Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 28

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

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. –MuZemike 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Speech and Debate Tournament Champions

edit
List of National Speech and Debate Tournament Champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Straightforward case of "even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was already deleted. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peeping Tom )

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

This one I feel may be controversial. Doesn't show notability for this theater troupe so much. I spot some copyvio issues in here as well. Recently created, and I don't feel much like biting this guy here for obvious reasons. =) Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If references can be found for those awards, I reckon notability will have been established. --Technopat (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on my comment. I have just referenced one of the awards and, in passing, have discovered Wikipedia's poor coverage of theatre...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Army of the Pharaohs. I'll protect the redirect. T. Canens (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King Magnetic

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

Article fails to meet notability guidelines in WP:MUSIC. Note that page has been deleted three previous times[1].—Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs) 22:37, 28 June 2010


Also Hiphop DX is reputable and mentions him directly with his association with the creator of AOTP Vinnie Paz and how KM highlights the album. Here's the link to more proof [[1]]
King Magnetic was on the lead single God flesh. This album also Charted on Billboard.com. I still don't see the issue? Rewdnes (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree let's not let this page fall victim due to the lack of knowledge on the subject. Some reasons why the article should remain.

1. thatshiphop.com is a VERY reputable site that interviews notable artist's. some examples
50 Cent interviewed by thatshiphop.com
2. B-Real(Cypress Hill)
3. Ludacris
The other source I used Conspiracy Radio is also Reputable. Has interviewed the likes of Tech_N9ne, RZA (WuTang Clan) etc..
Rewdnes 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment What are the copyrite issues do you speak of Epeefleche? If you mean the text used in the article? It seems the website that did the coverage copy pasted the text from the wiki article written. If I'm wrong please advise to what you are referring too. Thanks

(rewdnes (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metaledge Records

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

A search for third party sources is coming up with only trivial mentions and lots of press releases. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSN. VQuakr (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does trivial mention require deletion of the article ? I'm sure there are countless numbers of articles within the same genre on Wikipedia that fall under this category and are still active. Is it a new company or label ? Are they just starting out ? A search of this company has many mentions on Google with this company being listed in the top 10. I would say keep and revisit I would contest this as being subject for speedy deletion. (198.68.16.40 (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

CommentThe above appears to be a single purpose account, and is editing along the same pattern as numerous suspected sockpuppets. JNW (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Pazhutan

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

This article about a musician was proposed as a speedy under A7. I declined because it does assert notability, but I do see other concerns, not least of which is a lack of sourcing. There are some Google hits, but nothing under News or Scholar. Basically, the article would need to be rewritten for tone purposes, but I see nothing online that would allow us to source the rewrite. Shimeru 21:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: Mohammad Pazhutan is not a singer. He is not signed to any label yet and also does not sell his music so his name could not be found at Allmusic.com. He is simply an avant-garde composer working alone in the field of contemporary composition and music technology in a country where there is no official center for teaching the mentioned topics. He composes, researches and teaches single-handed and as I mentioned before he does not sell his music. Most of his compositions can be downloaded from his website for free. Remember he is not living in Paris or New York but in a city with no contemporary music scene. It is so naïve to think the only valuable music in such a huge planet are those mentioned in Allmusic.com.(Honey Haq (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: Honey Haq is the author of this article, ok he's a musician, but wikipedia is not myspace or facebook, please read WP:Music and you will find out yourself that the article doesnt give any proofs of notability, Its just like a resume. and Its not just allmusic.com , Google hits are low quality too. as you said he's a musician who works alone with no official intenational releases. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:In the 21st century composers work in many different areas of the art of music. The sound installations and live performances of this artist are never covered by his country's newspapers due to the extreme difference and uniqueness to the other musicians there. Moreover, many types of music are banned there. Therefore, no international reports can be found about it. Though I cannot see anything resume-like in it I'm eager to change it the way you guide me. Please note there are other articles about Iranian composers in Wikipedia with no official releases. This is not unusual if you are familiar with their situation. (Honey Haq (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    Okay, but if he's never covered by any sources, then what are we supposed to base the article on? Shimeru 09:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of China Inland Mission missionaries killed during the Boxer Rebellion, the arguments for deletion are more grounded in policy and guideline than the arguments for retention here. –MuZemike 00:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Protestant missionaries killed during the Boxer Rebellion

edit
List of Protestant missionaries killed during the Boxer Rebellion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of non-notable people. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My arguments are given in this page. Please go there for discussion. --GnuDoyng (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Math

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

Non-notable podcast; contested prod. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion are more grounded in policy and guideline than the arguments for retention here. –MuZemike 00:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of China Inland Mission missionaries killed during the Boxer Rebellion

edit
List of China Inland Mission missionaries killed during the Boxer Rebellion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of non-notable people. "Martyred" is also POV. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Comment Martyr is not a pov see Martyr. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They might not be notable in your culture but certainly they are in ours. And I don't think a handful of Wikipedians who take part in this discussion have authority to claim who are notable and who are not. There is no universal standard. --GnuDoyng (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Francis Edith Nathan has just been speedy deleted for failure to show what made her notable. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agile-team

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

New software product with no independent sources. Two editors have assured that references have been forthcoming for over a week, but none have appeared. There is no clear assertion of significance in the article, so the article fails notability and verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Same as previous article. (except for less maintenance tags, and less information) and does not credibly assert significance. (A7) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yura Železnik

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

An article for this subject was previously deleted at AFD. This edition is not the same content, so it is not eligible for speedy deletion. But, the notability issues remain. There still is only the Epoch Times Isreal article constituting coverage. In the few intervening days since the close of the first AFD, there has been no additional coverage that I can find that would not make this person notable. Whpq (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Closing this early, both per WP:SNOW and the fact that it is obviously causing distress to the subject. NW (Talk) 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donny Long

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

BLP with lots of complaints from the subject. basically is just about notable through pornographic movie scenes but there is little or no independent coverage and reliance on primary detail from the subject seems excessive.. Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the WP:PORNBIO argument discussed in the last AfD demonstrating notability. Subject seems notable, and the fact that the subject sees fit to abuse us until we remove the article per "his rules" is no reason to ignore our own policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking my !vote per Hullaballoo's comments below; not yet ready to support its deletion though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'll be darned if I can figure out what the subject feels is "false libel" in the article. Keep per GiftigerWunsch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    comment - In my experience subjects only get upset when they dispute content within their article here at wikipedia and we do need to listen to such issues subjects may have. Personally I am not so inclined to support the position that says, damn disruptive subject of one of our articles why should we let him attempt to tell us what to do, this is fine if you can show to me quality wikipedia reliable citations that will allow a decent cited biography to be written, in this case that appears to not be the case at all. As regards the claim as per previous AFD meets WP:PORNBIO , this guideline has changed a fair bit recently and its value is disputed, also the subject doesn't exactly fly through porn bio as it exists now, basically have we got decent wikipedia reliable citations that cover the subject in a depth that will allow us to write a decent BLP, imo no is the answer to the question. Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that the subject thinks we're printing libel about him is irrelevant to the actual notability. That said, I don't see any reliable sources here, nor do I see significant third-party coverage. The sources provided are the IAFD (which is no more a reliable source than IMDB), the subject's own blog, and an advertisement, which can't be used to establish notability. Subject fails WP:GNG. Pornbio is currently under review and in any case it does not negate the basic WP:N requirement for multiple, reliable, third-party references that cover the subject in significant detail. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Lustralaustral (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject won an AVN award which the nominator had removed from the article because the reference link went dead. He should have put the deadlink tag instead of outright removal of the evidence of notability and then later afding the article without disclosing this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Heiro 04:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep-Changed my vote, with the AVN award back in article, guess it now passes PORNBIO, although an award for a blowjob scene hardly seems like it should confer notability. Maybe the revamp of PORNBIO mentioned elsewhere on the page will fix that. Heiro 15:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's not at all suspicious that this !vote uses the exact same phrasing as an account with barely more than 50 contributions... Note: this !vote is worded in an identical manner to the !vote by Lustralaustral, who has little over 50 contributions since starting to edit. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 05:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? I copy and pasted it because it said exactly what I needed and wanted to say. You think anything else, you know where the fuck checkuser is. Try AGFing a little more and bring evidence if you feel the need to make any similar disparaging remarks. Heiro 06:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disparaging remarks? I fail to see how making other editors aware of a rather suspicious-looking couple of !votes (given that one is very nearly a SPA) could be considered a violation of WP:AGF or a "disparaging remark", and frankly that assumption wasn't exactly the best demonstration of WP:AGF I've ever seen, and there is absolutely no reason to answer with profanities in an AfD. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 124.121.195.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:PORNBIO by virtue of the AVN award. Award should not have been removed by nom.Horrorshowj (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The AVN award being discussed is as one of several people in a group oral sex scene - while I'm sure that Danny Long is very good at what he does, this shouldn't give him a great deal of notability (in our sense, at least). A marginally notable BLP where the subject requests deletion, especially where there's a lack of independent reliable sources and a problem with maintaining NPOV, feels like something best deleted. - Bilby (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Comment. I am going to disagree that there are a lack of independent reliable sources especially when you deleted the references due to your BLP concerns. Both AVN and XBIZ are industry trade journals and are considered reliable sources by the wikiproject pornography for the topic of pornography. Simply because a report seem negative or one-sided does not make the source unreliable. If you think the wikipedia article seem negative failing WP:UNDUE, it is because he presents himself this way for the trade journals to report on and there are no reliable sources that present his side in a positive manner. While this afd is ongoing it is better for people to have the references that can be analysed, especially if there's a claim that the article does not pass the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two references, one is entirely about Chasey Lain, and mentions Donny Long only in relation to an argument with Chasey Lain. It is from Chasey Lain's perspective, and doesn't speak to notability. The other would relate to notability, but we don't have access to the original, and the version we do have access to is largely a rant against him. It may well be justified, but I gather the reason we can't access the article directly is that it was retracted. Still, even if it wasn't retracted, that's not enough to get past the marginal notability problem. - Bilby (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what he did to earn the AVN award, the first criterion of WP:PORNBIO states, "Has won a well-known award such as an AVN Award." The AVN alone is enough to demonstrate notability, and it seems he's also made a lot of contributions to his field. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this, but without reliable sources there's just no way we can write a balanced article. My feeling is that PORNBIO shouldn't trump the GNG, and at best he seems to be of marginal notability. As the subject requested deletion, I see that as a better solution than leaving the article up - I'd feel different if there was evidence that he had a bigger impact on the industry, of course, but for that we'd need sources which seem to be lacking. That said, I understand that others will disagree with me, and I've got no hassles with that. - Bilby (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive / threatening comment removed: feel free to rephrase and re-indicate your !vote, but personal attacks and threats do not belong here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am growing tired of you swearing and being abusive here. This is the way Wikipedia works, and it has been decided on agreement from more people than just you. Deal with it. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well we have got 7 delete comments (including the nominator and the subject) and 5 keep comments and the subject is requesting deletion, as we do default to delete in such circumstances can we close this now and put him to rest, closed as no consensus default to delete as per request from the subject.? Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not how AfD process works. The only reason to close an AfD early is if the result is speedy delete (and this clearly meets none of the criteria), or if it is a WP:SNOW close, which is clearly not the case. Note also that consensus is based on the strength of arguments, and not on numbers of !votes. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteI agree with deleting as I have followed this "Battle" and believe that the subject has obviously tried on many occasions (without luck) to delete this page. I agree with "off2riorob" with a 7 to 5 vote for deletion wiki should do the honourable thing and delete, the figures speak for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.100.22.107 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user is a known IP used by the subject of the article, and this is not the first delete "vote" he has placed here. See the IP's contribution history. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I personally see no reason why a subject's request should have any influence on a deletion debate. I think the idea is laughable, and I don't care for this particular person's comments here one jot (I would hope he doesn't come back). If they didn't want people to note their existence then they made a poor choice when they did something notable, however consensus appears otherwise so other than lodging my objection to deletion on these grounds alone there is not much I can do. I suspect what you suggest seems fair, Off2riorob, but I am disappointed in the whole thing. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should framed when archived: The louder you scream at the "motherfuckers" here, and label people as "assholes" the higher your chances to get "fucking shit" deleted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to request that the closing admin be very careful to make sure that consensus is being represented on close, and be aware that the subject of the article has been introducing vandalism into this page and many others with numerous IP addresses, and has already entered two delete "votes" and threats for more into this discussion. I have reverted one, which was a blatant attack, and marked one as being a known IP address of the article's subject attempting to give the impression that he is an unrelated bystander (see the IP's contribution history). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per John of Reading.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.This guy is not going to stop and he wants it deleted. If he emailed Wiki and they got it I bet they would have deleted it or at lest they should. I have seen this page vandalized many many time for many years if you look at the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.63.231.72 (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out the delete as this is very clearly another one of Donny Long's alternate IPs, and the comment wasn't even signed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 178.63.231.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So because your IP is dynammic, you think you can vote 3 times? There is something called socking, y'know... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've voted once, nice to see you assume good faith though. 85.210.96.42 (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would a dynamic IP bounce from the UK to Germany, because the 2 above this, one geolocates to UK and the other to Germany. Just wondering. Heiro 21:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop deleting vote comments from anyone, if it is a SPA then add the template but stop removing comments. Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already self-reverted, there's no need to tell me to fix something I've already fixed. The only !vote I deleted was one with a comment which was largely or entirely a personal attack, and I encouraged the user to rephrase their argument and insert a new !vote. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.

