is potentially enough to make acceptable, as it stands it is OK, but I agree the hundreds of articles started on relations with little content is a little irritating, Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've come down both ways on these relations articles, but this is not a non-notable relation. It's a bit disingenuous to say that Kosovo's only a year old and so there can't be any relations. They declared independence in 2008, but they've been under UN administration since around 1999 in similar political form. This context is useful to an article on the relations between a permanent member of the Security Council and a country they were recently involved in militarily. There's lots of justification in the body text itself. Shadowjams (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there is clearly a significant relationship. I notice that there has now been a major initiative in the education field here. Smile a While (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best covered in "Foreign relations of" articles about the two countries. No sources provided to show that the diplomatic relations between these two countries are notable, and it seems like a directory listing. Edison (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This has a 4 paragraph section specifically about the diplomatic relations between the two. I agree it needs sources, but I disagree when you say that this one (as opposed to many of the others, as you well know) is a directory listing. Shadowjams (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content (of which there is precious little at present) into Foreign relations of Kosovo. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Merge, the notability of Kosovo is not to be discussed...Ierrotpre (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this instance the importance of their relations is discussed in detail although without references. I also think full embassies and diplomatic exchanges in both countries is significant in this instance because Kosovo is not a francophone country and is relatively small in territory and population. Resources do exist to support the material, they just aren't cited. Drawn Some (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep France played an important role in Kosovo's separation from Serbia (a country with which France has historically had a very notable relationship with) and there's a significant ongoing relationship with Kosovo as demonstrated by the results of a Google search on 'France Kosovo'. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major political events by any standard. Meets even the test of historical significance. DGG (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there is clearly a significant relationship. I notice that there has now been a major initiative in the education field here. Events before formal independence are relevant to present relations. Smile a While (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Material provided in the article supports the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, and merging these articles like this into the diplomacy of articles. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as CSD:A1. Since neither the country nor the city is specified, and Google turns up no hits on the school name, the article lacks sufficient context to identify which school it is about. TerriersFan (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SDN Prambanan 01

Elementary school (See initial revision) that does not appear to be notable at all. ~Excesses~ (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Edited to add: For completeness, I should note that this was previously PRODed, but contested by the original author. ~Excesses~ (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 16:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non-notable elementary school in initial version. tedder (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced stub. Fails notability and verification. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education, "Most elementary and middle schools that don't claim notability are now getting deleted in AfD, with high schools in most cases being kept. Schools which do get deleted are frequently, although not always, redirected to the school district which operates them." No results for "SDN Prambanan 01" at Google News archive. Google search only turns up this AFD. But see May 2006 Java earthquake. Prambanan is a large temple in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and there was a quake there which destroyed 148 schools and damaged 537 in Yogakarta in 2006. I added a sentence about damage to schools to the quake article. Edison (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Evans (producer)

Prod removed by IP. Non-notable film producer, with a single non-notable credit. No reliable 3rd party references. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tassedethe (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One film to his credit in IMDB, which is still in production. No media coverage. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete -Yuck get this arrogant twit off of here. Obvious advert for a non notable person. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Iowateen (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no actual accomplishments on which to even start researching notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Hunkele

Reason Syntheticlife4m (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't apply to Wikipedia's guidelines for notoriety. Looking at the references provided, this appears to be a momentary person of minimal local fame, not a mjor political figure or celebrity. If anything, it sounds more like a boost for one's own resume.

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Emmy-Award winning director, easily verified by a simple Google News search as shown here [8]], as stated in the opening sentence, doesn’t apply to Wikipedia? Have I missed a major change in the notability guidelines? Thanks - ShoesssS ^Talk 19:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a new user that's been nominating a number of TV producers, and is then followed by a number of IPs "objecting" to the AfD in all caps. I'm not sure what's going on, but these are notable individuals. Emmy winning TV producer in a major market is probably notable. Shadowjams (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It looks a lot like this was a false alarm - the user who created this is a brand new user whose only contributions are a few select AfD's. Ulterior motive? Luminifer (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, looks like AfD nom is part of some personal vendetta. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Braha

Reason Syntheticlife4m (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC) This doesn't apply to Wikipedia's guidelines for notoriety for living biographies. Looking at the references provided, this appears to be a momentary person of minimal local fame, not a major political figure or celebrity with any potential of lasting importance.[reply]

OBJECT TO DELETION Braha pioneered a new genre of music video show in the post-MTV era, and has become an industry unto herself in the Indie and Underground music scene. Article is in desperate need of additional sources and citations, but a quick search online will reveal the depth of her influence on a major niche of the music industry. DELETION IS NOT APPROPRIATE MEASURE FOR THIS ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.157.254 (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Calm down, will you? Anyway, weak keep because she does pull up some moderate Google hits. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteMentioning in a number of publications doesn't automatically mean that it is suitable for wikipedia. The article is awful and does little to explain why the biography is worthy of note. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article clearly needs work, but the show mentioned is a famous show, and has connections across the continental United States (including that alternative Seattle radio station - KEXP or something). Besides, it looks a lot like this was a false alarm - the user who created this is a brand new user whose only contributions are a few select AfD's. Ulterior motive? Luminifer (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've done quite a bit of cleanup, and there are plenty of sources there, especially when taken together as a whole. The nom has listed about a half-dozen individuals related to a New York production company, after which the nomination is flooded with hyperbolic responses from a set of IP users (often TYPING IN ALL CAPS). This is notable. Shadowjams (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources seem good enough, notable. Taelus (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is yet another in a set of incomplete nominations of seemingly-notable New York producers by single-purpose-account Syntheticlife4m, each of which have been followed by objections from capslocked single-purpose-account IPs. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Song Kentang

Unclear stub article that has been around for two years. No content pages link to article. Questionable notabilityPeter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is probably a stub because his name results in hardly any reliable Google hits. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Nothing to verify it in English online. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Iowateen (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This needs looking at by readers of Chinese. A Google Books search for the article subject's name with "Kuomintang" gets some hits [9], but I'm unable to read them to see if they are relevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign order of the knights of orient

Contested PROD, reason was: Previously speedy deleted as non-notable; prior PROD reason was: Unsourced article, zero google hits, likely hoax

Delete and salt due to lack of reliable sources. I ran a Google search when the article was re-created before I posted the second PROD, and also found zero hits. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Delete - the book cited, published in 1921, can only be a source for the first part of the article, which is a ramble through all sorts of mediaeval orders - following up the names leads to the Freemasons, the Rosicrucians, the Teutonic Knights, the Knights Templar... The point of the article is the claim that the order has been reconstituted; the only source given is the web-site of the "Sovereign Hindu-Vaishnava Mandir" set up by HSH Prince Leonardo Salomone (presumably Leonardo108 (talk · contribs), author of this article); as well as this Order it includes a "Royal Vedic University." Searches for these find only that website, plus references spammed into Wikipedia by an IP on 1 April, and one in Italian WP. No reliable sources, possible hoax/scam, certainly not notable. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. As noted above, the lack of sources and notability are major issues; the hoax/OR/something-made-up issues also factor in. I'm right on the verge of speedy deleting it under A7 because I don't think the claim of a UK charter is valid, so that would leave the organization with no claim of importance. —C.Fred (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not deleteno democracy it'more easy to tell bad about anyone then says anithing god i can believe there so many evil in this world are you god to tell what is true or not the story should fit on the desire of few ,but it is not the true some believe the piramid are 4000 years old some believe they are 12000 years old they can prove it but some will not believe it ,only god know if wickipedia base theire article on contestation of few peoples who claim to know everything it will not go for a long way there is freedom of religion it's included in all civil costitution dont be talebani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.226.6 (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC) — 151.49.226.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Delete. Actually, this is a democratic process. People are discussing the merits of the article, and how easily verified it is. In this case, the article so far has not been verified as legitimate or notable in any way. As an encyclopedia, information presented must have independant research in order to back its claims. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. No one here is saying that people can't believe what they want. Obviously that is everyone's entitelment. However, that has no bearing on the facts we are presented, which is why this article is being discussed for deletion. →^Jog_Con← 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not even come close to meeting the requirements at WP:ORG. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability apparent, and I'm seeing no reliable sources. Only link is a web page apparently about the order. Note, we are not a democracy here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best. Edward321 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not delete notable interesting non profit organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.226.6 (talk)
- That's fine, but WP:INTERESTING is a good thing to review in light of this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, to the IP above. We are not tallying votes on this matter. It's a discussion about the merits of the article remaining on Wikipedia, so no need to "vote" more than once. But since you are saying it should not be deleted, what about this organization is notable? →^Jog_Con← 10:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "non profit organization" ? prove that and that will prove this Article is not a hoax. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not delete very interesting to know others point of wiew we know about knights in the west but not well know the knights of oriental culture,it is notable the ecumenical approach,usualy all the religious knights orders are open to their faith only,interesting olso the fact that they hand down traditional holistitic medicine ,so not involved with multinationals,give to all the possibility to know something more that what you can find everywhere, this is the spirit of wikipedia great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marhan (talk • contribs) 09:10, 10 May 2009— Marhan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (this !vote moved from talk page by JohnCD (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - the question is not whether it is interesting, or non-profit, or even whether it exists, but whether it "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject" as required by the guideline Notability (organizations and companies). JohnCD (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unimportant comment - We could let is slide past WP:N (a guideline} (as a lack of Citations is not a reason for deletion)... We have to make it get past WP:V (Policy) first, which it has not at this point (which is a reason for deletion). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I can't beleive that anybhody register a non profit organizzation run a clinic (present in the web with address and phone number) for 20 years to make a hoax, this article follow the guide and the aim of wikipedia,a lack of Citations is not a reason for deletion,there are many article without any citation and they are there(everything is not on google and if in the future google will not include wikipedia on the search engine it doesn't mean that it's not present),the article may be develop in the future, this is the object of wikipedia,the article is notable according to the guide(see notable as attracting notice not only as famous according to Notability (organizations and companies). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.230.130 (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment: The central issue with the lack of citations is the lack of verifiability of the information in the article. It's not sufficient for the organization to exist; the organization must have significant coverage, &c. (see the policy quoted by JohnCD above). I note in passing that a Google search (as I did before I sent the article into AFD) is not in and of itself a sufficient check on verifiability. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2009

reply not according to wiki guide as it says, other way wikipedia would be reserved to big and powerful organisation i dont thing this is wiki will.only big and money organisation can have significan coverage,read wiki and see that it's not like this. wiki is and should be out of this pattern.wiki is freedom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.230.130 (talk)

"Wiki" is community. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and depends on everything being verifiable and suitably covered. My existence is verifiable, but I am (regrettably) not sufficiently noteworthy to be included in an encyclopedia. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not delete as verificable state link :http://opac.regione.sardegna.it/SebinaOpac/Opac?action=search&thAutEnteDesc=Soro%2C+Vincenzo&startat=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.230.130 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that link is a library catalogue which confirms only that there exists the book Il gran libro della natura : opera curiosa del secolo 18, published in 1921. That cannot provide any confirmation about the order being "renewed in 1998" or about its present activities. I can do better: here is a page about Dr. Salomone's medical institute. But that is a page on a free hosting site, it is not independent, and it says nothing about the Order. In any case, I repeat: for an article in Wikipedia it is not enough that an organisation exists, it must be notable, which it requires that it"has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". JohnCD (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, JohnCD, that reference sounds to me like a conflict of interest or primary source, depending on the interpretation. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but, I guese its just a difference of interpretations. I cannot see any of the provided sources Verifying its current existance, without having problems of being truely Independant of the source. That was my point in wanting proof that it is a non-profit organization, a gov't listing (or an equilivent non-profit org. number) would go a long way here. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as non profit organization it's recorded to the ministery of finance in italy ,the registration n°01560500686(ministero delle finanze.also notary reg:7141--the teaching activity are registred in the state schools ,for the interreligious activity there is also record at the state italian television(rai2)and rai 3 after the clinic open (with interwiew from giovanni verna ) and state radio 2 (interwiew from margerita del bono)also interwiew from TV6(non state). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.230.130 (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my comparison: My existence is verifiable from birth certificate number such-and-such, on file at the appropriate government office in the city of my birth. That STILL doesn't mean that an article on me would be appropriate for Wikipedia. By comparison, registration documents on file for an organization disprove the original "likely hoax" claim, but are not sufficient to justify an article on Wikipedia. (See: Other stuff exists and similar arguments to avoid.) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the sole keep vote - I'd like to point out that thus far we have come up with a reason that trumps your statement that they are a verifiable non profit organization - they are not notable. I bring this up because you repeatedly tell us that this org effectively exists, but we repeatedly tell you that this org is not notable. Being a non profit org does not make one notable, it makes one a non profit org. The repetition does not help. Just saying. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Kuder