Watching you lifeless morons with nothing better to do in life than argue on the internet and make someone millions of dollars from your dumb words that get indexed all over google and make the owner and his site "WIKI" millions is even more disgusting and we all know traffic = money and fighting with a famous porn stars and trying to figure out which post is his and which post is not is funny enough but for god sakes get a life and just delete this whole shit. What do you have against the man that just wants libel about him on a site removed aways? If it was you then you would want it removed also right and be pissed!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.100.22.71 (talk • contribs)

Boy are you misinformed. Wikipedia doesn't generate money by hits, it's private, nonprofit. Follow the link and read about it. And having or not having this article wouldn't make or break us, because this "I link on many of my websites to my wiki page and drive them a lot of free traffic"[5] is meaningless. Wiki doesn't make revenue by the click. Wikipedia doesn't have Ads. Get a grip on reality. Heiro 01:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The policy WP:PORNBIO says winning an AVN establishes notability, this guy won an AVN, he passes. And criticize me for being unsympathetic if you must, but I see no reason to give any credence to anything that a guy who claims he doesn't have time for this "wiki shit" and then spends hours flaming and ranting about aforementioned "wiki shit" says. And in regards to the claims that PORNBIO is "under review", if it changes so that the AVN no longer establishes notability, there isn't anything stopping the article from being nominated again. Seth Kellerman (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Call me hopelessly uninformed, but I had never heard of Mr. Long prior to reverting some of his multi-IP switching mega-vandalism recently. Nor had I heard of the above-discussed AVN award, and I have to admit I had never even read WP:PORNBIO. Having gotten some clue now, I trust, I regretfully have to agree that the award confers a certain notability, and as such Mr. Long's wishes in this matter are of no consideration. Long's accomplishments and life are a matter of public record; such is the price of fame. As far as I can see, Off2riorob has trimmed away the unneeded stuff and left a well-sourced little bio. And if Mr. Long hasn't been yet dealt with, I strongly feel (as an admittedly involved party per: his large-scale vandalism) he should be indefblocked and/or banned asap. Jusdafax 04:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I had never heard of Mr. Long either before seeing [Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#donny_long_wiki_page this discussion]. I tried to get Mr. Long to explain what parts of this biography he objected to, but his answers were always just the article needs to be changed. We should not just give in to requests for deletion because they shout and call people names. This process works on a consensus about how the article complies with established notability guidelines. Donny Long appears to meet established notability guidelines based on the AVN award. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 07:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral leaning delete - After looking through this again and all the current sources I do not know if there is enough to establish notability. There is one source that provides significant coverage of Mr. Long and that source really only discusses his website. Now the AVN award that I previously stated established notability. Did he win and AVN award? It is questionable right now in my mind if he won the award. A scene he was involved in was recognized with an award. Would we say that the actors in a short film that was selected as the best short film of the year, all won the award? Probably not. The two controversies that bounce in and out of the article are not widely covered. One is sourced to an article that says something but we don't know what since it is no longer available and Mr. Long's personal blog, not a reliable source. The other is mentioned in passing in an article about the other participant. I don't think these establish notability either. Does everything together establish notability? If it does it is minor and maybe we should err on the side of protecting the living person. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 18:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Donny has clearly stated that Chasey Lain, Cristianx, and many others and or the things they have said should not be a part of his wiki but you guys seem to keep posting them up there. I say delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.154.230.105 (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — 95.154.230.105 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 08:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification needed - Just went back and reread your comment again, you might want to clarify your position, at the beginning of the line you say "Keep" and then at the end you say "I say delete." kind of contradictory. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 12:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.

Libelous and questionable information AGAIN! Why cant you guys keep the libel about cristianx and chasey lain off my page? its up again for the 500th time. You want to post about chasey lain then post this video that tells the truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZvsWKn6nzM I filmed that and thats the truth, not the bullshit you keep posting. JUST DELETE MY WIKI SINCE NO ONE CAN RUN IT RIGHT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.121.193.118 (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 124.121.193.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. And I note that Mr. Long hasn't even tried to hide his identity this time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you guys still avoid that facts and refuse to fix the libel wiki.

You guys are something else. REMOVE c3x and chasey lain FROM MY WIKI!

JUST DELETE the fucking wiki already assholes. — 94.100.22.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep from what I can tell it's just about notable and as long as it satisfies BLP (which it appears to do) I see no real reason to delete. The 'lots of complaints' from the subject are irrelevant given that his main concern is 'libel' despite the fact that he doesn't appear to know what libel is. raseaCtalk to me 10:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Donny Long has a point that words that came from Chasey Lain's mouth should not be posted of his wiki just like words that came out of his mouth can not be posted on her page. But we cant seem to keep her or christianx off his Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.151.46 (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    — 96.44.151.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose protection might I propose semi-protection of this AfD until its completion, to avoid this utter foolishness from these IPs. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whatever I may think about the excessive coverage in Wikipedia of porno actors, the guy meets the criteria. His bizarre drama and peculiar behavior (here and offline) with regard to this article are irrelevant to any actual discussion, and should be ignored by the closing admin (other than to discount the myriad bogus "votes" by his various IP identities. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is a co-winner of an AVN award, so he barely passes WP:PORNBIO. And he has no secondary sources talking about him, so a) he doesn't pass WP:GNG b) we can't write an article on him because there are no sources from which we can summarize material. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:PORNBIO is not dispositive. "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Additional considerations must come into play, and in particular, the overall question is whether we actually have enough information to write a proper biography at all. Here we fairly clearly do not. If the article is kept, it seems that the subject's primary concern is regarding the inclusion of information about the argument with Chasey Lain. I would have to agree with him on that, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As with many bad biographies of people who aren't actually notable, what we have here is a collection of trivia reported upon mostly by sources of a questionable nature, as opposed to a genuine biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was going to give precisely the same arguments as Jimbo, but he has saved me the trouble. Yworo (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As with many bad biographies of people who aren't actually notable, what we have here is a collection of trivia reported upon mostly by sources of a questionable nature, as opposed to a genuine biography. This is more evidence that the wider community does not approve of PORNBIO as a notability guideline - the walled garden of pornpublications does not provide reliable coverage of notability, and their trivial awards are meaningless. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Not really notable despite the co-winning of the AVN award, mostly trivia etc. Mauler90 talk 16:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Burpelson, Jimbo and Hipocrite. Even if this guy was marginally notable, there's no real benefit to keeping this when it clearly causes a lot of problems for the subject as well as us. Even if the guy is socking abusively, "Spite" is not a legitimate reason to keep. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue the converse: "he's going to keep bothering us" is not a reason to delete. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Hipocrite mark nutley (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Co-winning an AVN award doesn't demonstrate notability by itself. Fails the WP:GNG as there is not significant coverage of him in reliable sources. He is a person with marginal notability who has requested deletion of their biography, so we should delete this. Fences&Windows 17:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG. AVN itself does not classify "scene" awards as going to the performers, and on the (admittedly rare) occasions when nominated scenes have identifying names, it lists the scene name rather than the performer list. Long was quoted in AVN in 2009 as saying he had never won an AVN award, so neither the awarder nor the supposed awardee subscribe to this theory of notability, which violates WP:NOTINHERITED. Even if the scene award is considered to satisfy WP:PORNBIO, Jimmy Wales's argument provides a very sound basis for disregarding that controversial criterion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm that's an interesting argument; I was basing my !vote on what the article says, which is that he won an AVN award. Could you point me to the evidence you mentioned that AVN issued the scene an award rather than him? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a standard example of AVN's breakdown of its awards into various categories ("Production," "Performer," "Technical," "Sex Scene," etc). [6] The award Long is credited with winning in the article, "Best Oral Sex Scene – Video", is in the "Sex Scene" rather than the "Performer" category. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm always going to disagree with your interpretation that the scene awards don't go to the participants. Based on personal knowledge, the participants of the scene each get their own sparkly lucite award (which can be confirmed by commercial videos of past award shows). Further, the current avnawards website lists the participants of the scene awards. Like this example that lists Donny. [7]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since the subject requested, and isn't particularly notable. We have better things to work on. Aiken ♫ 18:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Delete It find it rather surprising, given the industry this guy works in, that there are so few hits for him on any Google search beyond several sites with his name in the domain, blogs and several social networking sites. Google news archives actually has far more hits for a boxer who also happens to be called Donny Long. Delete the porn star's article, create an article on the boxer and we might get somewhere... Literally the only thing I found about this Donny Long was this passing mention of him in an article about Luke Ford. Without reliable sources, there can be no article. QED --Jubilee♫clipman 21:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subject is very upset and is experiencing real life trouble over the article. He's not so notable that the article should be kept over such strenuous objections per WP:DONOHARM and WP:BLP Minor4th • talk 21:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Jimbo, Minor4th and others. --JN466 21:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Minor4th and Jimbo said it best. --Diannaa TALK 22:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fairly poor quality article about a non-notable subject. I can't believe this has gone on so long. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jimbo, Hipocrite, and others (and, not incidentally, the subject). Steve Smith (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reviewing the second paragraph - the actual biographical information - it becomes clear that there's almost nothing we can say about this person's life, because there are no independent reliable sources providing detailed information about the subject (the one source cited in the bio paragraph is an industry site that's essentially providing an advertorial service, and as such cannot be regarded as having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy when it comes to biographical information - they're simply repeating what he's said in interview). The subject's wishes for deletion, and the potential for further disruption / damage to reputation / legal liability should this article be kept are more than enough to counter any suggestion that this subject may be notable for having jointly won an AVN award. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this person meets the requirements of WP:PORNBIO and the article should stand. MtD (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Jimbo, Hipocrite, and James. In the event of a 'delete', the subject of the bio should not run away with idea that he has scored a victory over Wikipedia.--Kudpung (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This guy is just not very notable anyway, and he wants it deleted. Give the guy a break, take it down. There's no real loss to he Wikipedia to lose such a minor character. It'd be different if he was some notable politician or something wanting his article deleted, then we would have to stand up to that as a matter of principle. But this is just some basically marginally notable mook who just wants to be left alone. Leave him alone. Herostratus (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Jimbo, and all the rest of the deletes above.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After considering this for over 3 quarters of a hour, I've decided to support deletion. The main reason I'm voting in favor of delete is there appears to be no verviable sources. I've done a Google search on the topic, and all I could really see is blogs and Facebook etc. This would lead to doubts to whether this article would meet the notabillity clause. Yes, the noteabillity clause on this topic seems to have been met, but I'd involke ignore all rules, because this article has caused mass conflict between it's subject and editors. I'd also support salting just to prevent recreation, given these circumstances. I am not a expert of the subject, just looking at google and what's been said on wiki, but there was enough for me to come to some conclusion. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 10:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing !vote to delete per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: whether the individual actually meets WP:PORNBIO is arguable, and maybe (sort of) meets one WP:PORNBIO criteria doesn't outweigh the fact that there's almost no other evidence of notability, IMO. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above and above all per the subject's wishes. Porn stars should not be exempted from basic, human consideration merely due to their occupation.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteHere we go again! Another day waisted with you fuck heads, and still there is libel and peoples names and words that have nothing to do with me or my business on my wiki. Chasey lain see the video here and you think what she says is credible? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZvsWKn6nzM

and the guys that fucks dudes with boobs and got <libellous accusation redacted> yea hes someone to post about!!! Lets put him all over my wiki. DELETE THE WIKI ALREADY! This is so stupid and pointless and such a waist of time that I am going to buy a domain about wiki. Something like ihatewiki.com or wikiisajoke.com or better yet wikiisfulloffalselies.com

WP:SALT recommendation in case of delete

edit

I suggest salting the article should it be deleted. It seems the IP-attacks are not actually voting for a delete, but between the lines it is always "delete because it's not the exact version I like"; thus, there's a high chance the whole deal will be recreated, using the preferred wording from Long's own blog which has been thrown at us repeatedly ever since these attacks started. The first complaints actually tried to dictate to us a complete version of what Long called "my wiki". (This comment is not a !vote) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm wavering somewhere close to the fence on keep or delete at the moment, but if deleted, it should be salted to avoid its use as a vehicle of self-promotion. If it is decided later that it could be recreated without reinstating the criteria for its deletion here (if that is the result), then I'm sure there'll be no problem convincing an administrator that that is the case. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. If the article is deleted then it should be salted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely should be salted if deleted. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 18:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree it should be salted if it is deleted. Mauler90 talk 21:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+1. --JN466 21:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree it should be salted if it is deleted.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding wishes of the subject

edit

I Just want to leave this as a note for those involved in the discussion. The Subject of the article has made it quite clear that he would like the article deleted. Obviously this is up for the community and I'm making this clear to him but I would encourage people to take that into account if you think it is a borderline case. Those with otrs access can see some of it on this ticket and can contact me if they would like more information (we have had phone discussions as well). James (T C) 20:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Adidas Tango. Tone 21:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tango Rosario

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

an article about a football? Gimme a break! WuhWuzDat 17:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, actually about a brand of soccerball. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The rough consensus indicates that the article has not sufficiently met relevant notability guidelines. –MuZemike 23:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Quintana

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

Here we are a year later and the article still has not established anything more than borderline notability. The tabloid sources the article has can't even agree if he is a "servant", "longtime political operative", socialite or producer. Even the basic claim that his is a producer can't be verified. Every article giving him more than a passing mention is a piece on some lawsuit or another.

We can't build quality BLPs based on tabloid reporting on a person that has done nothing notable outside of a courtroom. Brandon (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The rationale of previous AFD seems indicative that Thaindian News, New York Post, The Los Angeles Independent, Los Angeles Times, and Hollywood Reporter, and the many, many others [8] seem to meet WP:GNG nicely... and yes, his film producer work can be verified. That the article has not been improved would seem a reason to encourage its improvement through regular editing, but not deletion. And to the nom, just when did the Los Angeles Times become a tabloid? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The LA Times isn't a tabloid, yet the only substantial mention of him is a six page article detailing his Hollywood life that was removed due to BLP issues. The LA Times article used in the article doesn't show anything more than he's in the reporter's rolodex. For this article to depict reality it would tell the story of a Hollywood socialite with legal problems, not a Hollywood producer and politician, of which he is neither. To be a producer you must have producing credit, not a vague job you get fired from way before the movie comes to fruition. He leads a life followed by tabloids, which we can not cite, thus leaving a skeleton of an article that is in no way based in reality. The article has stayed the same for a year, if not deteriorated further. Eventualism doesn't apply to BLPs, nor would anything of value be lost by deleting this 100 word article. Brandon (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and neither are many of the other available sources.[9] What applies to BLPs is not being a violation of WP:NOT, not a WP:BLP1E, and having sourcable notability that meets WP:GNG. As the article is not in violation of WP:BLP, we do not delete simply over a claim that "nothing would be lost", specially for a BLP that meets WP:GNG, is cited to reliable sources, and can be expanded and sourced by more. Editors will (hopefully) look at the results of the Find sources above, and decide for themselves if the total coverage is significant, and whether or not the article improves the project by remaining and being improved through regular editing. His being in the news for his political endeavours for 2 decades seems rather conclusve. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends He is certainly not notable as a politician (a couple of failed primary contests) or a movie producer (unconfirmed). If he is notable, it is for his various lawsuits against celebrities. I have just added those well-referenced stories to the article; IMO they make him notable (probably not in the way he wants) and I would say Keep. But I see that stories about his lawsuits were removed in the past, as some kind of BLP violation, although that's hard to figure since they are part of the public record. If the lawsuits get removed from the article, then it should be Deleted because they are the only thing that makes him notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this summary. Brandon (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No assertion of notability. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. He might meet WP:GNG, which says that people with "significant coverage in reliable sources" are "presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article", but note my italics. The coverage may not count as "significant" either, as GNG defines it. I don't see how a handful of court cases (restraining orders, a lawsuit and an assault conviction) are enough for notability. And it's clear, as has already been noted, that the court actions are his only possible route to notability. His work in film is sub-notable, as are his several unsuccessful forays into politics. This is a longstanding nuisance entry with frequent sock attacks and article ownership issues. Hairhorn (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Hairhorn on the sock issues, especially since I dealt with frequent sock attacks against the Pedro Zamora and Judd Winick articles with respect to Mr. Quintana. The only way the subject can be shown as notable is if the law suits and the negative aura surrounding him (both of which I'm sure can be referenced to reliable sources) were to be added to the article. Tabercil (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — "...best known for his legal run-ins with various celebrities..." Anyone can file suit against another. It appears a number of his legal actions have been unwarranted and dropped without a decision in his favor. ttonyb (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the subject meets WP:N, having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. E.g., [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc., even, absurdly creeping into quotes in the NYTimes [16] for stuff he probably shouldn't be -- he even got over 250,000 votes in a US Senate primary this month? [17]. The nomination can't really be about whether he's notable or not; its really about the fact that a lot of his coverage is for kinda seedy stuff. Yet, seedy people (and please no one accuse me of a BLP violation because I'm proposing that he's seedy for purposes of this discussion, its not like i'm calling him a mook) can indeed be notable even if we don't like it. If the article is to be deleted, its because we don't want one on him--not because the press doesn't report on him regularly, because they apparently do. If he was, say, an engineer or inventor with this much news coverage, the article would never be nominated for deletion.--Milowent (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So to sum up the debate so far: I think the consensus is that we've got significant coverage in multiple sources, but this is challenged on the basis that they're "tabloid sources" and that the article is a "BLP violation". I'm not sure that either of those challenges withstand scrutiny.

    "Tabloid sources"—Tabloid or not, these are sources that meet WP:RS and are therefore allowable on Wikipedia. There's no exemption saying "tabloid sources aren't reliable" or "tabloid sources don't count towards notability". If there's a feeling that there ought to be such an exemption, then an RFC would probably be the place to start, but deciding that someone's not notable simply because the sources aren't broadsheets or academic papers is definitely WP:IAR, and I think IAR needs a stronger case to justify it than has so far been provided. The fact that there's coverage means that the person's name is a plausible search term and so, everything else being equal, we ought to have something to say.

    "BLP violation"—BLP doesn't mean we can't say anything negative about a living person. It just means we can't say anything negative about a living person without an inline citation to a reliable source.

    A third challenge, that only MZMcBride raises, is whether there's an assertion of notability, but I don't think that holds water either. Assertion of notability is about CSD A7—it has nothing to do with AfD. At AfD you have to prove notability by evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, and that evidence is clearly available in the article, so the challenge fails.

    On balance I don't see why the legal stuff can't be included. It's important to ensure that the article remains NPOV by confining itself rigidly to a summary of the sources without any editorial comment from Wikipedians and without giving any particular aspect undue weight, but that can certainly be done.—S Marshall T/C 10:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case I wasn't clear above: I DID add brief, sourced information about the lawsuits to the article. The sources were the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, and Fox News. These are major, nationally prominent media. Yes, the Post is a tabloid, and it does sensationalize, but it doesn't make stuff up; it's not a supermarket tabloid like the Enquirer. Fox News has their own editorial slant on things, but I think most people would consider them to be a citable source. And I think most would agree that the Los Angeles Times is a reliable source. Additional sources could certainly be found, since the suits are a matter of public record. As I noted above, this type of story seems to give "significant coverage" about Mr. Quintana; without these stories he is not notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I can nitpick, "significant coverage" is not an absolute test of notability, which is why GNG contains this disclaimer: "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article". So what is he notable for... taking celebrities to court? I don't see how that's really notable enough to merit an encyclopedia entry. Also, multiple non-notable acheivements (ie, suing celebrities, working in politics, film & event planning) do not add up to make one notable one. Any details that pass that bar can be included at Jon Peters or elsewhere, rather than filling a separate entry with self-promotional trivia. Hairhorn (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I agree with Hairhorn that coverage does not guarantee an article. To MelanieN, I would point out that significant papers such as the LATimes, Post, and others will from time-to-time carry what I would call, "surfing squirrel" stories. They are articles that are cute/human interest/fluff/filler, but hold little or no significance to major events in the "real-world". A "surfing squirrel" story would not guarantee a Wikipedia article. Indiscriminately filing lawsuits is probably not a reason to support an article. If the suits were cutting edge, significant, or maybe valid, I might support the article. ttonyb (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, even though a story provides in-depth coverage and appears in a Reliable Source publication, it doesn't count because you don't like it.. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Huh, I am not sure how you came up with this assumption — it is quite a leap. If you reread my comments, nowhere have I voiced an opinion about liking or disliking the article. My comments have been about the notability of the events quoted. ttonyb (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, coverage doesn't guarantee an article, but it establishes a presumption of notability. That's an important presumption that it's unwise to disregard. The GNG is very simplistic, and it does lead to anomalies, but the benefit of the GNG is that any editor can look at the sources and judge for themselves whether the GNG is passed. In other words, the simple pass/fail test in the GNG is the only thing that enables good-faith contributors to create articles without going through a committee process first. This is why a presumption of notability is established.