I'm a little on the fence about this one. Although it's a well-written article, the only information I can really find on this guy is from his Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn pages. Every other Google hit I found only mention his name in passing. It also appears to be an autobiography, given that the creator's username is Kkuder. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He lost an election running against a political party's county secretarial position. That does not come close to meeting any of the notability guidelines. The entire article is written as a promotional piece (probably by the subject as noted by Metrosexual) and does nothing to demonstrate notability. In addition, no evidence at all that he meets the general notability guidelines. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – With only one hit, at this time ,on Google News, my choice for establishing notability, as shown here [10] have to say delete. However, I do hope to read about Mr. Kuder here at Wikipedia at a date in the not too distant future, once he becomes more established in the Republican Party. Thanks - ShoesssS ^Talk 19:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article being well-written has no bearing on notability. This is pretty much a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7, but now it's been brought here we might as well go through with the process to delete it by consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unelected politician without coverage to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as unambiguous copyright infringement. Inappropriate to leave a copyvio hanging around for 7 days so that the AFD can run. Nancy ^talk 15:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Macgyverisms

Original research and content of dubious interest with little relevance for an encyclopedia. prod tag removed by anonymous editor. (Also, copyright violation of [11] but we might as well have an AfD to make sure that this isn't recreated in some copyright compliant form.) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong speedy delete Agree completely per nom, See also below. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above, copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. JNW (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of problems solved by MacGyver (3rd nomination). Further, the article is wholly unsourced and consists wholly of plot re-iteration. Lastly, ultimately duplicative of List of MacGyver episodes' content. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji–Pakistan relations

the present article misrepresents Fijian demographics, there is actually very little Fijians of Pakistani origins, those from South Asian origin are almost all Indian, see Fiji#Ethnic_groups. secondly the earthquake response should be covered in International response to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake. as for Fiji Pakistan coverage, very limited [12] LibStar (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Indo-Fijians are mostly Indian, and anyway have their own article; aid can be mentioned at International response to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, and no sources cover the relationship as such. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Biruitorul and failure to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability has not been established. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, and merging these articles like this into the "diplomacy of..." articles. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be zero arguing here. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the absence of reliable sources that discuss this relationship which is an indicator of non-notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage of the topic as stated in the article title. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reclosing to fix formating (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Smirnov

I am correcting a previous attempt to list the page for deletion. The reason given by User:Boleyn3 in that attempt is: "Dab page with no entries which meet MOS:DABRL" Propaniac (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ As noted above, User:Boleyn3, not myself, was the actual nominator for this deletion. ~~However, I concur that the page should be deleted, as there appear to be no existing articles with information about anyone named Alexey Smirnov and a disambiguation page is thus unnecessary.~~ Propaniac (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per below, I agree that this should either redirect to Alexei Smirnov or the Alexei page should be moved to this title. Propaniac (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to (or from) Alexei Smirnov; seems to be just an alternative transliteration of Russian Алексей. Hqb (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hmm, didn't realize there was a dab for another romanization. As per WP:RUS, it should actually be located at "Alexey Smirnov", and since "Alexei Smirnov" contains blue links, I think the point of this nomination becomes moot. I motion to speedy keep the page; if seconded, I'll do the necessary moves/mergers myself.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:24, May 8, 2009 (UTC)

Comment A redirect to Alexei dab seems fine, but none of the 4 entries on Alexey would be a valid addition to the Alexei dab. Boleyn3 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect, actually, should be the other way (as per WP:RUS), which is why this AfD needs to be withdrawn first. The other four entries, of course, will not be included—as much as I dislike WP:DABRL, it is, unfortunately, a standing guideline. Will you withdraw the nom? I'll do the grunt work no prob.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:37, May 8, 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw nom Boleyn2 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep Nomination withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 Skinnee J's

Band barely passes WP:MUSIC criterion #5 (two releases on Capricorn) but fails all the other criteria, and the article is pure garbage. Read the entire "History" section for a laugh. Article has been flagged for cleanup since 2006. Time for it to go.

~~Full disclosure: I learned about the article's existence from Wikipedia Review. Mike R (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawing nom. Article is no longer worthy of deletion. Mike R (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:POINTy nomination. Nom even admits that subject meets notability but has apparently mistaken AFD for "Articles for Cleanup". There is a very good Allmusic bio which is a fine place to start. If articles were deleted simply by being "garbage", then we'd have virtually nothing left. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute everything you just wrote. 1. This nomination is not disruptive, therefore not a violation of WP:POINT. 2 I know what AfD is for, and I believe that there comes a time when horrible articles should be deleted, even though their subject passes a notability criterion by the slimmest of margins. 3. I dispute that the Allmusic "bio" is "very good"; it is gushing and reads like it was written by the band's publicist or the president of their fan club. Mike R (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a reliable source. I fail to see why we should delete a bad article on a good subject unless it's a copyvio, and I don't see how their notability is "slim". There are plenty of news sources to build on as well. You could always fix it yourself if it bothers you that much. I go through this all the time with the country music articles, almost all of which suck, and you don't see me deleting just because "it's garbage", do you? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what others say. I am happy to withdraw a nomination if it is clear no one agrees with me. I would also like to request that you refactor your original comment by changing "speedy keep" into "keep" and removing the accusation of WP:POINTiness. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that's exactly what I believe. I demolished the article and added a source, removing all the nonsense that nobody else (including you) could ever be arsed to clean out. Is it still "garbage" by your specs? I think I've reduced it to a workable stub. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did 10 Pound Hammer just say that there would be "virtually nothing left" on Wikipedia, were the garbage to be removed? I don't necessarily disagree with this, but such sentiments are more apropos of dreary, curmudgeonly Wikipedia Review moderators than of avid kneejerk inclusionists. You should really switch sides. Yes, that was a reference to gay sex.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither a curmudgeonly Wikipedia Review moderator nor a kneejerk inclusionist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet your rhetoric seems to embody the worst of both. Nicely done.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All other back-and-forth off-topic conversation aside, the article meets the requirements for inclusion. Just because an article needs clean-up or a complete rewrite are not reasons for deletion. They are reasons for an attempt to improve. →^Jog_Con← 16:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep They toured non-stop up and down the east coast for nearly 10 years generating tons of media coverage, put out three studio releases, had airtime on MTV when it still showed videos, were featured on at least one major film soundtrack (Drew Barrymore's Never Been Kissed, if I remember correctly) and easily blow past even the most stringent notability checks. As for some comments on Wikipedia Review that they might be fictional, or implying that--really?--I can assure everyone they're not, having met the band and seen them live over a dozen times in three states. rootology (C)(T) 17:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No offense, but if you think your only two options when encountering a bad article to 1) criticize it on some webforum or 2) nominate it for deletion, then I don't think you understand some basic things about how Wikipedia works. I just added a source to the article, there are a lot more that could be added. The nomination doesn't make any sense... if this meets inclusion guidelines, then the article should be improved, not deleted. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find your fallacious and condescending remark offensive. I understand perfectly how Wikipedia works. Mike R (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When why did you nominate an article for deletion when you admitted it met inclusion guidelines? The basis of Wikipedia is that if an article sucks, you can edit it. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Type design. Cirt (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburgefonts

Permanent-stub, dictionary definition. I can't see any possible expansion beyond a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator- no room for expansion, not even 'Hamburgefonts in Popular Culture'. -Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to type design - The information in the article is valid and encyclopedic, and describes part of the process of designing a font or typeface. Thus, if there is not enough material to support a stand-alone article, it should be merged per WP:PRESERVE. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to type design or typesetting, otherwise it's just a dictionary entry on its own. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 07:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Group

Procedural nom for a contested PROD - no references to support notability per WP:CORP and decidedly spammy per WP:SPAM. ukexpat (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7- Article does not indicate why this organization is significant or has received any outside coverage. -Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No indication of notability; copyvio. I42 (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. While the article might make some unsubstantiated claim of importance by inspiring a TV show, and the alleged copyvio text says that it is copied from Wikipedia, the tone remains obvious advertising: AGI staff of former career law enforcement professionals use their combined 300 years of experience to assist Fortune 500 corporations, public institutions, individuals, and law enforcement agencies in solving many types of cases. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Speedy tag removed by User:Varbas because article previously de-prodded. – ukexpat (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Academy Group Defence

Academy Group is somewhat similar to Control Risks Group, an organization run by former Law Enforcement professionals, most of them retired from FBI. I was away from Wikipedia for a couple of months which is why I wasn't aware of the deletion. I had to recreate the page, and I will arrange the sources and avoid any type of advertising tone (it wasn't my intention). Millennium TV series (the Millennium Group) is influenced by the Academy Group, which the makers acknowledged in the DVD bonus features of the first season. I think the deletion is a mistake, instead of advising to add sources and remove the advertisement style (though it was noted by many third parties).--Cyril Thomas (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted: the article text is blatantly copied and pasted from Hugh Hefner and the editor just replaced Hefner's name (and some other stuff) with his own; earlier revisions were likewise copied and pasted from Michael Jackson and other articles. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick Williams

Contested prod. Twice speedied as vandalism, but this time the deception is more credible. However, it is still a probable hoax. Delete and salt. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Because of an edit made while I was completing this AfD nomination, I marked the article {{db-hoax}}. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Closedmouth, CSD G3, blatant and obvious misinformation. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African Chart Hot 100

Article does not assert notability of this chart list. Proposed deletion tag was removed on 7th day of process and does not quality under CSD:A7. Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Blatant misinformation. This chart doesn't exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. New user Varbas is disruptively removing prod tags and speedy tags from articles such as this one. Resurr Section (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete it's not a real chart. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of ¡Mucha Lucha! characters

List completely lacks any reliable sources or comprehension, it is purely fan junk. The list has no context and to the casual wikipedian who is unfamiliar with the subject matter it is terrible given that the article is completely in the universe and not our own. Utterly unencyclopedic reads like a child diary. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It desperately needs work but the subject matter is valid, as there is already an article for the series.--BlueSquadronRaven 14:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But wikipedia is an encyclopedia. How is this list encyclopedic? It's completely in universe. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't. It's mostly descriptions of characters, complete with their voice actors. It needs cleanup of the language and some citing of episodes per WP:WAF. I'd do it myself, but I don't watch the show. We just had a large discussion of a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Atomic Betty which resulted in the article being kept as a valid list related to an encyclopedic article.--BlueSquadronRaven 14:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is and it is completely embarrassing. "He is a strange being, consisting of a giant brain with a face floating in a glass dome with mechanical legs and arms who yearns to control the universe, and eliminate inefficient and unsanitary organic life forms in the process. The self-proclaimed greatest genius in the galaxy," People are happy to see content like that exist and it really makes me at times wonder why I contribute to a site run by kiddies. I try to ignore it mostly and focus on enyclopedic topics but a lot of these fan cruft lists really take the mickey out of this website. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article badly needs to be cleaned up and made encyclopedic but I don't think that lists of characters from a show are by necessity unencyclopedic or crufty. If this were like the other AFD you nominated (a list page of a subset of 'evil' power rangers, specifically), I think it would be appropriate, but I think all this article needs is a rewrite. -Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character lists are perfectly valid spin-out articles. An article needing improvement is not grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part about WP:Citing sources and WP:NOR don't you know about? The fact is that there are a large number of manga and comic book fans on here who will gladly accept these fan cruft "articles" into their "encyclopedia". In all probability these lovers of fictional cartoons and comics will turn out here to protect their beloved fancruft. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the fact that Wikipedia has articles on topics like this is one of its strengths, not weaknesses. If these articles bother you so much, work on one more in keeping with what you'd find in your idea of an encyclopedia. We can take care of this one. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Standard way of organizing non-notable characters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only one who feels this way. File:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png pretty much sums it up exactly. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a satirical graphic not meant to be taken seriously and hasn't been updated for awhile (the Pokemon section has been exhaustively trimmed in the last year, for instance, and the Bush vandalism is about as fresh as Monica Lewinsky jokes at this point). Nate • (chatter) 21:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's about 50/50, people who'd agree and disagree with you, I'd guess. Go read the talk pages of FICT, NOT#PLOT, and NOTE to see the discussions that have been going on for years now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find no issues with this list at all. If you have an issue with the writing of the article, be bold, jump in and fix it. However, the flags must be removed per WP:MOSFLAGS at the very least. Nate • (chatter) 21:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No issues??? Unreferenced, unverified, poorly written, completely in universe, questionable notability of the minor characters, MOS problems. The list goes on. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and encourage editors be proactive in addressing any perceived flaws. AFD is not for WP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a list of characters from a popular TV series. Iowateen (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merged articles like this are the way to go. it's the only compromise that is at all likely to be generally acceptable. "Fan junk" = IDONTLIKEIT. Juast improve the article. DGG (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um no actually it refers to unreferenced, poorly written material which is not verified with little relevance to the real world and is only understood by fans who know or care about the characters, Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not for cleanup. If you have a problem with the article, use the talk page, and tag it with citations. The subject is valid, therefore the article should be kept. Dream Focus 19:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Nomination is simply a version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 21:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers episodes

List completely lacks any reliable sources or comprehension, it is purely fan junk. The list has no context and to the casual wikipedian who is unfamiliar with the subject matter it is terrible given that the article is completely in the Power Rangers universe and not our own. Utterly unencyclopedic. If we must have such lists can we please keep it in one "article"? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list does have context; it tells you what it's about at the very top of the page. The list is not in-universe; it's a list of episodes with a few synopses. It is not fan junk; it's a list. I suggest you read WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:SAL for guidelines on when breaking lists out of a main article is appropriate. A little more sourcing, and it's good. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good? Hardly. I gather you are a young user who likes reading about comics and fictional characters. Fair enough if thats your thing but wikipedia is still an encyclopedia not an in universe list of fiction. Wikipedia:Listcruft was written by a college professor who laid down the guidleines to fiction huh? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can make any assumptions you want about me (here's a hint, if the age you give on your userpage is accurate, I'm older than you, boy) but if you're going to close your mind to WP:WAF and WP:LISTCRUFT don't get angry when the flaws in your arguments are pointed out. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then then you are an old man. Answer my question. Do you or do you not enjoy reading about fictional characters? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it has any bearing on the discussion, but yes I do, if it's a show or movie or novel I'm interested in. Of course, I also enjoy articles on Astronomy, History, and Scotland, and I appreciate being able to find all of these in one place, but if you wish to focus on the first point, go right ahead. It doesn't change that the list is a valid topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Episode lists are perfectly valid spin-out articles. For that matter, separate articles for every indivdual episode are allowed on Wikipedia. And article needing improvement is not grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Accepted spin out article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the opinion of contributers here about this article being wholly unreferenced to any reliable sources? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats exactly what my concern is. However offtrack people's conception of an encyclopedia is in relation to traditional conservative views content however fan cruft still has to be verifiable and contain reliable sources and also contain non in-unvierse information such as the making and release of episodes etc. Some series like The SImpsons etc and actually contain the balance of information which is required for fiction by not only listing plot or episodes but containing actual "real" life information on it . List cruft is not exempt from the guidelines and it is not so much the idea of having lists as it is that they don't meet guidelines in this way.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of referencing is a definite concern here. It is not one that is insurmountable, I don't think, so editing, rather than deletion, is the answer. Again, unfortunately, I'm not the one to talk to about it, as I'm not a fan, or I'd do it myself. I will, however, list it at the appropriate wikiproject. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The MMPR was a notable TV series [13] , [14], [15] . It is preferable to have a list of episodes for a notable TV series than to have separate articles for each episode, when the individual episodes lack independent and reliable sources to show they are notable. Collectively, the episodes of a notable series can reasonably be considered notable. The names of the individual episodes are referenced to a firm which sells DVDs of the series. The airdates are unreferenced, but likely referenceable via TV Guide, as are the gist of the plots. The extended plot summaries could be pared down to what is referenceable to the TVdisc source or TV Guide. They likely are the writings of someone who has watched the disc. Does our guideline for writing about fiction require that we only cite what a secondary source says about a fictional work, or are editors allowed to summarize what happens, that is, a plain summary of events, without conjecture and interpretation? Deletion is not a substitute for editing, in any event. (Note: I have never watched the program, and am certainly not a fan). Edison (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, standard practice. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but wikipedia isn't a TV guide. I can't see how they are considered encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not paper but I still just think we should be covering proper encyclopedic topics, an overview of the series is surely enough?. Just imagine turning the pages of a credible encyclopedia like Britannica or somebody and seeing a list of episodes of the Mighty Morphin Power rangers it really makes us look like a joke. It points to the work of children it really does whether 50 year old men like such series or not. How wikipedia ever hopes to gain any respect and credibility if content like this exists I have no idea. What concerns me is if people consider this sort of content encyclopedic then it opens up a huge area for fan crufters to pollute this site with further unreferenced child-like plots in universe with little relation to the real world. The fictional content on here is already huge but it is just going to get worse and worse as the criteria for notability just keeps getting lower and lower. So the series was a hit with children, why does this mean a list of episodes for a every series every released is appropriate? If the lists were done properly like List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes I might not think so harshly about them. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you make thousands of stub article about things like every museum in Greece, whether it was a major city institution ofr a curio shop or private collection which found its way onto a government list? How are your each of your stubs better than a list like this, which would make the main article about a TV series too long? Without its episodes, how would a TV series be notable? Edison (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, we've established that some lists of this type are acceptable. Good. Then all that's standing in the way of this one is cleanup, sourcing, and some pretty colours for each season. That's a problem solved by editing, not deletion. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Really? Delete it when it's just a flat out list with barely any summaries (except for the few episodes that had articles and were subsequently merged into this list as a whole)?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and encourage editors be proactive in addressing any perceived flaws. AFD is not for WP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's an episode list of a popular TV series. Iowateen (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with BlueSquadronRaven on what is necessary here. Articles like this are the way to handle episodes, combining plot and external factors. The plot sections that have been written need improvement, and the others need writing. Fore externals, I'd like to see exact timings, list of characters, particular artists and others responsible, and ny published reviews or commentary. I have zero interest in the subject, but then any one of us can be expected to have zero interests in quite a lot of subjects in an encyclopedia. Nobody is forced to read all the articles. DGG (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Episode list are fine, for any popular series. And of course its in universe, since its summaries of the episodes! How else would it be? Dream Focus 19:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hideous-looking and requires plot-cruft trimming, but entirely appropriate. An instance where clean-up is more likely and preferable than starting over. --EEMIV (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- nomination seems to be basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. So Why 13:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three Cards To Midnight

~~*Delete~~Speedy Keep Was a Copy-Paste of Fate of Atlantis, ~~and would make an improbable redirect~~ Dougofborg^(talk) 12:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added a CSD tag as it now appears to be copy-vio Dougofborg^(talk) 12:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Hattaway

Doesn't establish notability, and no reliable sources have been provided. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a few dozen articles that discuss him here: [16] I added several that were exclusively about him. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the sources he's not notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 19:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events." Despite several newspaper articles on this person, there's no evidence of historical notability. BRMo (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-dec

Non-notable organization (per WP:ORG); references are insufficient to ascertain notability Chzz ► 11:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non-consumer business unlikely to attract much notice in widely circulated sources: designs and manufactures dental office furniture and equipment, including chairs, stools, delivery systems, dental lights, cabinetry, and a full line of accessories, such as vacuum pumps, water sprays, and controls. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the deletion policy, did the nominator look for sources before nominating this article? If so, what sources did you find? I found this, this, this, this, this and this all online. And that's just a quick search, a search through The Oregonian archives would likely double or triple that number. Ditto if we could find some sort of dentists magazine. As to the above editor with their personal essay, seriously? Notability is notability, not notability to everyone. Really, even WP:CORP itself in the lead speaks to this: "smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." (emphasis added). There is nothing about trade magazines not being sources for notability, they are perfectly fine as long as they do qualify as RS and are independent. If you want to change this, fine, but take it to the CORP talk page and work it out there, as that guideline has consensus, and your essay does not. And AfD arguments and decisions should be based on existing policies/guidelines, not personal opinions. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, While I wrote that essay mostly to avoid having to repeat myself on points that have arisen more than once -- and I cheerfully admit that it sets out in more detail my own interpretation of the guidelines and policies at issue -- your response suggests the reasons why I wrote it.