    WP:BURDEN is satisfied once an editor has provided inline citations to reliable sources, and once this is done the policy that prevails is WP:PRESERVE. At AfD, this places an onus on the delete side to show policy-based reasons why the reliably-sourced material may not be included. I'm afraid that I see no evidence of policy-based reasons to remove it save those I've already refuted above.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - GNG exists for a reason otherwise anyone that gets trivial mentions will be in Wikipedia. Significant means in-depth coverage. Heck, I've had a center-spread and collateral articles (five) written on me. By a new "watering-down" of GNG, I would qualify. In future years as it gets easier to self-post on websites and make them look WP:RS will become a problem for Wikipedia as it is already taking place now. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IF this guy doesn't meet GNG, we should delete about 1/2ths of all biographies next. He has more coverage, its just that apparently editors think he's scum or something and don't want to admit that.--Milowent (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Deletes are telling editors he doesn't meet GNG. Let's avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and assuming there are hidden (unspoken) agenda's behind everyone's delete comments. ttonyb (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assuming anything, I'm questioning. Its not an uncommon thing for an article about a person with a slew of press coverage about something unseemly to get deleted.[18], [19]. Oftentimes BLP1E is cited. Here, where BLP1E doesn't apply, and there is ongoing coverage over time, the !votes go all over the place, and claims of "tabloid coverage" or "unencyclopedic" crop up. I'm not saying editors aren't acting in good faith, I'm trying to figure out how to describe this phenomenon.--Milowent (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Deletes are telling editors he doesn't meet GNG." I can't speak for others, but this wasn't quite what I said. I said that even if he meets GNG the page can still be deleted for lack of notability, a situation that GNG itself allows for. Hairhorn (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coment Let's step back a bit and look at the nominator's reasons for requesting deletion:
      • His first sentence: "Here we are a year later and the article still has not established anything more than borderline notability" acknowledges a notability, even if "borderline", and seems indicative that WP:NOEFFORT can be a reason to delete.
      • His second sentence: "The tabloid sources the article has can't even agree if he is a "servant", "longtime political operative", socialite or producer." Here he implies that the sources available are all tabloids... which has been repeatedly disproven, and matters not a bit when such are WP:Reliable sources... and then he asserts that the sources cannot agree on whether the individual is a operative, socialite or producer... when there is no problem with him being all three, as all aspects of an individual's life can add to overall notability, and WP:BLP requires that all asserted and sundry background information in a BLP must be properly cited.
      • His third sentence: "Even the basic claim that his is a producer can't be verified'"... which is incorrect in that many reliable sources verify his being a film producer.
      • His fourth sentence: "Every article giving him more than a passing mention is a piece on some lawsuit or another." is also incorrect as there are sources available that give more than passing mention of his actions and life outside a courtroom.
      • His fifth sentence: "We can't build quality BLPs based on tabloid reporting on a person that has done nothing notable outside of a courtroom." If his notability is for being suit-happy over a multi-year period, his multi-year actions in a courtroom are fine for Wikipedia (IE: Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro (lawyer), and the "king of torts" Melvin Belli) as long as it is not a BLP1E or a violation or WP:NOT... and indeed, any quality BLP is built upon and depends on cited details used to flesh out the article giving it scope and balance, as long as they are in reliable sources.
      • User:S Marshall did a pretty fair job of refuting the points used in the nomination... refuted points which were, since refutation, still being supported in the "per nom" !votes. But AFD is not a vote, and it will be up to a closer to determine if the multi-year coverage of the different aspects of this individual's life meets the caveats of the GNG or not.
      • However... perhaps the article itself needs to be re-written to change its focus... but such would fall under a WP:ATD as a surmountable issue. But it seems here that if WP:GNG has failed the project in that its instructions are no longer seen as applicable it, needs (as as User:MZMcBride notes above) either a facelift or be rendered historical... and we must all accept that such will usher in a project-wide shake-up. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I can tell the only person who thinks he is a producer is himself and journalists who don't check their sources. This seems to be an amazing example of "verifiability, not truth" gone wrong. Brandon (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          @ User:Brandon: Please enlighten as to which WP:Reliable sources are now being found to be unreliable, so they may be taken off the list of RS. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          Despite what Wikipedia policy might say, being a "reliable source" does not make everything that you say true. Especially when it is a minor fact unrelated to the article at hand. The LA Times article mentioned above that quotes him introduces as a producer, yet a another LA Times refutes that claim. In this case a reliable source doesn't even agree with itself. I'm really not claiming the LA Times isn't a reliable source, simply that because something is printed in a reliable source doesn't make it true. Hence "This seems to be an amazing example of "verifiability, not truth" gone wrong." Brandon (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          WP:Reliable sources are not about "truth"... they are about WP:Verifiability... and until such time as the guidelines and policies are re-written, they are the compass which steers our ship... not any one editor's opinion of truth. And it is to be noted that policy and guidline are not in cotradiction here. If an article quotes the man announcing himself as a producer, then the article may offer that RS as offering that specific quote, as the RS is making a verifiable report of his words. If another RS later states that despite the man's own saying so, that he is not a producer, then that is exactly what that second source offers... and both may be included as part of a BLP. An RS is an RS is an RS. Of course, focusing upon this one irrelevent factoid does in no way dismiss the significant coverage of this man for over 20 years... and upon which the article meets WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          And by the way (and irrelevant or not), I found multiple articles from 2008 through 2010 that assert Quintana as a producer...
          Huffington Post, November 29, 2008: "Brian Quintana - a co-producer with Peters on the upcoming...",
          Thaindian News, January 14, 2009: "...producer Brian Quintana says that he may run for Californias 31st Congressional....",
          Newser, August 31, 2009: "Two co-producers of Superman: Man of Steel are embroiled...",
          LA Weekly, March 25, 2010: "Hollywood producer Brian Quintana has announced...",
          New York Press, March 28, 2010: " Brian Quintana -- the producer best known for his lawsuits...",
          LA Weekly, April 7, 2010: "Self-Styled Hollywood Producer Quintana Wants To Speak At Dem Convention",
          LA Weekly, June 9, 2010: "...that Brian Quintana got 14.2%. He's a fund-raiser and Hollywood producer who lives in Boyle Heights...".
          So can you maybe share the one you found that says he is not? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          Comment - The problem with many of these "WP:RS" headlines are they indicate the same Delete sentiment voiced in this AfD. For example, " Brian Quintana -- the producer best known for his lawsuits..." or "Self-Styled Hollywood Producer Quintana Wants To Speak At Dem Convention". Where are several WP:V third-party neutral sources that list all the movies he has produced? They're hard to find because like his article, things about him seem to be circular, self-posted, or mentioned in trivial passing because he's never been elected. If you run enough times, sure you're going to get press clippings and the reporters will echo what was previously written. Then, for the reporter who might want to check Wikipedia to see if this guy is notable by our standards - viola, he is because he has an article here. Sorry, no sale. Strong Delete. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          I offered those RS only in response to repeated assertions that no sources call him a producer... and I wished to be shown the RS that says he is not one... but it has not been forthcoming. I am in full agreement that being a "producer" for one unmade film gives no notability. However, any reporter who depends on Wikipedia will soon receive dismissal for not doing his own job, as one is never notable because of being on Wikipedia, one is on Wikipedia because notability elsewhere may meet inclusion guidelines. But perhaps a far bigger issue raised here is how in some circumstances the GNG can be a big failure, and that failure need addressing and revision. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          Your statement, "I am in full agreement that being a "producer" for one unmade film gives no notability" confirms he is non-notable. Strong Delete re-affirmed as he fails WP:GNG. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          Wow. A very incorrect conclusion... and I do hope editors take note... as I have repeatedly stated that whether or not he is a producer is irrelevent, as his notability is dependent on 20 years of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for all the aspects of his life which received coverage... specially as no person can be labeled as but "one" thing if coverage is for so many things... which makes him easily pass the curent version of WP:GNG. And please... do ahead and repeat and embolden your !vote a few more times. Someone surely missed it the first three or four times you did so. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          Thanks for commenting on the !vote. It's no different than the other posts by another editor who continues assert stuff that surely no one else "missed it the first three or four times you did so". No disrepect or NPA meant, but if one editor is willing to assert WP:VALINFO over and over, surely others have noticed your opinion and vote too. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          ? Neither I nor anyone else has asserted VALINFO, as that implies an an unsupported ILIKEIT. What I have seen however, is major newspapers called "tabloids" with it implied that the journalists with these major reliable sources are purveyors of untruth. I have seen 20 years of in-depth and significant coverage of an individual dismissed as irrelevent per WP:JNN. I have seen arguments that treat the policy of WP:V as if inapplicable. So perhaps discussing the failure of the current version of WP:GNG might be a bit more helpful than repeated assertions of JNN bumping heads with the sheer volume of in-depth coverage over a 20-year period. Does the article require a rewrite to readdress focus? Maybe. But if the GNG is to be ignored or dismissed in efforts to remove an article, then it's time to seriously reconsider rewriting or removing the GNG itself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further, it's moot whether this person is a "producer" or not, since no film actually names him as a producer. His work as a politician also falls below the bar of notability, ditto event planning. What's left is a quartet of trivial court cases: two restraining orders (not notable), an employment related lawsuit (not particularly notable) and a criminal conviction (not notable). There's nothing else. Hairhorn (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:Hairhorn: His being a producer or not is pretty much irrelevent as his notability is not for such. If his work as a politician is below par, he's in good company among the many other politicians whose work is also below par. But if that below-par work gets coverage, it gets coverage. Politician or event planner or litigious citizen... and he can be any one or he can be all three... what we are left with is 20 years of significant coverage of various aspects of his life in multiple reliable sources.[20]. I personally do not like what I've read of him and would never vote for him. But a perceived triviality of a topic according to a few Wikipedians is never grounds for deletion, specially as 20 years of significant coverage of his life and its events in multiple reliable sources, per guideline, supports a different interpretation. Again, if 20 years of significant coverage can be so eaily dismissed, its time to either re-write the GNG or render it historical. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article along with the one above calling him "Self-Styled Hollywood Producer" make it very clear that he's not actually a producer and has simply tricked few journalists into believing so (which then got repeated ad infinitum). Brandon (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate the link. Thank you. The 2009 article by Harriet Ryan shares just when and why he was hired in 2007 and goes into a little detail about his broken relationship with Peters. Quintana is not a likeable fellow, and gets coverage in the press. Do we punish him? Or do we punish the media? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - BTW, want to know why I'm here at the debate? As a WP:CAL member, I regularly go our deletion sort to see if there is an article that needs to be saved or preserved. I tried my hardest to find reliably sourced information for this individual. And, I soon came to the same Delete rationale expressed in this AfD. Quintana gets press because his information is self-published unverifiable press that he received because he is an "also-ran" or "law suit seeker." Strong Delete is re-affirmed. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When did Quintana buy the Los Angeles Times or LA Weekly or Huffington Post or Newser or Thaindian News? Or when did these reliable sources stop being reliable? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it possible to think of this article as multiple WP:BLP1Es strung together (once one tosses the politician and producer red herrings) relating to various celebrity lawsuits? I suppose all human lives are WP:BLP1Es strung together, but not in the manner that this particular article is. In any case, the article still needs substantial rewriting to remove puff. Calling this man a film producer in the initial description, for example, strikes me as highly misleading, whether or not we decide that it's technically accurate Vartanza (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One time in court would be BLP1E. Doing so many times over many years for differing reasons and against different individuals become multiple events. Notability doesn't require that he be famous or popular.... Notability is determined by length and depth of coverage, and not the coverage's content. A rewrite? Certainly. Which way to go with it? And how do we prevent the re-insertion of puff? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how four non-notable court cases add up to one notable event, coverage or no. Hairhorn (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the sheer number of court cases tried in the US, a case may find notability when receiving significant and continued coverage in national news. His 4 doing so makes them notable x4. So no... its not BLPIE, as it is multiple events in relationship to this individual that have recieved such coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow Tigers (BUAFL)

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

Non notable British University sports team. Sports teams at British Universities aren't usually notable. Often they are unheard of by the majority of students on campus. This team does not appear to be one of the small number of exceptions. When searching on google, after stripping out references to the speedway] team (vast majority -definitely notable) and the BAFL team (a handful - but none really constituting reference-able material) nothing appears to be left other than sites directly related to the team and its rivals.

I did consider proposing re-merging the BAFL article and this one. However:

  1. Although, they once shared an article here, it is not altogether clear that the two teams are formally linked. Certainly neither appears to mention the other on their separate web-sites.
  2. Given the lack of material on the BAFL team, it isn't altogether clear to me how noteworthy is anyway.

A secondary issue is the article is unreferenced, and given the lack of reliable and/or independent sources I dont see any prospect of being able to reference it. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems little basis to assume that BUAFL members are inherently notable even in the absence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please demonstrate that such coverage exists. Pfainuk talk 17:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 21:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12th Dimension EP

edit
12th Dimension EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this recording is particularly notable. — Timneu22 · talk 17:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Only the nominator favors deletion; others were convinced by the breadth of coverage of the band. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackdaw with Crowbar

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

A band. Plenty of assertion of notability but no evidence offered. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was also an article on the band in Underground magazine, which I hope to be able to add as a source within a few days.--Michig (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 21:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content Guru Ltd

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

This organization does not satisfy the notability guidelines. Per WP:COMPANY & WP:FAILN. No third-party, reliable sources could be found. Vipinhari || talk 16:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Aukerman's Koo Koo Roo's Greatest Hits

edit
Scott Aukerman's Koo Koo Roo's Greatest Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bootleg. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Recovered

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

Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The consensus of participants is the specialized use as a food product was sufficiently distinct to justify a separate article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzle

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

The concept of "non-human penis" is already covered in the penis article. It's possible we could have two separate articles, one for humans and one for non-humans, but they would properly be at human penis and penis respectively. In either case, we don't need a separate article on this particular word. Powers T 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The consensus of the participants in this discussion was that the subject is notable without even considering the product he created. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James K Baker

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

I don't think that the person in notable under Wikipedia Policy. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 15:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing my !vote. Should've checked if the guy was real or not. Still think the article is barely even at stub-level, though, and a redirect might be the better option. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Delete He was a creator of the Dragon NaturallySpeaking thingy, which has an article here. As he is credited there for that and this doesn't add anything much of interest, I'd suggest redirecting to there. Someone may want to look him up, but unless a good deal more info comes up suddenly, there's no point in this article being independent. Peridon (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at least so far as the notability of the person under question. See Dragon NaturallySpeaking for the software that this person wrote, which may apply in terms of notability by itself. A quick Google Search does bring his name up in terms of several sources of information for this person, including a peer reviewed paper that is something of additional note. That the article in question is poorly written and was written by as green of a new user as possible is true, but this isn't something to slap a AfD request on within 10 minutes of having the article created in the first place. Notability can be established by at least two or more sources that are clearly not self-published as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Without even considering Dragon NaturallySpeaking, his position as a "Distinguished Career Professor" at Carnegie Mellon meets #5 of WP:PROFESSOR: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." I confirmed via the Carnegie Mellon website that he holds this title. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you find a faculty list somewhere? The only place I found that was his personal bio page, he doesn't show up under the college professor list.--Terrillja talk 19:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, found it here [23]. Sounds like a honorary title to me, but he appears to hold it, regardless of whether or not it's valid.--Terrillja talk 19:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure how much being a a Distinguished Career Professor at Carnegie Mellon University means, but I am willing to believe it is probably notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiply notable, hence no valid reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In a search for '"Distinguished Career Professor" -"Carnegie Mellon"', I found quite a few examples of 'distinguished career, Professor Soandso' and only one or two DCPs. When searching without the negatived term, the vast majority appeared to be associated with Carnegie Mellon (disregarding the dc,P ones, of course). The DCPs I found in the first search did not appear to be associated in the summary with a particular establishment. This is not a conclusive search or verdict, but someone might care to try it and possibly refine it to see if DCP is especially a Carnegie Mellon title, and also find out what it actually means. Peridon (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google scholar [24] shows heavy citation counts (over 350) both for his Dragon system and for his paper on trainable grammars. The search results are messy but his h-index appears to be around 15 or 16. It's enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and also enough to convince me that he's known for more than just one thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Half (Of Me) (Within Temptation song)

edit
The Other Half (Of Me) (Within Temptation song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable song —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Blood libel against Jews. Or merge Blood libel against Jews back here after trimming this article. After merging, at editorial discretion the location of the article and the location of the redirect resulted from the merge may be switched. The basic idea here is that the current content of the page should not be retained; however, for licensing reasons, this article cannot be deleted. T. Canens (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blood libel