Most of your sources are from "portland.bizjournals.com" - i.e. "attention solely by local media". Your nature.com - actually, British Dental Journal - source carries the disclaimer: "Trade news is provided as a service to readers using text and images from the manufacturer, supplier or distributor and does not imply endorsement by the BDJ." In other words, a copy of a press release. I don't see either of these sources as making a case for notability here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we have different views of what local media is then. Local media here to me means the local paper, which is the Newberg Graphic, whereas the Portland Business Journal is the regional business paper covering most of Oregon and SW Washington. Which if you disagree, what then would be "regional" and "local" media to you (keeping in mind there is differentiation in CORP between national and regional)? And this goes to the person below as well as to local coverage. As to the below argument about substantial, true, but remember that it only takes one substantial, OR "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability", thus the multiple listed. But the main point was that I did a qucik search, and it doesn't appear the nominator did any search, which is required prior to AFD per the deletion policy. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to say I agree with Smerdis on this one. I checked out all of the articles that Aboutmovies posted, but the first 5 are all from the same publication which covers A-dec because it is local, and I would say that only the 5th on the list arguably qualifies as substantial coverage - I just don't think, for example, that a 100-word blurb under the heading "A-dec to cut 100 jobs" is substantial. The 6th reference above, from www.nature.com, is a press release. They do have a lot of Google hits, but it's all ads, units for sale on ebay, and the websites of distributors of A-dec products. No substantial coverage in independent sources = notability fail. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dawn Bard. It will not be uncommon for a non-notable subject to turn up in lots of places on the internet. Markdsgraham (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I'd encourage folks to revisit the article as multiple citations have been added to it. Passes WP:CORP with multiple independent non-trivial sources in regional (the Oregonian is regional, not local) publications as well as coverage in multiple national trade publications. Katr67 (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Company in business since 1964 with at least one government contract, a brush with the epa, and a British Dental Journal entry establishes enough notability. Maybe the article needs expanding but deletion of this decently-referenced start-class article would be a shame. Zab (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The EPA and British Dental Journal mentions are both press releases, which, per WP:NOTE don't demonstrate notability. In my opinion, neither does the fact that they have had a gov't contract - many, many non-notable companies get gov't contracts. It doesn't mean that they are bad or unimportant, just not notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to some extent, especially concerning government contracts. With press releases though, I disagree to some extent. Many news stories are simply press releases re-hashed by newspapers, that's how they learn about what businesses/organizations/law enforcement are doing much of the time (especially for businesses). With that in mind, I personally discount the self-published press releases, but do give some credence to those published by third parties, but that's me, and I don't expect many to follow that. My thought is that the publication took the time and effort (i.e. editorial control) to go ahead and publish the thing, but again that's my thoughts on it, but I have never tried and never will try to assert notability in that way. However, and I don't know if this is where Zab is going, but it was my point with posting the above sources: when you can quickly find that many on the internet (four do pass as RS, and each of those provides more than trivial coverage Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (January 6, 1992). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial. Though not substantial either, its in between and thus the multiple sources.) then taking into account that they do around $250 million annually and have around 1000 employees, this means that there are more than likely enough sources out there to demonstrate notability. And I do not think the nominator searched for any sources, normally you mention that in the nom, and if they did not, then that goes against the deletion policy that specifically tells nominators to do a search prior to nomination, a common error in AFDs (see the sixth bullet here). Now, back to the sample I did provide of sources and the $250 million annually and 1000 employees. A quick and not thorough search that yields that many sources is a good indicator that there are plenty more out there. This is why for the notability for people (see WP:BIO) there are the automatic inclusion criteria such as certain politicians such as state legislators. We do this (same for WP:MUSIC and songs that have charted as well as other notability criteria) partly because these indicators in 99% of situations bare out that there are enough RS out there to demonstrate notability. But, these sources are not always available via Google, and often are not even available via the Internet. We are not limited to Google searches nor to online searches. Realistically, Google probably has indexed less than 10% of the information available in the world. How many books and newspaper articles have ever been created in the world, and how many of those do you think you can access via Google or the Internet? This is where common sense comes into play and we think about things like this, and see that a company has four decent sources from a single newspaper and over 3 million Google hits for "A-dec" and maybe we we think that there could be more. And there certainly were if you have seen the article lately. There are 21 sources, and at most one of the above provide was used, and not a single source from the local Newberg paper was used. And that is only the sources available online via Lexis that had more than trivial coverage (they even have a paragraph in a book that I didn't use). If the news archives went back further (few go back further than the mid 1980s and most only go back to the mid 1990s) there would in all likelihood be many more for this company that is one of the largest in the entire world in their field. In other terms, $250 million in annual revenue is more than most US sports franchises generate, though slightly below the Dallas Cowboys estimated $269 million and likely less than say the NY Yankees. So what does this all mean? It means they have a significant economic impact, which means the media will take notice and will write about the company, as they have as demonstrated by the plethora of sources now in the article. And that is notability by Wikipedia standards. That is notable, not notable via Google only. In general you mind find Wikipedia:Search engine test informative. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree. First of all, the 3 million Google hits is not a useful metric, because when you just search "A-dec" most of the results are not for this A-dec. Just look at the first 10 results for that search - 4 of them are not for the A-dec in question - they are for American Distance Education Consortium, an art marketer at adec.com, a page on how to file a Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) report, and another on how to apply for a NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation (DEC) permit. Click farther through the rest of the results, and you see that the deeper you go, the less likely it becomes that any given hit is actually about the A-dec being discussed here. I searched "A-dec" dental, which I think is a fair search to pinpoint the correct A-dec, and found 439 unique hits, or 42,000 with duplicate results included, but it's certainly not millions. At the WP:Search engine test link that you suggest, it is pointed out that "search engines cannot guarantee that the results reflects the uses you mean, rather than other uses," which is pretty clearly demonstrated in the example I just gave. WP:Search engine test also states that search engines "cannot guarantee why something is mentioned a lot, and that it isn't due to marketing, reposting as an internet meme, spamming, or self-promotion, rather than importance." If you look throug the links at Google you see that they are from press releases, ebay, vendors who are authorised resellers of A-dec's products, networking sites like LinkedIn, etc., which do not demonstrate notability.

We disagree about the press releases, too - the dental journal actually published a disclaimer saying they don't vouch for the contents of the release, so they didn't, as you say, take the time and effort to publish it - they say right in the disclaimer that they use A-dec's words and images, and they don't endorse them. And the EPA thing is just a standard release from the EPA, because they have to disclose this sort of thing, not a 3rd party publication. Press releases are specifically mentioned in WP:NOTE as not adding to notability. There's nothing in WP:ORG that says that annual revenue contributes to notability - the Cowboys and the Yankees obviously meet notability guidelines for reasons other than their incomes.

Another point from WP:NOTE is that "significant" coverage is required. Most of the new sources added to the article don't seem to be online, but the titles point to incidental coverage, rather than substantial, coverage. From the titles, it seems these articles probably aren't about A-dec, but mention them only in passing: "Web ServicesOpenPortalDoors; Industry standards make for easier access and application integration", "The new accounting environment: companies face a paradigm shift in how they conduct business", "Quality Management; Quality leadership 100: Quality's survey reveals that these companies know quality makes a difference", "Metro Southwest Neighbors: In Brief - SW-Tigard", " "Big donors give tax petition a push; Ballot Measures; Nearly half ofthe $600,000 it cost to put it on the ballot came from five companies", etc.

I still son't think that the burden of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" has been met. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, you obviously did not understand what I was saying about Google hits and the related point about the search engine test. Read the whole search engine test thing, but specifically read the Wikipedia:Search engine test#Search engine limitations - technical notes which is why I talked about the limitations of what Google does (i.e. the vast amount of information in the world that Google does not index). The only point with Google hits specifically (and your searches actually demonstrate this) is that there are lots of hits on Google (at least 439 hits and that's only with one option for a word as others might use dentist or orthodontic or other related words) compared with say your local coffee shop. That is to say, when you get 20 hits on Google for something, then generally speaking the topic is likely not notable (generally speaking), but when you have more than 100, then generally speaking the topic more than likely can be shown to be notable (again generally speaking, and this is where more focused searches come into play including looking outside of Google). With the 3 million initial hits, again more likely to be notable even though many are not going to be for this company (again, this is where common sense comes into play at you take those initial results and then find actual sources, as I did), as would be with just about any one term Google search. Search for my name in Google and you will get 183,000 hits, and no one with my name has a Wikipedia article, despite it being a fairly common name combination.

Next, re-read CORP, please, here is specifically what I have now mentioned several times concerning your "significant coverage" argument: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." (emphasis added). So unless you want to debate the multiple sources part or discount what the guideline actually says about significant coverage in sources, please refrain from trying to argue that point here, take it to CORP to get the guideline changed. There are a multitude (that is multiple) of sources in the article.

With the press releases, again, I'm not arguing they make this company notable, as I hope would be obvious from my previous statements above: "[concerning press releases] but that's me, and I don't expect many to follow that." and "but again that's my thoughts on it, but I have never tried and never will try to assert notability in that way." In a related note, unless the Dental journal has an automatic thing where A-dec sends them an email and an automated system then automatically receives that email and adds it to the journal, then a human is involved and makes the decision to re-publish the press release, thus editorial control (not over the content of the "article" but over the content and selection of what goes into the journal). With the EPA, I have never argued any of their press releases conferred any notability, in fact I'm not even sure where an EPA press release comes into this debate as it is not a source in the article and I didn't provide an EPA press release. But again, this is neither here nor there for this debate, as there are multiple, non-trivial sources covering the topic.

Lastly, with your take on the sources, unless you actually read the sources, you might want to assume good faith, as I said above "the sources available online via Lexis that had more than trivial coverage". Which means these sources provide more than trivial coverage. And as I said, I used Lexis, which means they are online, feel free to sign up with an account at Lexis and verify that in I think every instance there was at least a paragraph on the company. And you might want to read the Oregon Stater source which has a link where you can read all about the company and the founders, which is pretty substantial coverage, since if I recall correctly the original print version was like 10 pages (I believe it was also the cover story), but its been a few years since I saw that version. And with what is significant, remember that it is simply more than trivial coverage, where the example for trivial is a one sentence mention in a book about an entirely different topic (it also does not need to be exclusive coverage). In the sources used in the article, the campaign contributions was only a sentence or two and would be trivial (however it was covered in about 20 articles), but all the others cover A-dec specifically in at least a paragraph and in most cases many paragraphs, but you can check if you like via Lexis. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I struck the stuff about the "trivial coverage," but please don't make any assumptions about what I "obviously" have or haven't read or what I do or don't understand, or tell me to "refrain" from making arguments from WP:CORP. There is no need to make this personal. Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't take it personally if you followed what was being argued. The fact that you continued to discuss the lack of "substantial" coverage in the multiple sources demonstrated to me you were not reading what I wrote nor had a good comprehension of WP:CORP. And I did not ask you to refrain from making arguments from CORP, quite the opposite, I asked you to respect what CORP actually says about significant/substantial coverage in a source (I asked you to stop making arguments that do not exist in CORP as demonstrated by me quoting the guideline itself), further demonstrating the problem. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Portland Business Journal is a perfectly good source, although the reliance on it exclusively is problematic. the British Dental Journal is a rehashed press release and isn't an independent reliable source and certainly isn't one for the purposes of notability. However, the company has also received coverage in http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-7101659_ITM Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News], and Oregon Live which in conjunction with previous sources are enough to establish notability with multiple independent sources covering the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Portland Business Journal is not relied on exclusively. There are also references from the Oregonian, the Register-Guard, etc.... Be sure to look at the article as it stands now. Katr67 (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bad faith nom that can do nothing but cause drama, and it's clearly notable anyway. Nothing to be gained by keeping this open. Black Kite 11:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Flores

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is a bad faith nomination designed to antagonise and distress User: Vintagekits. With whom Kittybrewster is in dispute with elswhere. I ask all to ignore this and dismiss this nomination. Giano (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Sometimes its good to laugh. I wont !vote on this AfD because its a speedy keep. One fight as a professional is enough to pass the notability test - let alone a guy that was rated in the top 5 super bantamweights in Mexico and number 7 in the world by the WBA, was a WBC Continental Americas champion, fought for a WBC World Youth title and died after a fight for the NABF super bantamweight title. Lol!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE, 261 hits on Google News and Vintagekits. --aktsu ^(t / c) 11:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notaible.... did not achieve much. rdunn PLIB 11:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What they don’t teach you about Marketing

Not-notable book; only ghit is McMillan India; no reviews, not on amazon, etc, so does not meet WP:BK Chzz ► 10:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; minor marketing book. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BK. Iowateen (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bossalaus Movement

Non-notable erm...radio? culture/movement thing? Whatever it is, I can#'t find any reliable sources to assert notability. Chzz ► 10:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, the article doesn't assert notability and neither does a google search for independent coverage of this group. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it appears to be some sort of art movement but without any coverage in reliable sources so no notability. - Whpq (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please Delete - Sorry buddies, we do exist. We will provide our own wiki in due time. The web presence speaks for itself. Or you can just ask me. Thanks for playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfn news (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GMS Consulting