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

The article have become a vehicle for original research - a coatrack that does not address the nominal subject, blood libels. Textbook definitions of blood libel say it is against Jews. Non of the sources used to back up non-Jewish blood libels in the article do verify that the terminology of "blood libel" is used. There is an article named Blood libel against Jews that could be moved in its place instead. Steinberger (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Blood libel against Jews.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:NOR. Rename Blood libels against Jews as Blood libel, period. Blood libels have always referred to accusations against Jews. However, I think there should be a section added to this Jewish Blood libel article about "reverse blood libels", which would include things like the cartoon about Ariel Sharon eating a baby. Yoninah (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The term "blood libel" has also come to refer, especially in Israeli usage, to any particularly vicious accusation which is viewed as libellous; and that accusation need not be by nonJews against Jews. I refer editors particularly to the article Blood Libel at Deir Yassin, on a book that accuses David Ben-Gurion and other leaders of prestate Israel of magnifying the story of the fighting in Deir Yassin to discredit the Irgun, who were political opponents. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch content of Blood libel against Jews to this article, and delete the former the common phrase is simply "blood libel", and it refers to its use against jews. There is apparently no common or significant fringe use of this phrase to mean anything besides the legendary blood libel against jews. i would of course also accept deletion of this article if people feel that "against jews" needs to be added to help clarify, but i see it as redundant. If reliable sources are eventually found showing this phrase used against others, those examples can be slowly added to the "blood libel" article as rare but possibly notable variants. No prejudice to creating a separate article like "the blood libel canard used against nonjews" some time in the future if it does become more notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to the established and well-researched Blood libel against Jews. The article violates WP:NOR and WP:NOTMADEUP, and is an attempt at unjustified WP:CFORK. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping blood libel against Jews and deleting this article is not an option under our copyright policy, since the other article was in fact broken out of this article in 2005 by -Ril- (talk · contribs) (diff diff). The prior three years' worth of edits to this article must be kept in order to preserve attribution. The simplest approach to trimming the unwanted content that editors above want to trim, that accords with our copyright policy, is to keep this article and merge the breakout sub-article blood libel against Jews back into the main article once more, removing the unwanted content along the way in the normal editing manner (which ordinary editing all of the above editors opining for this change are implicitly volunteering to perform ☺). No administrator tools are required. A more complex history split, at the aforementioned diffs, and re-merger is also an option, as long as the orphaned history that results is dealt with properly. But that's a lot of work for something that is achievable without using any administrator tools at all. Uncle G (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well spotted! Yes, a merge back in of Blood libel against Jews is what is needed, removing the OR in the existing article at Blood libel. Fences&Windows 12:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was just thinking about the issue of preserving the separate edit histories. I think all that's needed is to turn one article into a redirect to the other. I personally favor redirecting Blood libel against Jews to this article and making this article read in a way that's substantially similar to the other one, with, perhaps, a small section mentioning other groups that have been the target of blood libels (provided it's well researched and cited.) Does that all make sense? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the same as what Fences & Windows is proposing. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, if my suggestion causes edit history to be lost or obscured, im ok with whatever more experienced editors feel works better. "Splunge" for me too:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Weird. T. Canens (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wierd

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

Not notable. One passing mention in the definiton of another phrase in a book. Some mentions on blogs/ forums etc (chiefly as an instance of a correct spelling of "wierd") but no significant coverage. Pontificalibus (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoora

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

Very tenuous claim to notability, album released through a vanity label, almost entirely unreliable sources, parts read like an advertisement, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete: They have some reviews with average ratings, real2can is not a label it helps unsigned bands to sell Cds, if you check their self titled debut at cdbaby.com Its on a CD-R , Record labels dont release CD-R. in some parts the article looks like an advertisement, the author used only good parts of reviews to promote the band.

some important parts dont have reliable sources, like [6] or the link doesnt work like [2]. the article doesnt meet WP:Music --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mio Yasuda

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

This page does not assert notability either by the GNGs or WP:ENTERTAINER, as most of Yasuda's roles seem to be minor roles. Malkinann (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Comment Voice roles are usually best treated as any other actor roles. Using that as a yardstick, one can see by the article that most of her roles are as character descriptives, rather than as characters with names. With the lack of available sources, I cannot determine if the few named voice roles are significant or not. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First issue with this article, the reference asserting that Mio Yasuda = Izumi Yazawa returns a "404 error" thus we can not use the games voice acting roles for this AfD unless another RS could be found to assert that key fact. Second out of the anime voice acting roles, i managed only to find a RS for one role as Yui Tabata in H2O: Footprints in the Sand. Adding all those facts lead me to a Delete position. --KrebMarkt 07:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her work in Tales of Rebirth was notable, she the voice actor of the heroine of the game, one of the main characters. Well that should be enough proof. If not, someone else can look through the rest to see what those roles involved. Dream Focus 20:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, Tales of Rebirth I'll grant you -- I hadn't noticed that one. That makes one lead role in a notable production, which is a start. Yui, though, is a secondary character, not lead, and a single lead role is generally not enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER unless reviews are available that specifically call out the actor's performance. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 13:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has been tagged with notability issues and needing more references for 3 years now, while one has been brought into the light I doubt that is enough to keep this article as there are no third party references to be found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy photography

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

Pure WP:OR and WP:ESSAY; no sources at all. — Timneu22 · talk 13:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Tone 21:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazi Saiyyad Salar Masud

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

Sandeep 10:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs) 2010/06/22 10:51:21

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 23:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ: The Musical

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

Delete - For a subject to have an article on Wikipedia, there must be reliable secondary sources that substantially cover the subject. While the article currently includes a number of links to articles in which the subject of this article is mentioned in passing, there remain no reliable secondary sources which are substantially about this subject. Apply the well-established notability guidelines and delete this article. Otto4711 (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • The idea that "substantial" is not sufficiently synonymous with "significant" in this usage is faintly ludicrous, nor is "substantial" limited in any way to meaning the length of the source. I agree that many of the sources appear to cover the subject in detail, however upon actually examining the sources, they do not. Otto4711 (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to I Will Survive#Other covers & popular culture - Sources are not sufficient to establish notability. The few sources which actually deal with the subject in a non-trivial way all focus on the copyright lawsuit associated with it. The video itself does not appear to be notable per WP:N nor does it pass WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Below is a description of all of the sources that are currently included in this article:
  1. [26] - IMDb page. Not a reliable source to establish notability.
  2. [27] - A 79-word mini-article about the copyright lawsuit over the performance of the song I Will Survive in this video.
  3. [28] - An article about a lecture given by a legal theorist about copyright infringement, which included this video as an example.
  4. [29] - A single sentence mention about the video being nominated for a Webby award.
  5. [30] - Single sentence trivial mention on the last page of this article which has nothing to do with this video.
  6. [31] - This is the same article as above, just on a different site.
  7. [32] - Transcript of a 2007 NPR interview with the director, mainly about copyright law.
  8. [33] - Blog post with trivial mention of the video, which doesn't even call it by its name.

SnottyWong gab 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment Though many more are available through searches, and have not yet beeen included, here is a re-evaluation of the sources currently used in this article:
  1. The Age - An article about comedians "pushing limits" which uses this video as one of the many examples given.
  2. Brisbane Times - The same article as from The Age, but without the byline.
  3. Stanford.edu - a brief legal article that deals with this copyright problems of this video in its use of the song I Will Survive.
  4. Ars Tecghnica - An article discussiing a lecture by a leagal theorist, and which discusses this video within an overall context to copyright infringement.
  5. San Francisco Chronicle - Policy required verification of this video being nominated for a Webby Award.
  6. NPR - Transcript of a 2007 National Public Radio interview with the director, about copyright law in its relationship to this video.
  7. The Phoenix - Article in Loyola University Chicago college newspaper discussing humorous videos on Youtube, ending with a summary of how author's search for cult videos resulted in his finding "a music video for the song 'I Will Survive' starring Jesus Christ himself".
  8. IMDB page should only be used as an external link per WP:ELYES.
If not all, at least many of the sources in the article appear to address the subject directly in detail and in context to copyright infringement, rather than being trivial listings or similar. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. "Substantial" (length) and "Significant" (detail) are not the same thing. Editors are invited to review the Find searches themselves to determine if the TOPIC itself is worth note and whether the available sources meet WP:GNG. And yes... more of the sources found through searches should be used to expand and source the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole problem lies in the definition of the word "trivial". This is the entire mention from sources 5 and 6 (from my list above), since they are the same article on different sites:

"In an era when Bono accepts a Golden Globe with the words "this is f---ing brilliant", mums and dads visit Sexpo to get happy snaps with their favourite porn stars, and YouTube viewers can watch a video of "Jesus Christ" singing Gloria Gaynor's I Will Survive, before being hit by a bus, it's hard for radical comics to get into much strife over language, obscenity, or blasphemy."

Here is the entire mention in source #8 from my list:

"That was how we found a music video for the song "I Will Survive" starring Jesus Christ himself."

Those are the only sentences that deal with this subject in those 3 sources. Admittedly, some of the other sources deal with the subject in a marginally more substantial way, but in my opinion, this coverage is not what I would consider significant. Given this level of coverage now, can we really imagine that anyone will remember or care about this short music video parody 10 years from now? If your answer is no, then consider that notability is not temporary. SnottyWong communicate 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated hammering of refuted points does not adress the other sources in the article, nor the myriad other sources available online. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, if you are going to claim that all possibly all, but at least most of the sources in the article provide significant coverage of the subject when in fact they do not, then unfortunately that point will have to be repeatedly hammered, regardless of whether you believe you have "refuted" my point (which you haven't). Making false claims (even unintentionally) about the quality of the sources does not advance this discussion in any productive way. SnottyWong confer 23:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still an unfortunate mis-quote that acts to denigrate my observation. I NEVER wrote "possibly all, but at least most"... I wrote "If not all, at least many...". I NEVER wrote "sources in the article provide significant coverage of the subject"... I wrote "sources in the article appear to address the subject directly in detail". So if you'd care to re-read WP:GNG, you'll learn that significant does not mandate substantive, as while it intructs that sources should address the subject directly, it cautions that the TOPIC need not be the main focus of the source. Perhaps better if you do not try to imply something about what I write unless you can quote accurately. And this diversion about current sources still does not address what is available online to editors for article improvement. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said ALL.... what i wrote above was "If not all, at least many of the sources in the article appear to address the subject directly in detail"... so please strike that incredibly bad faith and unfounded accusation. What I did is carefully and one-by-one explain just what each of the included sources offered contextually[34]... just not as dismissively as did you. Continually pointing only at what was used to build the article, and ignore what is available online to editors for its improvement is decidedly not helpful. So please, might you refrain from the bickering and insults? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics aside, I think you really need to take a step back and look at the article about which you are so vehemently arguing. Seriously. A parody music video? Really?
That's all I have to say about this AfD. Cheers. SnottyWong comment 05:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We just did this a year ago and nothing has changed. Is the article the greatest article ever? No. Will it ever be a featured article? Almost certainly not. But is it notable per WP:N? Yes, and that's the criteria we're going by here. The mentions are not trivial merely because they relate the video to copyright infringement--they are contextual, and the context of copyright law is a central one to this video. There are several notable sources that provide non-trivial coverage of the topic along with an impressive number of additional sources, notable and not, with more cursory treatment. The former is a good hint to notability, and the latter proves it. Snottywong: it's not about the quality of the topic, nor does every parody music video belong in Wikipedia, but that's not the criteria here: notability is, and this article has it. Zachlipton (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was alerted to this AfD on my talk page as I commented in the previous AfD. Snottywong says that "Given this level of coverage now, can we really imagine that anyone will remember or care about this short music video parody 10 years from now? If your answer is no, then consider that notability is not temporary." I think you misunderstand the meaning of "Notability is not temporary." Its meaning is the opposite of your interpretation. To quote from it, "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Whether anyone will remember or care about this video in 10 years is entirely irrelevant, and this is precisely the point that "Notability is not temporary" seeks to make! WP:NOTNEWS does say that Wikipedia is not a news site, but this article is not attempting to be a news story. The article describes a 'cult' video that gathered a fair amount of coverage from October 2006 through to 2008. The video was certainly controversial, which is why it gained coverage:

Lessig has become enough of a player to merit the attention of the right-wing attack machine. After he showed a clip during a talk of an Argentine artist's video featuring Jesus dancing to Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive" before getting hit by a bus, RedState.com, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh all tore into him as "anti-Christian." Fox News even sent a camera to ambush him after he testified at a recent Senate hearing.[35]RedState coverage here

Snottywong says we should "take a step back and look at the article about which you are so vehemently arguing. Seriously. A parody music video?". Unfortunately for Snottywong, the perceived triviality of a topic according to Wikipedians is never grounds for deletion. I lean towards weak keep after being neutral last time as it may scrape the WP:GNG, though I'm not opposed to a merge to Cultural depictions of Jesus. Fences&Windows 15:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jörg Guido Hülsmann

edit
Jörg_Guido_Hülsmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
AfDs for this article:
Jörg_Guido_Hülsmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable academic, fails to meet any of the 8 criteria in WP:PROF and without the "outside" attention needed to make the WP:GNG cut. Difficult to turn up via Google Scholar publications in journals not published by the Mises Institute (keep WP:UNDUE in mind) or other ideological organizations. Closest thing to "notability" is being a faculty member at the University of Angers.

According to a cursory Google Scholar search, Hulsmann has also been cited in scholarly articles by folks including Mark Thornton, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Jesus Huerta de Soto, Walter Block, Bryan Caplan, George Selgin, Lawrence H. White, and Frank van Dun. DickClarkMises (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - The publication record outside Mises is thin and 3rd-party references few. The criteria of WP:PROF aren't satisfied. WP:UNDUE comes up as in previous discussions: to count even a mediocre academic--one who wouldn't be notable following the criteria as applied to mainstream econ profs--in the "Austrian" holdout section as notable simply because he's notable to the handful of others in that faction is to give undue weight on Wikipedia to these modern-day "Austrians." White, Boettke, and Long come to mind immediately as counterexamples of Austrians with clear influence elsewhere. Bkalafut (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly does not qualify under WP:GNG, since there are zero secondary sources about Hülsmann. Listing of books are articles written by Hülsmann do not satisfy WP:GNG. Separately, I don't think that the articles and books written by Hülsmann are noteworthy enough to satisfy WP:PROF. Most of the provided books and articles are published by niche Austrian School Economics think tanks (either Mises or the "Acton Institute"). The rest of the works by Hülsmann appear to be either minor articles or op-eds. Overall, the works are not significant enough to make the author of them satisfy WP:PROF; the total published material is about what one would expect from almost any economics adjunct.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GA, could you offer some source for the assertion that the Acton Institute is an "Austrian" organization? I've never heard this before, and I've read a good bit about them. DickClarkMises (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean Austrian, as in Hans and Franz. I mean Austrian as in heterodox "free market economics" thought.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GA, I understand that you didn't mean the nationality. But "Austrian School" is far more specific than "free market," because it implies adherence to the subjective theory of value, a pure time preference theory of interest, and so on. It isn't really correct to use the two terms interchangeably. DickClarkMises (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Either way, the substance of my comment stands: being published by niche free market think tanks doesn't indicate notability, whereas being published by a more prominent think tank, like the RAND Corporation, would indicate notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that being published by numerous think tanks can confer notability. One doesn't have to be in the mainstream to be notable. DickClarkMises (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in WP:PROF about being published by private think tanks; as I read it, publications in private think tanks don't confer notability for an academic. LK (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could there be a clear and open ruling from WP editors over whether the LvMI is a legitimate forum that should be taken into account when assessing WP:GNG. This is crucial in this case, given the focus of JGH's publication via the LvMI. If it's legitimate, then he passes via WP:GNG. If not, then he may be vulnerable given the very narrow criteria within WP:PROF. If I could start this debtate: I see no reason why this cannot be considered a legitimate reference source, like any other outlet for academic work. It appears to confer degrees and although not formally accredited appears very successful in attracting paying students and wide attention through its publications and website. - PtAuAg (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remark: If Clark (interpreted as charitably as possible, that is, interpreted as not supporting a special weaker standard for "Austrian" types) is right and Hulsmann does satisfy WP:PROF as ordinarily applied the article must be changed to reflect this, with links to his supposed high-impact papers and to third-party sources where he is discussed, etc. As written the page doesn't convey notability at all. Bkalafut (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • B: I have never argued for a weaker standard for anyone. With pejoratives like "crank" being thrown around, I do doubt the neutrality of other participants here, but I am trying to assume good faith. I believe Hulsmann is notable because he has been substantially covered in multiple, independent reliable sources both scholarly and popular. He has a number of scholarly works that have been cited by others notable in his area of notability. I fear that the discussion here is limited to his reception in the English-speaking world. The fact that the article is currently not as thorough as it ought to be is not a good reason to delete. Here are some more sources that arguably confer notability: coverage by a German/Polish financial/business newspaper Manager Magazin[36]; schedule for conference of Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences for which he was asked to serve as commentator on Joseph Stiglitz's remarks [37]; schedule for a Catholic scholars conference at Papal University Heiligenkreuz [38]; a description of Hulsmann as a reputable scholar in promotional materials from Papal University Heiligenkreuz's press [39]; an interview on Radio France in which he was credited as being one of the relatively few economists who was prescient about the present economic crisis [40]; substantial coverage in Der Standard, a leading newspaper in Austria [41]; substantial coverage in Süddeutsche Zeitung, a major German newspaper [42]. Again, I would stress that the article's incompleteness is not good cause for deletion--the subject's notability should be examined on the basis of what sources exist from which to write the encyclopedia article, not the quality of the current article. DickClarkMises (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The relevant question is, does Hülsmann satisfy any of the categories of WP:PROF? IMO, his main claim is by Criterion 1, as he doesn't satisfy any of the other categories. C1 is usually shown by demonstrating extensive citation by other academics in peer reviewed journals. According to Scopus, Hülsmann has been cited by 5 other people, and has a h Index of 2. For comparison, I have a h Index of 3, and I am a thoroughly non-notable academic. --LK (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LK: I think Scopus must only be counting recent publications or something. A general query using Harzing's Publish or Perish shows an h-index of 9 and a g-index of 17:
Papers:	49	Cites/paper:	6.94	h-index:	9	AWCR:	32.33
Citations:	340	Cites/author:	309.17	g-index:	17	AW-index:	5.69
Years:	15	Papers/author:	44.40	hc-index:	7	AWCRpA:	29.91
Cites/year:	22.67	Authors/paper:	1.33	hI-index:	7.36	e-index:	12.96
				hI,norm:	9	hm-index:	8.33
Does that change your opinion? DickClarkMises (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Different databases will yield different h indexes. Scopus only counts articles in peer-reviewed journals from 1995 to 2010. Harzing's Publish or Perish is not a standard index to use. Since it gives a higher count, it likely includes articles in non--peer reviewed articles, magazines, etc. Authors can only be compared to each other by using the same h index, and only in comparable fields. The point is, a h index of 2 on Scopus is not notable, and his h index of 9 using google search also shows that he is not notable per WP:PROF. See here for a discussion of this issue. LK (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Harzing's Publish or Perish is not a standard index to use. Since it gives a higher count, it likely includes articles in non--peer reviewed articles, magazines, etc. Authors can only be compared to each other by using the same h index, and only in comparable fields." As stated multiple times already, JGH is an ethicist and literary writer, having written a biography of Ludwig von Mises. You cannot legitimately use Scopus (that only would count cites in mainstream economics journals) in these circumstances. You are not comparing apples with apples. You are comparing a literary ethicist with mainstream academic economists publishing papers on econometric modelling. That is, patently, a misleading and distorting comparison. Harzing's measure would be much more appropriate as it would be relevant for WP:GNG. What Scopus h index does Robert Skidelsky possess, by the way? Scopus requires subscription access so I can't find out. I'd be interested, given the debate below. - PtAuAg (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply That's an introduction written by a member of the Mises Institute to a collection published by the Mises Institute. This is the "echo chamber" effect. It's one notch above self-promotion. Notability to a handful of fellow think-tankers is not academic notability.Guraguragura! (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the comments made by DCM, I make the following points: (1) Does an academic only become notable because an academic community refers to his work? Murray Rothbard is rarely if ever used as a ref in "mainstream" economic journals but is very notable because of his non-economic work. Similarly, JGH traverses areas that are simply not covered by the mainstream economics profession. For example his Ethics of Money Production is really about "ethics", not economics as such. So even though it's a notable publication in the field of ethics, it's not going to be ref'd in economics journals. The lack of cites in mainstream academic journals seems a very self-serving justification for deletion (especially if any mainstream academic is advocating deletion). It's like a group of climate scientists arguing that Pres Bush's entry should be deleted because he was a climate change sceptic and wasn't published in any science journals on climate change. JGH writes extensively on non-economic matters. (2) Even in the field of economics he is, arguably, notable. To say publication in LvMI's website is an "echo chamber" is disingenuous. It's a well-known website, widely read - more popular than any other economics-focused website I am aware of. It's much more popular that the websites for most economic journals (which generally get minscule hits and have very few subscribers). It's self-evident that a website slanted towards JGH's political views will publish him. JGH is not going to be published in the NYTimes or mainsteam economics journals for obvious reasons. They hate the gold standard and are openly opposed to any discussion of it. To then use this as a basis for deletion is really saying the whole political orientation is not legitimate and therefore anything published through these channels is ipso facto to be ignored. The underlying question is, therefore, whether the LvMI website is itself a "legitimate" outlet for economic research. That decision has already been made on WP. It is. There are literally hundreds of refs using research from the LvMI, including (of course) many on the Austrian School page. These cannot be ignored as an echo chamber. (3) JGH is "notable" for non-economic reasons because he is a notable biographer of LvM. Similarly, Robert Skidelsky, biographer of John Maynard Keynes has a large entry on WP not because he is an economist but because he is a biographer. Why should JGH be penalized simply because of the breadth of his interests and the range of his writings? He may not have enough "depth" of citations within the (narrow?) mainstream economics circle, but widen the viewing lense beyond academic economists and, like Skidelsky, this guy (biographer, ethicist, economist) is definitely notable enough to have a WP entry. - PtAuAg (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — PtAuAg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
  • Reply Conspiracy theories about being unfairly shut out of journals are no substitute for WP:GNG and WP:UNDUE. Peculiarly Austrian arguments for the gold standard get the attention they do because they are the economic equivalent of the phlogiston theory of heat. Selgin and White, both self-identifying "Austrians", get outside attention and publish in the mainstream because they're working in the present and not the past--now you have at least two counterexamples to your silly gold-buggery conspiracy theory of usual WP:PROF standards for academics being unfair because Hulsmann is shut out for no good reason. Comparison to Skidelsky is off the mark (see Academic38's comments below), and reviewing WP standards for notability of authors would serve you well. Notable book doesn't automatically mean notable author, and it's not at all clear that Hulsmann's biography of Mises is notable. If it is, write that article and redirect Hulsmann to that page. Bkalafut (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Reply Rothbard very clearly satisfies WP:GNG in many ways. See e.g. Radicals for Capitalism just to get started. Like it or not, his status as the founder of the reactionary/doctrinaire "Austrian" economics now represented at the Mises Institute might get him in under WP:PROF. It's worth bearing in mind, as well, that his approach to "anarcho-capitalism" was significant even if he made zero contribution to economics, too. Gets him cited all over the place, including (most notably) in Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Not that we're discussing Rothbard here, but just as with Skidelsky it's important to understand the difference.Bkalafut (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to the Further Reply You're completely missing the point. I did not and am not arguing that JGH is EQUAL in notability to Rothbard or Skidelsky. I'm arguing that he is SUFFICIENTLY ANALOGOUS to allow his entry to be kept in. His entry doesn't need to be 15 pages long, like Keynes or Skidelsky. But it does deserve to exist and be about half a page (which is it now). Why you think I have to prove JGH is equally as notable as Rothbard or Skidelsky is beyond me. When you can have Michael Rowbotham included as monetary reformer (which was discussed and resolved 2 years ago!) when MR doesn't have ANY qualifications and has written 2 books on monetary reform, but delete JGH's entry defies logic and shows a compleletely inconsistent application of principle. I'm not suggesting MRowbotham should be deleted by the way. I'm simply arguing JGH should be left in. He is considered by some Austrians to be the most prominent and eloquent defender of sound money in the world today. Perhaps that's why Bkfut wants him terminated. - PtAuAg (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC) — PtAuAg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete The comparison with Skidelsky is strained. Skidelsky was a professor at a major British university, Warwick, as well as a Fellow of the British Academy. The latter alone would qualify Skidelsky according to WP:PROF. Where do philosophers cite Hülsmann's ethics work? And his Mises biography is predictably published by the Mises Institute. I don't see how Hülsmann meets WP:PROF and he obviously doesn't meet WP:GNG. Academic38 (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - How "big" is Warwick compared to Angers? Aren't we splitting hairs here? Both are academics who are notable because they wrote biographies. It is patently ludicrous to suggest that an article on a biography of LvM is notable (as Bkfut seems to suggest above) but the biographer (who has also written extensively in other areas) is not notable. I know we are to assume Bkalafut is acting in good faith, but his reasoning is inconsistent and frankly he is the one straining credibility. He is pre-supposing support of the gold standard is the equivalent of the phlogiston theory of fire (not heat, by the way). That prejudice colors his whole view. The debate about the gold standard is the very issue in dispute. You cannot delete a notable supporter of the gold standard merely because of his support of the gold standard and his publication in gold standard-supporting media outlets. That is the equivalent of climate change scientists calling for the deletion of every single scientist who is a noted climate change skeptic MERELY BECAUSE questioning climate change is "the equivalent of the phlogiston theory of fire". But that is the very issue in dispute. The reasoning necessarily gets to the point of censoring all non-climate change supporting views. It's a transparently self-serving censorship tactic by those who have already staked out a position in the debate and want "non-serious" views (in their prejudiced opinion) deleted or censored. The simple objective reality (regardless of your views on the gold standard) is that (1) JGH has written the most detailed and extensive biography of LvM ever written (2) Is an ethicist as well as an economist, having written on the ethics of money production (3) has been published in nonLvMI outlets (4) even if he hadn't been published in any other outlet than LvMI his writings and publications would, of themselves, be notable. Stating that anything from LvMI is illegitimate is ridiculous. I could argue equally that govt-financed university work should be discounted because they will always support their boss (the govt) and are therefore not reliable sources of information. Both positions are ridiculous and easily slip into prejudiced simple-minded censorship. I could understand the concern if JGH was plastered all over Keynesian economics but this is a debate about his entry simply EXISTING on WP (not about weight). I find the suggestion that his entry be deleted an insult to him and his notable work. - PtAuAg (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC) — PtAuAg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Reply If Hulsmann's work is notable, then document that in the article. Skidelsky was a Fellow of the British Academy, itself enough to get him in under WP:PROF. Neither WP:PROF nor WP:GNG allow for all authors of all books or even all authors of notable books to be notable. Bkalafut (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Reply This has actually become a fascinating example of a much wider debate. Some "notable" commentators in the blogsphere and in the mainstream media are accusing academics of being unscientific "priesthoods" incestuously citing their own work and deliberately ignoring the real world to the detriment of their own usefulness and credibility. The much bigger question in this context is: Who determines notability and why should notability be attached to academic publication at all? Is undue weight being given to academic publication compared to other criteria of notability, such as web hits on blogs, or reference and discussion in the blogsphere? If it is the case that the 'echo chamber' of academia is becoming a cesspit of incestuous cretins citing their own irrelevant meaningless work for their own greedy career enhancement (not a position I would take but apparently a position some writers are taking), then perhaps multiple citations in mainstream academic journals is a basis for deletion from WP, not inclusion. Who decides? And should the WP criteria on notability be adjusted to fit these new realities, especially in light of the failure of the predictive power of mainstream academic economists and the apparent "corruption" displayed within the academic arena of climate change science? Just some food for thought. This wider discussion should not influence the current determination on JGH but should be raised at the highest levels within WP given the apparently widespread discrediting of economics PhDs in particular (note again that this is certainly a position I do not take but apparently is a position some notable writers and commentators are taking). - PtAuAg (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC) — PtAuAg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Reply Yes, the old "as long as one crank exists there should be no standards" argument. If you want to start your own wiki where up is down, right is left, and the paranoid fantasies of climate change deniers mean notable is non-notable, you may do so. WP has well-established standards at WP:PROF and WP:GNG which suit its purpose as a general-interest encyclopedia. Were you not a single-purpose account I'd suggest taking up your concern at either of those discussion pages. We should not change the rules for JGH simply because one commenter feels strongly about him but not so strongly as to document his supposed notability by editing the article.Bkalafut (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to the Reply I'm sorry, but calling JGH a 'crank' is not NPOV and your comments should be discounted accordingly. As is clear from my explicit comments already made above, I did not advocate changing the existing standards for JGH. To mischaracterize my comments is disingenuous when they are so clear. I have addressed both WP:PROF and in particular WP:GNG and have not received a response. Could you please respond to the substantive issues raised above and refrain from personalizing the issue, and calling this notable academic a 'crank'. Please try to restain showing your obvious POV as it indicates your comments should be ignored and likely will be ignored. PtAuAg (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply No. I disagree. WP:PROF states that a shorthand way of expressing the test is that the academic is more prolific or notable than the average academic. JGH has published a biography of LvM. What academic has published a detailed, significant biography of a major figure in their field of work and is NOT included in WP? JGH is notable because he has published the most notable biography of LvM and because he is the most significant academic advocating sound money in the world today. In isolation each one would pass WP:PROF. Together it is undeniable that WP:PROF is satisfied.
  • Note By the way, it is a lie that this is single purpose account. It is a lie that I only commented on this page. I have made contributions elsewhere. Anyone can check my contributions to confirm this. - PtAuAg (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is true - you have posted to one other page, AFTER you posted that. A true sign of a well-rounded editor! Ravensfire (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, this is not true. I have edited the talk page of FRB, moral hazard and this page. I only contribute in the specific areas in which I have knowledge, and where I really feel I can make a difference. I didn't realize modesty was punished on WP. However regardless whether this modesty is punished on WP it is a fact that I have edited on other pages and this can be confirmed by anyone. I maintain therefore that this allegation is a lie because it can be verified and yet the comment nevertheless has been made. This cannot be done in good faith, given the ease with which the allegation can be discredited.PtAuAg (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of evidence such as high citation counts for passing WP:PROF. Google news archive finds some pieces mentioning him, but many seem not to be independent and others mention him only briefly, so I am not convinced of a pass of WP:GNG either. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply This merely repeats Bkfut's comments above and does nothing whatsoever to progress the discussion. Please note that according to the prominent warning at the top of the page, this is not a majority vote and really only those with something new to contribute should contribute. PtAuAg (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Please stop WP:FILIBUSTERing this AfD; it is not necessary to reply to every comment in disagreement with your opinion. (2) Pot, meet kettle. (3) I am not impressed by a single-purpose account trying to stifle discussion on this AfD. (4) Is there a reason you are repeatedly misspelling the nominator's name? (5) In fact my comment did add content to the discussion: it mentioned a specific reason (lack of citations) that I don't think he passes WP:PROF, it discussed a different potential source of notability not mentioned in the nomination statement (Google News archive), and it provided a specific reason (non-independence) why I am discounting the Google news archive hits. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) There are a number of 'Delete' contibutions on this page which I have not responded to, because I had nothing to say. (2) Not a substantive comment, kettle. (3) I have made multiple edits elsewhere, which, curiously were not welcomed (modesty is punished as are edits on other pages, strangely) (4) Yes, I am getting on in years and I'm a very poor speller and Bkfut's name is not easy to type (5) No, these issues have been raised above, not in exactly the same words, but the extensive discussion of the h index above encapsulates what you were referring to.PtAuAg (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JGH is widely recognized as one of the top Austrian economists in the world, including on monetary theory; he is invited to speak all over the world, has been heavily cited within his area of scholarly discourse; has written the definitive biography of founding Austrian Ludwig von Mises. NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is your evidence for the "widely recognized" and "heavily cited"? Because when I look in Google scholar I see top citation counts under 50 and an h-index of 9, solid but unimpressive and not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF #1. Are you getting better numbers from a different citation database? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legion Academy