Not notable, per WP:ORG Chzz ► 10:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: yet another minor, non-consumer consultancy firm with no minimal showing of importance other than obscure industry awards. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Moldova relations

non resident embassies. appears to be no relationship except on the football field [17] LibStar (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Football doesn't make for international relations except where fans meeting at the pub are concerned. This article has nothing to go on. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and for lack of sources documenting a relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No "there" there, and no notability either. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, and merging these articles like this into the "diplomacy of..." articles. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i find no sources that discuss this relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign relations of Moldova, which now contains the content. But as a courtesy to the editors trying to implement the consensus decision on these articles, hold off until the Ireland foreign relations page is done. There is no urgency. Aymatth2 (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg–Moldova relations

one of the most random combinations I'm to find. text says it all There is no common border between Moldova and Luxembourg. The number of Luxembourgish in Moldova and of Moldavians in Luxembourg is insignificant besides football this is the only article I could find about actual relations [18] but even then Moldova really only speaks to Luxembourg in a Moldova-EU context. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article was created by this guy in an attempt to "prove" a connection between medieval Moldavia and the modern Republic of Moldova. POV-pushing as well as deeply un-notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIR, yadda yadda. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are potentially over 37,000 bilateral relations articles. Many of them will be notable, but this ain't one of them. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, and merging these articles like this into the "diplomacy of..." articles. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced stub. I find no reliable sources on my own that discuss this bilateral relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grandma Gatewood

Does not conform to standard of notability, i.e. person known only for one event. See WP:BIO1E Age Happens (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep She's not known for just one event, she's known for one thing, which was long-distance hiking. Not only was she the first woman to complete the Appalachian Trail solo, she is the oldest female thruhiker and the first person to hike the trail three times. Over 5,000 Google hits including innumerable reliable resources. There are plenty of books that talk about her and a couple of which she is the primary subject. There's even a trail named after her. It would be difficult to argue that she did not make a lasting impact in her field or that she is non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many sources specifically about this person. I'd never heard of her but it is very interesting. I'd say this is an example of what wikipedia can be great for. Quantpole (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced, for major continuing athletic accomplishments. DGG (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A sportswoman with a notable career longer than just one walk.
This vast series of ill-considered {{prod}}s makes me serious doubt the judgement of the nominator and only policy is stopping me doubting their good faith. Does this sort of scatter-gun deletionism make the encyclopedia better or worse? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how Wikipedia is better for not having this article about a person who's well-known within a given culture. The sources currently aren't what I'd consider impressive, but it looks like there are some fine sources that could be included. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chiliad- I'm usually pretty skeptical but there appears to be a ton of coverage on this person and she appears pretty clearly notable. -Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that the nominator is ignoring the first sentence of BIO1E: "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." There are many people famous for a single event who have articles in Wikipedia; Rodney King and Gavrilo Princip, mentioned in BIO1E, are examples. Besides, Gatewood hiked the AT three times. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen this woman spoken of extensively and she is frequently quoted as a bit of a hero in AT hiking culture. I believe that wiki should keep a good article on her as she is undeniably a part of hiking heritage as well. While not widely known, I believe that people will search for her and as such wiki is incomplete if they were to delete her. wubrgamer (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was already a previous discussion about the removed Prod, at Talk:Grandma Gatewood, which i started, and which I think already sufficed to establish this as a notable article, set up correctly. Frankly, I think the nominator here should have recognized that already, and should not have started this AfD. But, i guess the nominator started from the point of thinking it was an obvious delete, hence trying the prod deletion first, and now seeking fuller discussion with AfD. Anyhow, keep per my and others' comments in the Talk. doncram (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Well-sourced article. She has had a place named for her. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisia–Ukraine relations

very minor relations. According to the Tunisian Govt and my French knowledge, there have only been 3 high level visits (only 1 by head of state) since establishment of diplomatic relations in 1992. most coverage is about sporting relationship or Ukraine and Tunisia in a multilateral not bilateral sense. [19] LibStar (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you have to ask me why, you haven't been paying attention. (fails WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:NOTDIR) --BlueSquadronRaven 06:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most sources I found were about football, and certainly no in-depth coverage of the relationship. Fails WP:N. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, and merging these articles like this into the "diplomacy of..." articles. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced stub, for which i can find no reliable sources that would aid in it approaching inclusion under wikipedia's notability guidelines.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate santa effect

Non-notable model used to explain supply and demand. Likely only used in the textbook cited. Google search yielded zero results. SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, So this is the type of "quality research" our tax dollars are funding. "HIGH"er Learning indeed. Not quite notable enough to be recognized as anything but a holiday amusement effect. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 04:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable WP:NEO. This is normally called seasonal demand although the example purports to illustrate something else and does not. Drawn Some (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is pretty clearly a one-off neologism. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slayer 10th Album

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but people forget... Canniba loki 04:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree it's not a crystal ball. However, there has been an announcement by the record label of the release date of the album therefore it is confirmed that the album will be released and is not just "coming sometime or maybe not at all". It is confirmed and I've supplied a reference to say so. I completely agree that if nothing is confirmed then pages should not be created as they are just theories or rumours. But I'll say it again, this has been confirmed. When more details are available then more can be added. The confirmation of a release date is the beginning of something. Otherwise, the logic follows that nothing goes up on Wikipedia until completion eg ABC Construction announce they will build the biggest building in the world and will be completed on xx/xx/xxxx but a page is not able be added until it has actually been built. I hope my reasoning makes sense. Smaunsell (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALHAMMER. Wait until you at least have a name and more than one external reference. --BlueSquadronRaven 06:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Again, that WP:CRYSTALHAMMER page speaks of people basing their "information off rumors posted to message boards, blogs or MySpace". These are not rumours. The reference is a legit official announcement. As for the 'more than one external reference' matter, what is the limit to number of references required before something is accepted??? Another reference has been added. Smaunsell (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also says "If the name of a future album is not yet known, the album is very likely to see its page deleted from Wikipedia." That's exactly what this is, making it nothing but speculation. You don't even know what the album is called yet...--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 04:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be verifiable sourced information, release dates, and a single. Ngaskill (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALHAMMER The information in the article is not sufficient to maintain a separate article. It should've been included in the main band article. Even with a release date mentioned it can still be pushed back and existence alone is not enough, there has to be information to share for an article to be viable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in Rolling Stone is sufficient to justify the article, with the album only 2 months away. If we delete this now, as soon as a few more news stories come out it will no doubt get recreated.--Michig (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, even though this one just barely falls under WP:HAMMER, the sources give barely any information at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it meets the miminal requirement for anew album. And keep in mind Wikipedia:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, but under ground of what this article "meets the miminal requirement for a new album?"--Canniba loki 16:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kinda like what you're doing, with your own essay, Richard? --BlueSquadronRaven 16:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 09:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The 7 July release date was evidently not correct - I have updated the article with latest details. The later release date may weaken the case for keeping this but the additional coverage is in my view enough to keep it.--Michig (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop - HAMMERTIME (Delete) (I love it when I get to do that)--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 04:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 point continuing - article has clearly been raised to meet WP:N and the discussion is unlikely to have any other outcome - consider this per WP:SNOW and any dissenters can go straight to WP:DRV if they are truly unhappy with the close. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium–Ukraine relations

whilst these countries have embassies, most of the relations happens in a Ukraine-EU context or Ukraine-multilateral context [20]. the Belgian foreign ministry doesn't say much about the actual bilateral relationship between the 2 countries [21] LibStar (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the usual reasons. Are these things auto-generated? JJL (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable or non-existent, flags here Drawn Some (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do I have to type it all out again? There are no verifiable secondary sources and only a directory entry of the location of its embassies for content. Fails WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:NOTDIR.--BlueSquadronRaven 06:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the work of Dr. Blofeld. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of third-party sources providing significant coverage. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly information exists. Has anybody considered searching in the relative languages? I find it funny how people will vote delete for articles on real world relations and cite 101 reasons why it fails to meet guidelines but will then continue to support the existence of unreferenced fictional cruft with no metnion of the serious issues they have. As encyclopedians you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whilst you have cited the Ukranian foreign ministry, I found very little on the Belgian foreign ministry (which I cited and they translate everything into English). the issue is that these are primary sources, there is very little third party coverage of their relations. LibStar (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politically maybe not, economically these countries have major ties. I'll dig around for some further sources. IN the manufacturing sector contemporary trade between these two nations is huge and a Belgian firm has a 34% share in the Ukrainian beer market. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

34%! that is amazingly high! LibStar (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The Belgian investors have formed alliances with other companies and are dominating the market. They own Stella Artois in the Ukraine and various other notables by intergrating companies, kind of like a Korean chaebol or Japanese conglomerate. I think Belgium and Ukraine are two major nations and should be a notable article. However I also have concerns about some of the smaller more obscure nations like Bhutan-Kosovo relations for example. Either way I also LibStar am not happy with the way in which these articles were started with little content. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded this article and actually nominated it for a DYK so can we please end this AFD? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please no. I'd love to see a DYK from a page going through AfD. (Even funnier would be a Featured Article going through AfD.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today's featured article went through an AfD back in the day! Lugnuts (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of pigs running around it, and Leffe too; I like it. What -- those aren't valid reasons? Oh all right, RS tell us that there are notable things (not all of which involve pigs) going on between these two nations. -- Hoary (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - greatly expanded since the nomination. Still not brilliantly sourced, but one wouldn't expect to find a huge amount in the English speaking world about relations between these two countries, and I think there is probably enough sourcing there now. My main concern is that the article may now be giving a misleading impression of the importance of the links between the two, but lacking comparative statistics, that's only a guess. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Why is this even up for deletion? Its an article about the relations between two countries, it's clearly notable. Perhaps some sources from people of these countries would help, but the article is more than sufficient for inclusion. ceranthor 15:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an ongoing discussion here, about whether these articles on bilateral relations are notable or not. Many of them are nominated for deletion ona daily basis its become something of a cult joke in the community. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment a related issue is whether these articles are the best way to handle the matter. Many countries have a "Foreign Relations of..." sort of article too. JJL (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - need I say more... Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per expansion and the fact that more sources likely do exist. Blofeld's new information and sources show that the article is most indeed definitely notable. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the expanded article breaches WP:GNG and WP:RS - it's mostly dependent on Ukrainian-government sources (thus not independent of the subject) and even uses a blog source. It also, as is typical in this series of nonsense articles, prioritizes trivia: would we ever think of mentioning the Kravchuk visit in his biography, or the musicians' performance anywhere? Of course not. But the rules fly out the window here, and we dump in any scraps of information we can find, desperately seeking to create the impression of notability, where in fact no independent, significant coverage has been accorded to "Belgium–Ukraine relations" as such.