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

Per WP:BKD, we shouldn't have articles on fictional entities within books which do not have significant out-of-universe coverage in reliable independent sources. I can't see any indication of how this fictional school meets WP:GNG. Claritas § 10:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid DrumStep

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

CSD declined, doesn't fall under "band". There is a obvious WP:COI here, and no third-party sources included. No relevant google searches found. Self-promo, non-notable term. — Timneu22 · talk 13:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 14:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Dawson

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

Not sure if Shannon Dawson meets notability requirements. Also, the article as it stands is in very bad shape. It is poorly formatted, not properly categorized, lacks any citations, and much of its content seems to have been copied and pasted from http://sfajacks.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/dawson_shannon00.html or similar web page. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 14:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Water

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

Unsourced, no real indication of notability that I can see. Using AFD instead of A7-CSD in case I am missing something. TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 14:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Difference

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

No indication that this organization has any notability at this point. I A7 deleted it, but am giving it a chance at AFD now at the request of a user on my talk page. TexasAndroid (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Star

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er. The Economic Times is the biggest selling financial newspaper in India from the Times of India group with a daily circulation of 600,000 copies. If you wont accept a news report in ET. I dont know what you would accept as "genuine third party coverage". Again the news coverage should by the minimum satisfy WP:GNG. So mentioning the companies divisions are now NPOV. sigh.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for everything they print, but many business papers reprint press releases verbatim or with minimal editing, so not everything that appears in them is really independent, third party coverage. And the stories in The Economic Times do not read like independent, third party coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your concern is noted. It is for the same reason i have not included any Moneycontrol/CNBC-TV18 sources in the article (there is much more coverage in CNBC, sourced from press releases). If it is partially/fully sourced from a press release, then it would be noted at the bottom of the story - as is the standard journalistic practice. And ET and Business Line are the top two business newspapers in India. For all their faults they dont reproduce press releases without attribution. About your concern that ET does not "feel" like third party coverage - thats their style of reporting. Business Line has a more sombre style, but ET and Financial Express (the other two of the top 3 Indian business dailies) have a more "flamboyant" style.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if you are concerned about Business media coverage - the PTI is a news agency, DNA is a non-business daily (circ.400,000), Frontline is a news magazine, Express Computer is a IT trade magazine. All carry non-trivial reports on the company.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of logos used in Logorama

edit
List of logos used in Logorama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The logos are certainly an important aspect of the film but mostly appear in vast number for fractions of a second, and mostly appear arbitrarily, although some are put to clever use. I suggest leaving the notable ones (probably Michelin tires, Ronald McDonald, and Big Boy) as part of the plot summary of the main article and deleting this list. .froth. (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Lindenwood University. There does not appear to be significant improvement as to sourcing. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Legacy (Lindenwood University)