And how much importance does Belgium ascribe to this trading partnership? Have a look here, if you will. Ukraine isn't even given a separate entry, instead being lumped in (pg. 17) with "other European countries" - Belarus, Moldova, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia. Belgium exports €102.5 mil to "other European countries", and imports €74.5 mil from them -- truly a pittance when set against the total of €18.1 billion/€19.6 billion. So not only are there sourcing issues, the article runs the very real risk of inflating the importance of such relations as do exist well out of proportion. Yes, there is a relationship, but it's hardly that relevant to either party. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article focuses on distinct relations between Belgium and Ukraine. We wouldn't mention a lot of things included in even the US-UK relations article in the biographies of George Bush and Tony Blair either, does this mean we delete the article on US-UK relations too? I found hardly call the clear economic influence in Ukraine by Belgium "trivia". You think having a 34% share in Ukraine's beer industry is trivia? Thats a very high percentage, worthy of note. Nobody said they were the closest of countrues Ukraine is 45th on Belgium's list of exports, it is clear that both countries aren't the world closest countries obviously but the article doesn't claim this, it does exactly what it says on the tin. I would be willing to bet there are many journal/economic related publications in a different language which substantially covers relations between the two countries. Besides which we generally seek out goverment and reliable sources and if comnined with other sources such as newspaper and journals, great. I find the claim to be prioritsing trivia in this article ironic given that some of the very same people who want this article deleted continue to widely support the trivial lists of cartoon characters and episodes we have on here. Real world economic relations are not trivia. US$ 1 billion in trade annually between these two nations is hardly trivial. Think about it. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with the possibility of merger later. I can see how in some cases there may be a significant basis for articles such as these, while, in other cases, the need might not be so apparent. Which one this is, I dunno. But I'd rather error on the side of caution initially. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with these international relations articles is indeed where we can draw the line and conclude this is or is not notable. In my view a lot of the stubs we have on bilateral relations I regard as much as a joke as LibStar and the others do. Most of them were started with silly things like "There are 20 Greeks living in Bhutan" or "There is a Greek embassy in Thimpu" and that is it. That's where I really wonder about these articles. I must admit when I first saw these empty articles created seemingly for the sake of it I groaned. Some of them I'm sure can be written into decent articles and in principal a lot of them could potentially have a lot written about them but it is the countries which have a serious lack of connection other than one or two delegates and a handful of people in either country and no real economic or political relationship that I draw the line.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dr Blofield, thanks for finding your information on relations, I think the AfD will run and consensus will be reached. although I do agree with some of Biruitorul, a lot of the information is from primary sources, and I'm not sure if pigsite.com is the most reliable source. LibStar (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps if I was going to read about swine flu I would seek a different site maybe..Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is an A-class article for Wikipedia. Well written, and deletion is just ... well ... silly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced, well written and demonstrates (once again) that determining notability in bilateral relations requires more thought than saying, "Well I've never heard of them." Paxse (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good work by Dr. Blofeld has established notability. Smile a While (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Gatoclass. Good job on all the work to expand it, Dr. Blofeld! Aridd (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The fantastic expansion job clearly establishes notability. This is a perfect example of why knee-jerk deletionism only harms this encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball keep. Not even the nominator has provided a reason for actually removing the article, only for renaming it, and AfD isn't really the right way to handle rename requests. Closing before the already mildly contentious discussion degenerates into the usual partisanship surrounding topics related to this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Corrie

I have added this article for deletion as I believe Ms Corrie does not satisfy the requirements of WP:ONEEVENT. She is notable for nothing other than her death. Her life was not notable. I am completing this nomination for 24.61.10.180 (talk) --AniMate^talk

in this case. WP:ONVEEVENT calls for merger to an article on the event, not outright deletion. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article, which i think has many problems, sails over the reliable sources and notability bar. The whole reason we have an article on her is the manner of her death, but that "event" took on a political life of its own, a political life deeply involved in examining her young life, chronicling it, praising it, attackign it at great length in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. I consider this a bad faith nom by the Ip, who refused repeated requests to create a user name so he could do this for himself.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite finishing this nomination for the IP, I think she is clearly notable. The sourcing is strong and verifiable. --AniMate^talk 03:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I am the nominating IP. I nominated this page as it is utterly clear Ms Corrie only has a page on this wikipedia for one reason- her death. The circumstances and issues of her death generated a considerable amount of news. This I agree. However her life was entirely lacking in any notability. Thus she does not overcome the WP:ONEEVENT guideline. There have been many people who have been killed and their deaths generated a tremendous amount of media attention. I remember back to the PhD student at the University of Chicago who was killed on campus. His article on this wikipedia was deleted for the simple reason that his life was not notable. Only his death was. Thus, he did not survive the WP:ONEEVENT test. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amadou Cisse (student). In addition, Wikipedia is not a memorial, thus Ms Corrie's article must be deleted pursuant to WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Thus, Ms Corrie's aricle must be deleted or merged into other articles- such as one about IDF home demolitions as an accidental casuality. 24.61.10.180 (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her death was a significant event, defined at WP:BLP by "how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." For example see [22] (an article about the subject just a few days old).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 03:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator is correct that the otherwise non-notable subject is only notable for WP:ONEEVENT, her death. However, the subject is no longer living (indeed that is the point of the article), is not notable for anything that is likely to disparaging to her (fairly or unfairly, media coverage of Corrie's death has been overwhelmingly sympathetic to her and hostile to Isreal) and the worldwide publicity surrounding the incident that caused her death is an encyclopedic topic in its own right. The article is not a memorial (most of the article is about the events that occured as a result of her death, rather than a retelling of her life) and if the nominator or others feel that it is memorial-like, this can be corrected by editing, not deletion. The nominator has a reasonable case to argue for deletion but this is one of the very, very, very few ONEEVENT articles worthy of being kept as an encyclopedia topic. I would also resist the temptation to rename the article to something like Death of Rachel Corrie. The event is Rachel Corrie and Rachel Corrie is the natural name for an article about her death. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
obvious keep WP:ONEEVENT does not apply when "the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial" as "indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." this person has persistent and widespread coverage in multiple reliable sources. untwirl(talk) 03:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Death of Rachel Corrie. Similar to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, I think it's clear that her death was the larger more significant subject. The articles and the discussions about her life all stems from after her death, indicating that was the impetus for the coverage of her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It's not going anywhere, but Rename to Death of Rachel Corrie. Corrie was not notable in life, and all extant notability stems from her rather unfortunate transformation into Saint Pancake. Renaming to focus on the event would help derail some of the spurious allegations that BLP applies to a person six years dead. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, dude, so not necessary. Please strike that out and if you want to discuss that again, we can go on at the article but have a little bit of respect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. That's horrible. AniMate^talk 04:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and the only way of settling the article title will be an RfC. An event as widely covered as this, and giving rise to as much cultural followup as this, makes the person notable. My view is that the title should of course be the natural and obvious one where someone would look, which is the name. DGG (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, and given this overwhelming support to keep the article there might as well be snow; DGG has argued convincingly to keep the article under this title. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The nominator is right. The only thing significant about her is the highly politically charged aftermath of her death, which likely wouldn't have even happened had she not been a young American girl (sad but true). Anything (sourced) from this article that can be shoehorned into another on the diplomatic and political aftereffects of her death should be put there. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly, though tragically, notable. Agree with above that there is a WP:1E concern, but the event is unique to the person, hence the retention of this article shouldn't be in question. The recommendation to rename from User:Jclemens above is the logical solution in line with the letter of the policy, although I feel renaming an article to what is a more awkward title to satisfy the letter, rather than the intent of a policy, is a mistake. Nevertheless, the immediate decision to be made is one of deletion, and the content and the article should be kept. user:j (aka justen) 06:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazlı Süleyman

Non-notable Local Government politician. Does not seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN with City of Brimbank not a major metropolitan centre but a subdivision of the Melbourne urban area. The article is written in a promotional manner but this can be fixed. There is recent coverage but this is negative in nature. I frankly doubt she has the required public profile, even with the squalid Brimbank drama, to justify a Wikipedia article Mattinbgn\^talk 02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Her three terms as mayor and her naming/shaming by the Ombudsman are probably sufficient to satisfy notability requirements, but the article needs a lot of work to move beyond its current biassed content. WWGB (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I have sympathy with the nom's position, but she will meet our notability guidelines hands down with the press coverage in the next few days. Brimbank is the most noted Council in Melbourne right now. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has received significant press coverage. Turco85 (Talk) 19:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 12:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Ross Parker

Seems to fall foul of WP:NOT#NEWS. Sad, yes, but only news. Ironholds (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, nominator states reason well. Drawn Some (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've made quite a few changes now - I've put the case into context and added three reasons why the case is notable.--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The changes, especially the section on reporting, clearly explain importance and there are certainly sufficient reliable references to support notability and verifiability. Drawn Some (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above. Also I feel the link with September 11th related tensions increases notability.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A strong case made for the notability of this event, and the influence it has had. Rather than articles about any of the individuals involved, this article on the event & its impact seems clearly encyclopedic. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland v Wales at 2009 Six Nations

Contested PROD. Original reason for PROD was "There is no need for an article for a single match at the 2009 Six Nations." PROD was removed with the reason, "Not convinced that we shouldn't have an article here; this was considered an extremely important match for Irish rugby." On the contrary, other than this being the match that sealed Ireland's first Grand Slam in 61 years, there is nothing historically significant about this match, and there is no content in the article that could not be included at 2009 Six Nations Championship. – Pee Jay 01:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Grand slams and Triple Crowns are common enough that they don't have special notability, besides which, the Grand Slam came as a result of Ireland winning all the matches - there's nothing special about the last one. otherwise it can be adequately covered in the main 2009 6N article. dramatic (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just a useless page which has basically already been covered in the 2009 Six Nations page. Afkatk (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, single matches which are part of a larger event or competition should be merged and deleted. Within rugby the only single match article I think of note is the Rugby union at the 1908 Summer Olympics, but that is a single match due to only two teams entering the competition. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No they shouldn't. Wikipedia:Merge and delete isn't a viable option because it violates policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:Merge, I should have used the words merge (or maybe a better term is transfer) some of the information from the article into the Championship page, and then delete the old article. Otherwise a plain delete is preferable than keep. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Ireland winning Grand Slam was notable but this match wasn't other than its where it was sealed. Quality not great and its all been covered in 2009 6 Nations article anyway. G~~ain~~Line ♠_♥ 12:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World of Tarith

This article is about a non-notable game. Google searches turn up nothing to confirm its existence, let alone its notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:MADEUP. We really need a speedy criterion for made-up junk. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 01:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Almost a G11 speedy. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Israeli–Palestinian conflict. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six-state solution

No clear and persistent reference to this solution. Vaguely mentioned long time ago in an article. Definitely not notable. barabum (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Israeli–Palestinian conflict. No evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, almost WP:MADEUP but somewhere else. If it ever happens or becomes seriously discussed it can always be pulled out of the deletion rubbish bin. Drawn Some (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schway

Contested prod. The article lacks third-party sources and the product doesn't appear to be notable. Plus the article's written like an advertisement. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete INsufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should have been speedy deleted as unambiguous advertising. --Quartermaster (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clear cut advertising. Gigs (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Hall (John Stalder)

Contested speedy, started off as an obituary for a radio personality. When I approached the author about this, the obituary content was removed, leaving a list of radio stations this indiviual has worked on. A quick search on google or googlenews for both his names doesn't turn up anything non-trivial and secondary, just a few mentions here and there. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 21:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:00, 5 May 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 00:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If indeed his most important work was a program consultant for a regional radio network, then that makes this pretty clear. Gigs (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Syndrome

Purportedly an opposite to Stockholm syndrome, this turns up very little in pretty much every google search despite the inciting incident having occurred more than a decade ago. Google books gets 6 hits, only one substantive, which cites no references. Google scholar turns up two hits, only one of which appears relevant, and it is not about Lima syndrome, it just mentions it. Google news turns up one hit in Korean. Straight up google turns up wikipedia first, then a series of unreliable sources with no references (urban dictionary, listverse, a wiki, deviantart and some wikipedia mirrors. This does not appear to be a scholarly concept, or even a popular one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of references in the one substantial Google Book hit you mentioned could be due to the fact that pages 153 and 154 (right at the spot where they should be) are not included in the preview (other articles in that book do list refs, so it's unlikely the full book doesn't have any for this one).- Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section discussing the sole instance of lima syndrome in the book starts on page 148 and only has one reference to Kim, 1998, not next to the mention of lima syndrome. It's possible that Kim 1998 is to a scholarly volume but I'm not going to dig into the google results that turns up to try to substantiate the reference :) I'm guessing it's a news story referring to the Peru incident and doesn't discuss lima syndrome specifically. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 5 May 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 00:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the 1998 reference is scholarly, that still makes this a narrowly used neologism. Gigs (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 6 references are still 6 references, and they date back long enough to not be a contemporary new word. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The given references are reliable Rirunmot (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Merge: I am convinced by the references that this is an established term, and that Korean article [23], though inspecific, is a secondary source covering the establishment of the neologism as a valid term in Korean, which makes me presume the term is established in English as well. A weak argument to defeat WP:Avoid neologisms, but I think it might be sufficient. That said, the sourcing is weak for a term like this, so perhaps for now a brief mention at Stockholm Syndrome would be appropriate as an alternative? Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I found source I don't see above, which may be either a primary or secondary source (I didn't look that hard).[24] Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 21:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Purcell

Minor character played by an insignificant actress (who doesn't even have a Wikipedia article) in only 6 out of 514 episodes of the television series Peyton Place. LargoLarry (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete lack of sourcing (independent or otherwise). Fails WP:OR, other deficiencies (WP:N, WP:RS) notwithstanding. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Article meets all wikipedia guidelines. Sections can be referenced via WP:CLEANUP. Ikip (talk) 23:21, 7 May 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 00:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no idea what Ikip was talking about, I have no idea how this meets guidelines at all. And cleanup? With what sources? It's just a character played by a red link actor. We've already established that no sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 00:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am not opposed to merging smaller ones into a larger article on characters from the show. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source article per WP:POTENTIAL, as a part of American televion history that has moved from in-universe to real-world coverage in reliable sources. And note, sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here. The claim to a significant character in a notable series is a claim to notability and is easily verified. All it needs is to be done. WP:AFD is not for cleanup, but will one again result in just that hapening. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am sure there have been essays and dialogues on Peyton Place which will have some commentary on the character. A small list might work for a merge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The character was in only six out of 514 episodes of the TV series! She was in neither the original novel nor film adaptation. How could you possibly think "there have been essays and dialogues on Peyton Place which will have some commentary on the character"? I continue to vote to delete this article. LargoLarry (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an extremely minor character, and most of the arguments to keep do not suggest where sources might be found. Sweeping statements about Peyton Place are no substitute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was a huge series that, I beleive, was the first to emply the daytime drama soap format into primetime and dealt with many taboo subjects. I would be quite surprised if many of those articles writing about the series and characters were available online at all. There's little doubt they were written about extensively, the popularity of the prime time show, the scandalous storylines, etc. It will involve pulling up newspapers and magazines off microfiche unless and until those are digitally uploaded and transcribed to be searchable. -- Banjeboi 22:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So the series was important. The series was written about extensively. There will be many newspaper articles and magazines about the series. You haven't suggested where non-glancing coverage is going to come from. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just as we have current characters written about extensively in current mainstream media; this series and characters were written about extensively back then. If we had a dozen articles talking about this character on the article already this would be a non-issue. Instead we have reason to beleive these sources exist but no one who has done the legwork to dig them up and transcribe them. Sources don't exist is not the same as we don't have the sources yet. -- Banjeboi 02:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge intact into a combination article. There is almost no good reason for having a separate article on her. There is excellent reason for having the information that's there within a article on the minor characters, no matter how long it gets. It's appropriate background for someone interested in finding out about the series. I'd add a photo, because we're talking about visual arts & it provides context for the description. There is only one argument for keeping this separate--the fear that people will think the content unsuitable and remove it, and the likelihood that the best way to prevent this is to have an article. In other words, the best thing to have is a good description in a combination article, a poor thing to have is a description in a separate article, but the worst is to have no description at all. The poor way is just a fault of organization; the worst is a failure to be be an encyclopedia. AMIB, do you accept such a compromise? DGG (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 20 days with only the nominator arguing for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Goes Here

Non-notable music act with little media coverage of substance. Fails WP:BAND. TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few third-party album reviews include: Synthopia which I found through Google News; The Phoenix, a college newspaper; Side One: Track One; Earshot; Truepunk; Smother.net; Sea of Tranquility; Rock Is Life. So far I haven't found coverage in mainstream news articles, although Dave Rand himself has received some press for his scientific work (one example). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What about an article covering Dave Rand with a section about the music project? --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 15:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Rand can be shown to pass WP:BIO, that would be a fine idea. Most of the Google News hits I found, however, were about an exec at GM, not a Harvard grad student. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 09:00, 1 May 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 00:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (since I did not actually offer a !vote earlier) per the multiple album reviews I noted above. I haven't searched extensively for Dave Rand's scientific work to see if he warrants a separate biography. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 01:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Literary Resource Centre

Article was PRODed, but I felt discussion was warranted. I was not able to confirm or deny notability based on my searches so I am netural at this time ThaddeusB (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —ThaddeusB (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To appropriate Bangladesh literature article. Insufficient notability for stand alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 08:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: NN organization, not notable in Bangladeshi media or elsewhere. --Ragib (talk) 19:51, 1 May 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 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

Delete appears to be promotional for the website www.bangladeshinovels.com which has an Alexa ranking of 2,467,106. Drawn Some (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arkaea

I declined a CSD on the article since I found several Google hits suggesting that the band might be notable. Leaning toward weak keep if expanded. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:BAND. No wiggle room here even if expanded. Drawn Some (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A supergroup formed from two notable bands, with notable members. That alone satisfies criteria 6 of WP:BAND: "an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". Even ignoring that, there's a good amount of secondary coverage, though some of it is just reprinting a press release: [25] [26] [27] Gigs (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two of the members seem to be notable, and the other two come from a notable band. JohnCD (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:03, 2 May 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 00:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep supergroup from two notable bands Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G12, blatant copyright violation (rewordings are minor and don't avoid that) of http://www.emsa.org.eg/2008website/EMSA_vision.php Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Medical Students' Association

The article is full of libel. the article is talking about the history of another different organization and it claims it belongs to them. this organization is not the representative of Egypt. the real organization is called IFMSA - Egypt see [28]. and its president is Ahmed Ghazy [29]. the real website -> here. At first, I thought I would edit the article to make it NPOV and purge false information, but I realized that would just empty the page. so I nominated it. thanks. Alnokta (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a great nomination rationale, but I can't find anything good on google, google scholar or google books. No reliable sources to assert notability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 5 May 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) 00:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. See here. Drawn Some (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The given 3 external sources are reliable and verifiable Rirunmot (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio as shown by Drawn Some. This is a very clear-cut case.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 01:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oksana Grigorieva

No assertion of notability; see Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 19:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Info is already in the article about the father of her son and an unlikely redirect target. Edward321 (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable although this has made her 445% more popular than last week on IMDB. Drawn Some (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What has? —Emufarmers^(T/C) 22:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, to clarify my statement: IMDB has a "secret" method of determining the popularity (on the IMDB website) of films and actors and shows the percent change of popularity increase or decrease from the prior week. Someone like this who is so little viewed on the IMDB website can have their popularity increase significantly just by having a few people click on the link in the Wikipedia article to check it out when it comes up for deletion. In other words, if only two people looked at her page last week and four did this week, it might show a 100% increase in popularity. I apologize, it was a snarky way of saying she isn't very notable.Drawn Some (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your point or even your snarkiness in principle, but in this instance the increase in her STARmeter™ rating is probably due to the current media gossip about her personal life, not our AfD. ;-) —Emufarmers^(T/C) 01:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be, I must admit I am not familiar with her! Drawn Some (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, and notability is not inherited. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Roda

Non-notable. Article is written by User:Andyroda, so there's an obvious conflict of interest here (he humbly refers to himself as a "musical prodigy"). Only six results on Google news. The first two (out of three) sections, in terms of sourcing, are derived from the subject's blog and a youtube video. I can't access the other sources at the moment, but thats probably because my connection is faltering at the moment, so maybe someone else can verify them. CyberGhostface (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article at the very least needs a serious rewrite. I attempted to work on it, but kept hitting edit conflicts. The use of YouTube as a secondary WP:RS is not good. The WP:POV problems are entirely out of control. I am reserving any more judgment until I have a chance to check the sources and the current edit wave calms down a bit. 98.212.129.124 (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he meets WP:Music on several counts including placing in a major competition, multiple albums, has performed music for notable media. Needs a serious re-write and he needs to stop doing it himself. Drawn Some (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. I think the guy is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 April 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 16:26, 30 April 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 00:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 24K was actually given to an album by the Kitty Girls who are most likely the recipients. Ref 7 which covers this makes no mention of his name at all, meaning he was not part of the receiving team for the award. It doesn't even confirm he had any part in it. The Billboard link is to that band too. Andy doesn't appear to have one. The link to the movie website doesn't mention him either. A lot of claims and a lot of links, but when you dig deeper the sources are either unreliable, not independent or not actually confirming the facts they're attached to. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to ETI

Article pretty much just regurgitated promotional material from a website encouraging extraterrestrials to use the Internet to contact Earth somehow. Only sources are from the website in question. I tried to do a search, and the only independent reliable source mentioning its existence seems to be a jokey mention in New Scientist making fun of it as part of an overall column (= trivial) and another New Scientist letter to the editor that I can't bring up because not being a subscriber. Fails mainstream independent nontrivial coverage criteria of notability standards as far as I can tell. A couple of people who are notable enough for articles have participated, but notability is not inherited, otherwise anything those people do would be worth an article (frex. Dr. So-and-So sneezed that one time). DreamGuy (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My goodness do I have to give a reason. Let's leave it at non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article author has merged Invitation to ETI to Allen Tough#Invitation to ETI. Powers ^T 19:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sloppy as far as mergers go... still unsourced and the text was just copied and pasted wholesale with links in wrong places, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merging during an afd is strongly discouraged. I've unmerged, until this is closed. DGG (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No need to delete it because its a crappy notepad website. AJUK ^Talk!! 21:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Powers ^T 01:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote the article but I wrote it because I feel that aliens if they ever meet us are very important. I feel this article is more notable than many articles about video games and kids TV programmes that stay in Wikipedia. Allen Tough is a hard scientist and should be respected. What he writes shouldn’t be confused with UFO based pseudoscience. DreamGuy may feel he has a mission to purify Wikipedia but his blocklog is encyclopaedic. It seems he’s been blocked any number of times but his useful contributions stopped him being permabanned despite so many shorter bans. Is he being useful here or is he trolling? Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drawn Some. His argument is still 100% valid. Spiesr (talk) 18:19, 4 May 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 00:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything else aside, I just don't see any established notability from the sources given here. Gigs (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Quantpole (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no demonstrated notability. No likelihood of there being any. DGG (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 21:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hanley (Peyton Place)

Minor character played by an insignificant actor (who doesn't even have a Wikipedia article) in only 26 out of 514 episodes of the television series Peyton Place. LargoLarry (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete lack of sourcing (independent or otherwise). Fails WP:OR, other deficiencies (WP:N, WP:RS) notwithstanding. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Article meets all wikipedia guidelines. Sections are well referenced, the rest can be edited via WP:CLEANUP. Ikip (talk) 23:22, 7 May 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, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think Ikip's "strong keep" was WP:POINTy. This character clearly doesn't meet any notability guidelines, as there are no sources to be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 00:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has only been mentioned trivially and most of the characterisation is original research. Nothing's been said directly about him that would meet WP:N. Them From Space 03:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a list of minor Peyton place characters along with other nominated pages since it's clearly not lacking the sources as claimed. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would say that having the entry in the encyclopedia of television would be sufficient notability. However, I am not opposed to merging smaller ones into a larger article on characters from the show. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand article as apart of American television history that has moved from in-universe to real-world coverage in reliable sources. And note, sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here. The claim to a significant character in a notable series is a claim to notability and is easily verified. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am sure there have been essays and dialogues on Peyton Place which will have some commentary on the character. A small list might work for a merge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. A source mentioning the character in passing does not show notability. There needs to be a stronger argument why notability is conferred from the series. At present these articles are merely acting as extensions to give further plot summary. Quantpole (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with the above that we really need to see in-depth coverage of this character in a reliable source, not just an offhand mention, in order to establish notability. Wouldn't object to a marge to a list of other minor characters in this programme, though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and improve further, as article is verifiable, and it seems reasonable to suspect that additional sources would exist as this character had multiple appearances in a notable program; however, no reason why at worst not to merge and redirect with edit history intact to Peyton_Place_(TV_series)#Characters per WP:PRESERVE and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As A Nobody said, its verifiable. I see nothing wrong with listing characters from any series. The wikipedia has no limits on server space. And if you don't like an article, you won't be likely to ever find it to begin with. Unless a policy(not suggested guideline done by a small number of people which changes constantly) is created to handle character pages specifically, then its all left to consensus. If most people around at the time to vote, believe a character is a notable part of a series, then can keep their page. Sometimes character pages are saved, and sometimes not. Dream Focus 17:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Apparently a medium-important character in a major show. That;s over the bar for having an article, in my view. if one thinks it under the bar, then the solution is to merge. In either case the entire information should be keep. There is a reason for not doing full articles on every character: doing them shows poor judgment about keeping a sense of proportion about what's important. There is an exactly similar reason for having full articles on major characters in major shows: otherwise it shows equally poor judgment about what is important. And there is an even more important reason for not having no treatment at all, or a mere name in a list, for any named character in major fiction: not having reasonably full information shows a lack of commitment to being a comprehensive modern encyclopedia. Medium-important characters come in the middle. and could go either in a combination or separate article. But if we are to remain an encyclopedia, not deleted. And wherever kept, I would add more out-of-fictional-universe detail, in particular a list of exactly what episodes he appeared in. Wikipedia coverage should not be only plot, and there should be spcae for the production details also. . DGG (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 21:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Brooks

Insignificant fictional character who appeared in only 24 out of 514 episodes of the television series Peyton Place. LargoLarry (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete lack of sourcing (independent or otherwise). Fails WP:OR, other deficiencies (WP:N, WP:RS) notwithstanding. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Article meets all wikipedia guidelines. Sections can be easily referenced, the rest can be edited via WP:CLEANUP. Ikip (talk) 23:20, 7 May 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) 00:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think Ikip's "strong keep" was WP:POINTy. This character clearly doesn't meet any notability guidelines, as there are no sources to be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 00:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge intact. It's really the best way to do these. The important point is to retain the content. Personally, I only care about it being in separate articles so people don't then try to delete it as unimportant. DGG (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional character. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of Peyton Place characters (I was not able to find one, but since it can be sourced, one should exist). There's clearly no "total" lack of sources, just too little to warrant a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say that having the entry in the encyclopedia of television would be sufficient notability. However, I am not opposed to merging smaller ones into a larger article on characters from the show. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and further source article per WP:POTENTIAL, as a part of American televion history that has moved from in-universe to real-world coverage in reliable sources. And note, sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here. The claim to a significant character in a notable series is a claim to notability and is easily verified. All it needs is to be done. WP:AFD is not for cleanup, but will one again result in just that hapening. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am sure there have been essays and dialogues on Peyton Place which will have some commentary on the character. A small list might work for a merge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no valid reason to destroy the article. She appeared in 24 episodes of a notable series, so that makes her notable. Dream Focus 19:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. A stronger argument needs to be made for why notability is conferred from the series. Without consenses on that at the moment, we have to go back and look at WP:GNG, which this article does not meet. Being sure that there will be sources, is not a valid argument, unless those sources can be found, and debated. No need for a merge as the article at present is mainly plot summary. I realise that there is ongoing debate about plot details, but these sort of articles are acting as a workaround so that more plot is included. If plot is to be included then it should be in the parent article, or appropriately split sections of that article (I realise that 514 episodes is a large amount of plot to cover), but not in individual character articles. Quantpole (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The complete encyclopedia of television programs mentions only that this character exists and was played by this actress. This fact is already present in Peyton Place. There are lots of people claiming that this character is important, but nobody suggesting what sort of sources we might use to make this article more than a non-free image and a scrap of plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable by the common sense standard, i.e. played by a blue link actress in a mainstream series in two dozen episodes. Content is verifiable in reliable sources. No reason to redlink or delete the edit history. I am open-minded to a merge and redirect in this case, however. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be a common-sense standard you made up on the spot. Can you offer any sources we can use to write this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have found enough to verify that the article is not a hoax and all. And if nothing else, User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable. Seriously, though, per WP:PRESERVE and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, I think somehow this information can be used, improved, or at least preserved. For example, what kinds of magazine sources from the time may have reasonably covered this character in say interviews or reviews, but aren't on Google archives? The show itself is covered in out of universe fashion in many books that don't allow for full view on Google. One can reasonably believe that in some of these, coverage may exist as well. So, we already established that it is not made up or libelous and we have a reasonable belief that additional sourcing may be available, so no need to destroy the foundations before the house can be finished. But anyway, given that we have a clear merge and redirect location at Peyton_Place_(TV_series)#Characters, why not just compromise? On this one, I am open to meeting there and hope you are too. I can live with an redirect with edit history intact, even if I prefer it be kept outright. Not all of these need to be major disagreements. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask if it was a hoax, as WP:N does not require "things which are no hoaxes". I asked you if there were any sources that covered this subject with which we can write an article, and you have presented none. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Awards

Issue meeting inclusion criteria, no third party (or any) sources given. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Completely unsourced which also mean the article fails to verify its assertion of notability. Bidgee (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This article is seriously unsourced and fails notability per WP:RS and WP:N. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree that additional sources are needed, but a cursory Google search indicates that this award is recognized as notable within the industry. A few examples: Alaska Air has bragged about receiving the award on their website, Reuters has mentioned the awards in at least one article, Inside Flyer magazine has reported on the awards, and has encouraged it's customers to take part.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sure, it's kitschy, but it is also notable. Companies tout good results in Freddie polling all the time. This article needs help, not deletion. Frank | talk 00:24, 4 May 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, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince arthur speights

Notability is not asserted or established. I almost deleted it under A7 (non-notable) except that subject may play at professional level of his sport(s) even though it is not obvious from gnews searches. If this can be demonstrated, I will withdraw this nomination. Frank | talk 08:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Took me a bit o' searching as well... I was looking at the picture on Commons trying to suss out what the heck the copyright is on that. Still ain't sure... Anyway, there is a legit MMA fighter by the name of Prince Speights. Best hit I could locate was here. Tabercil (talk) 03:47, 7 May 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) 00:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to comment: A good hit, I suppose, but I'm not thinking that establishes notability. (Not implying you were saying that; just commenting that I think we need more to support any claim to notability.) Frank | talk 00:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not able to locate any coverage of this person in any source that I would consider to be "reliable". If this coverage does not exist, I have a hard time believing that the person meets the WP:ATHLETE notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Paradiso Girls. Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patron Tequila (song)

Non-notable song. Fails WP:NSONGS. OlYeller^Talktome 02:21, 1 May 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" 02:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Paradiso Girls: Nominator could have been WP:BOLD and redirected. This is a plausible search term as anybody who is aware of the guidelines at WP:DAB or WP:MUSTARD#Disambiguation may be likely to use it. --JD554 (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its the first single of the group. So if there is a page for the group than why not for there first single. It was released on iTunes and given plenty of references. Definitely keep... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.193.164 (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the band has a page doesn't mean the song should have a page. See WP:MUSIC#Songs where that's specifically stated. OlYeller^Talktome 16:09, 3 May 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) 00:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Paradiso Girls; nn. JJL (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JJL, this not notable per the guidelines. Drawn Some (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Will Tell international film festival

No assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The external websites linked clearly shows the I Will Tell film festival ranking along other high profile festivals for the last three years. There are other film festivals on Wikipedia that give no external references at all and yet they have not been deleted. discloseIwilltell09 (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of significance or importance. In addition, if you look at the website, it's not even a film festival, it's some sort of (religious?) charitable organization that uses this for publicity, I didn't waste too much time looking at it. So it's also purely promotional. Drawn Some (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you please explain to me why, if you 'did not bother' to look at the website that you feel so comfortable having an opinion on it? If you had 'bothered' you would have seen that the I Will Tell film festival is indeed a film festival over which many have invested years of hard work to make the success it is today. The Odeon in Leicester Square and the Coronet in Notting Hill are hosting I Will Tell screenings and Disney submitted City of Men to last year's festival and you say this is not a real film festival? Your comments show an incredible lack of responsibility. Had you looked at the website you would have seen that we have shown films like Woman - a positive film about Muslim women and Soulmates a positive film about Christian women as well as dozens of other films which do not make any reference to any faith. We focus on telling untold stories and stories of impact. Objecting to this would be like objecting to the Human Rights film festival (or perhaps you do). I fail to see how it could be justified to delete I Will Tell when other festivals are included on Wikipedia only because they hope to have a festival later this year.discloseIwilltell09 (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: any reason this wasn't tagged for speedy, no assertion of notability/spam? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it doesn't fit any notability tag and it isn't blatant spam. Ironholds (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 would seem to fit. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a company, club or organisation, though. Ironholds (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "e.g." given in CSD#A7 is "for example" - its not meant to be inclusive. It is not a website, either, but its clearly an entity and no claim of notability is made. I routinely delete articles under A7 with more respect to whether the claim of notability is met rather than whether someone can argue the specific entity is mentioned by a small set of examples in the criteria. Events can be, and are, deleted under A7. If someone wrote an article about their yard sale I'd A7 it in a heartbeat. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Then you're doing it wrong. Read the entry at WP:CSD, particularly the fact that "organisation" isn't the example, types of organisations are, and "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on". The organisation that produces this festival would be an A7. This is not. Ironholds (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and have precedent (mine and others) on my side. "Festival" does not have to be specifically mentioned for A7 to apply. A9 is redundant with A7, for example, but we let the distinction stand. Don't forget that consensus makes policy, policy does not make itself. If most Admins see things one way, and the policy is slightly off of that view, then generally the policy needs rephrasing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, but I only see one admin taking that attitude (although you could probably get NawlinWiki in as well). Look, here's my point. A festival is not an organisation. The criteria covers organisations. It specifically does not cover things produced by organisations, such as products. I'd argue that this falls under those. Something does not have to be mentioned to be valid, but it does have to fall into the broad "organisation" definition given. Ironholds (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen quite a few. I'm putting this on the CSD talk page for clarification. Meanwhile, how would you tag an article about a yard sale, or a movie screening at the local YMCA? Because I assure you, I'd delete it. IAR applies if nothing else. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd follow the rules, on the grounds that "I say so" isn't the same as consensus. I'm perfectly happy with any attempts to expand CSD criteria to include things like this - indeed, I'd welcome them - but until they do you can't just delete it and say "well, me and some other admins would do it, ergo consensus". Ironholds (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always follow the rules, and "I say so" is not anything I've said here. I am quite offended that you have misunderstood me to such detriment of my character. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You stated that your interpretation was perfectly valid because you and some other admins did it, regardless of the fact that the policy specifically excludes products of organisations and suchlike. That indeed reads as "its okay because I do it, so screw what the policy actually reads as". Ironholds (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then it reads wrong. You've hurt my feelings; you've insulted me, and when I told you so you escalated to saying my position is not only what YOU say it is and not what I say it is, you compare it to saying "screw you". How much more do you plan to beat on me, and to what purpose are you attacking and insulting me? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps this is better continued at your Talk page(s)? JJL (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it has already been moved there User_talk:KillerChihuahua#continued_from_AfD. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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