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

Student run newspaper, no independent indications of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep college newspaper articles are considered notable. see: List of student newspapers in the United States of America. Bhockey10 (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Retention of this article does not conflict with Wiki policies as I understand them. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is better than delete, however it is sourced- not many yet, but there are three sources (and lots of other college newspaper articles are in worse shape btw). For other wiki articles it has been determined that college newspapers qualify as independent varifiable souces b/c they are generally semi-independent from the university, so here are sources going the other way from school to paper. Bhockey10 (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - As WP:INHERITED notes (though I'll admit it's not a policy), just because something is a college newspaper does not automatically make it notable. Most of the newspapers in List of student newspapers in the United States of Americajust have articles for the colleges themselves, and those that do have articles for the publications are those like The California Aggie, which is a daily newspaper that distributes 13,000 copies a day, not an every other Wednesday paper. Keep - see discussion below.— Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 20:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per Parent5446. -Reconsider! 11:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parent is confusing notablility with popularity, there's also a number of smaller and lesser known colleges and universities on the list. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A weekly university newspaper is not inherently notable. Sources can change that, but I don't see that here. The merge suggestion is complimentary, seems like a windfall compromise for a university newspaper. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree a merge is better than full delete b/c it retains the info to the main article. There are sources on the article as I said earlier: "For other wiki articles it has been determined that college newspapers qualify as independent varifiable souces b/c they are generally semi-independent from the university, so here are sources going the other way from University to paper" Personally living on the east coast I've never heard of The California Aggie that parent noted earlier (popularity), obviously by brining it up as an example he thinks its notable (different from popularity), but it has as many maybe less sources than the legacy article which has two from the university and one from an outside source. The Cali Aggie has one broken link, one is a letter from the editor (own article), and one from the university. Bhockey10 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I probably should have given a better example than the Aggie. Sorry about that. The Auburn Plainsman is more suitable. (And by the way, I do not know the Aggie because of it's popularity or anything, nor am I confusing popularity with notability. I live on the east coast as well.) The newspaper has received awards from the Associated Press among numerous other decorations. If a newspaper in notable in a manner separate from the notability of the its backing university or the stories it covers, then it should be given its own article. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 21:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Again the Auburn Plainsman is another example souces: one broken link and one from the university. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article cleanup debate, it's an AfD. The quality of the article is irrelevant; we are questioning the notability of a student newspaper, or rather the implicit ability to cleanup. The Auburn Plainsman is an award-winning newspaper, and that can be proven by simply going to the Associated Collegiate Press's website and checking the award winners. In other words, the Auburn Plainsman may have bad references now, but the article can be improved. The Legacy, on the other hand, has not won any awards, has not been recognized by any third-party source. I mean, it is quite possible my Internet searching skills have declined, so if you have evidence otherwise please bring it forth. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 01:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the refs used is from the Missouri Press Association from which it has won award(s). The info may have been left out of the article. Both examples and this article need improvement! Most articles start as stubs, Also it's a new paper created in 2007 so hasnt had the opportunity to win many awards and have a long article like Auburn. My point is most of these newspaper articles seem to need cleanup, keep them and add cleanup and/or refs tag would suffice better than deletion. This article is no different, and has as many and in some cases more sources right now than others. Bhockey10 (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, for some reason I could not find the Missouri Press Association award previously. With this evidence I'll change my vote to keep. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
read above discussion it doesn't fail WP:GNG. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time to close this AfD, not much activity in here anymore. 4 Keep, and 3 merge/delete. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Unfortunately the sources given do not rise to the level of "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." Promotional material, blogs, and personal web pages are obviously out. The situation may change in the future (for instance if/when the album comes out), but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.Cúchullain t/c 18:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unisonic (band)

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

It fails WP:BAND in all respects. No published music. All sources fail because they are from promotion companies, fan sites, and fan clubs. Contested PROD.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:Crystal, how do you known they will get a record label? We can't predict the future. IJA (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I just added links/references to the article, from "Michael Kiske's official website" and an interview with him as well. Is it a wikipedia rule that the band has to be signed to a label or to have an album out, in order for an article to be featured here? Mpaoxi (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are hardly third party reliable variable references IJA (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep Added further references ([50], [51], [52]) to the article.

IJA, can you please state what do you mean by 'They are hardly third party reliable variable references'? On the article, there are at least 6 different references on the band.

Jeff G, I just reviewed the WP:BAND and it clearly states that "A musician...may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". The article meets the following criteria: "1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable" - Michael Kiske and Dennis Ward have been featured in numerous musical albums, articles, etc. "4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" - UNISONIC performed several concerts in Germany and also held a show in Sweden Rock Festival. "6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" - Michael Kiske was Helloween's ex vocalist and he has worked with numerous artists, such as Gamma Ray, Avantasia and Masterplan. Kiske, Ward and Zafiriou were all memebers of the Place Vendome project, with which they released 2 albums.Mpaoxi (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mpaoxi's comments are interesting but hardly significant when taken in context to this band. Notability is not transferred and depends upon verifiable reliable press for the subject. Where is the press or citations for the concerts mentioned? If trivial mentions are made, that is not significant and does meet the stated criteria. Ideally, the band should be the subject of multiple reputable magazines like Rolling Stone where their name appears in the title of the article or where they are directly covered and receive substantial mention within the article. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - moreno oso, Official information on the mentioned concerts can be found here: [53], [54]and from a magazine [55]. Further general information on the band can be found here: [56] (Greek music magazine), [57] and [58]. I presume that when the band finds a record label, there will be more magazines issuing articles about their forthcoming albumMpaoxi (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I personally see no serious reason to delete this article, except if the sources are not considered reliable. As mentioned earlier in the discussion, the article meets at least 2 criteria of the WP:BAND. In more detail: 1) "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" - UNISONIC performed in Sweden Rock Festival 2010 ([59], [60] and [61]). 2) "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" - Michael Kiske was Helloween's ex vocalist and he has worked with numerous artists, such as Gamma Ray, Avantasia and Masterplan. Kiske, Dennis Ward and Kostas Zafiriou were all memebers of the Place Vendome project, with which they released 2 albums. Ward and Zafiriou are also members of Pink Cream 69. Mpaoxi (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYLUG

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

Delete This is a local club with no evidence of notability. No sources are cited, and my searching has failed to produce independent sources. The article was previously deleted, but was re-created in substantially the same form. In my opinion the article qualifies for another speedy deletion, but a discussion may be a better way of dealing with it, in view of the possibility of further re-creations. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nomination withdrawn The quality of the sources is not as good as I would ideally like, but there are sources there, and I feel the organisation has enough prominence to justify keeping the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous deletion was because I cut and pasted the "About NYLUG" info from their homepage and it was autoflagged as potential plagiarism. The editor who deleted it, suggested I recreate the article, but write new text, and that he felt that NYLUG was worthy of an article. (On IRC.) (He said it was policy to wipe pages with that autoflag, to reduce the potential for infringing text to stay in the article).

I noted there is a Wikipedia category for "Linux User Groups" so that would suggest articles on such organizations are welcome and expected. Category:Linux User Groups and loosely based the structure of the initial NYLUG article on a random sampling of those articles.

Here are a few links that I believe would qualify as citations, if they would help, and I can probably talk to people who know more aout NYLUG's history to add them to the article. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/01/07/25/1632246/Still-in-DMCA-Prison http://news.slashdot.org/story/01/01/25/2320255/Ask-David-Korn-About-ksh-And-More http://tech.slashdot.org/story/00/07/17/1820240/Judge-Conflicted-Interest-in-MPAA2600-DeCSS-Case http://yro.slashdot.org/story/00/07/17/1130233/NYLUG-Demonstration-At-DVD-Trial http://openideals.org/2009/02/23/eweek-coverage-of-nylug-android-event/

Of note, NYLUG is the oldest Linux User group in the greater New York Area according to http://www.luny.org/

Brandorr (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn, snowball keep. While the conditions of WP:SPEEDYKEEP have not been exactly met, it's abundantly clear at this point that there is a consensus to keep these articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Fox (1622–1666)

edit
Thomas Fox (1622–1666) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced sub-stub or a 16th century Member of Parliament (in the pre-1707 Parliament of England), no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry, and I see no reasonable prospect of expansion beyond a one-line stub. It should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating it if and when someone has some sources to write even a meaningful stub article.

Per WP:POLITICIAN, Members of Parliament are presumed to be notable ... but notability of a topic does mean that it is any way helpful to the reader to create a one-line sub-stub article which says no more than can be found at Tamworth_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#MPs_1660-1885. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Bringing these pathetic sub-stubs to AFD has, probably unsurprisingly, had the effect of drawing them to the attention of enough editors that all now have at least one reference, and some of them have been expanded to the point of being well-formed stubs. AFD is not supposed to be an article-improvement device, but since that's what editors wanted to do is for, it's not a bad outcome, and there's clearly no point in deleting them now.
However, that doesn't alter the problem at the outset, of 10-word articles being carelessly created by a boost-my-creation-count editor whose research appears to have consisted of pasting a line from any redlink found in a disambiguation page. The resulting articles often said even less about the subject than the list does, and their uncategorised and unlinked state meant that they were unlikely to be found even by editors specifically looking for that sort of stub. Since this sort of article is a minority-interest niche, they would likely linger in that half-life for ages. However, in future I will just speedy-delete any such rubbish per A10, and avoid the drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all unsourced one-line sub-stubs with no reasonable prospect of expansion:

John Lane (MP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thomas Fanshawe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Hales (MP for Lancaster) ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
George Rivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Robert Bromfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
George Blagge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All of the "articles" in this nomination were PRODded by me, and in each case the PRODs were contested by the creator, who edits under 3 accounts and switches between them frequently: Boleyn (talk · contribs), Boleyn2 (talk · contribs) and Boleyn3 (talk · contribs). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've just expanded it slightly, and they all have room for expansion. It being very short isn't grounds for deletion, it meets WP:POLITICIAN - efforts should be made to expand rather than delete a notable person's article. Boleyn2 (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all The only information given is the fact that each was a member of Parliment. Except the first one has a second item about his buying and then selling a house. Even the statements that each was a politican seems to be original research. Do we have a way of knowing that politics was the main interest of any? Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these are all very recently created and are works in progress; even the last comment no long er reflects the article because I'm working on them right now. Boleyn2 (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That response by Boleyn is disingenuous at best:
  1. Boleyn has been creating sub-stub articles like these for at least 5 weeks: unsourced, uncategorised, and containing nothing more than the bare fact that the person existed. Of these articles in this nomination, for example John Hales (MP for Lancaster) was created a month ago and remained a one-line sub-stub when AFDed. It is not to be a work-in-progress: it's an abandoned, unsourced sub-stub
  2. Boleyn has created dozens of similar one-line stubs, some of which I have listed in a series of messages at Boleyn's talkpage, to which I have had no response ... and others of which have been listed on Boleyn's "articles I created" list. These dozens of articles are also not works-in-progress: they are abandoned, unsourced sub-stubs
  3. Boleyn's sources for "expanding" Thomas Fox (1622–1666) are:
  4. A 1-line mention in a paper on website, which mentions him only by name: https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/361/1/hoppera.pdf
A combination of "references" to pub+paranormal+trivia is no basis for keeping an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So we are now deleting stubs en masse?. What next start class articles? Why not make a rule only FA class articles can exist in wikipedia. At which point does the nom accept something as an article?. no evidence of any possibility of expansion. Cursory google searches reveal enough sources for expansion --Sodabottle (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well-formed stub articles are great, but these are not well-formed stubs. What on earth is the benefit to readers or editors of creating (or keeping) unsourced, uncategorised one-liners say less about the subject than the list articles they refer to? These seem to be me to do nothing other than to allow Boleyn to add the titles to hir "articles I created" list. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you had bothered searching in good faith, you would have found this to source the article. If you want to stop Boleyn from creating such stubs, talking with her/him is the way to go. If she/he didnt listen, maybe you could have considered blocking etc. Please do not started deleting perfectly valid articles.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A one-line sub-stub is not a "valid article", it's a factoid. If that's acceptable, why not just get a bot to create hundreds of thousands of unreferenced, uncategorised one-line sub0stub articles ? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So how many lines should it have to become a stub?. WP:STUB gives no minimum criteria. In this case, the article mentioned the subject's name, his claim to notability (MP) and his yob-yod. And thats 3 "factoids". Was that not enough?. And if it is unreferenced either tag it or source it yourself. This is not a BLP. Merely being uncategorised, unreferenced and being a sentence long is not enough to delete a non-BLP. If your purpose was to stop Boleyn then this is not the way to go. If you want to stop the creation of unreferenced, uncategorised stubs then change the policy in WP:STUB.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:STUB may not explicitly set any minimum criteria, but a bit of commonsense says to me that an unsourced, uncategorised one-liner which says less than the corresponding list entry is a pointless thing, and that creating dozens of such things so that the editor can make more entries in their "articles I created" list is at best pointless and at worst disruptive ... and while I am bemused to see that you disagree, I am pleased to find in a re-reading WP:CSD, I find that WP:CSD#A10 agrees. So In future I'll just delete this sort of junk on sight. That's a simple, quick non-bureaucratic solution to Boleyn's practice of creating of non-articles to bulk out her "articles I created" list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl's threat to delete such entries on site looks like an admin who wants to expand her list of "articles I have deleted because I don't like their creator". DuncanHill (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try a little bit of AGF, Duncan. I do very little deletion and I have no intention of speedy-deleting anything which makes a reasonable effort to be a real stub, no matter who created it, but per WP:CDS#A10 I'll delete splat-pasted 10-word content forks whoever creates them. And that's not a threat, it's a promise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails A10 as far as I can see, not a duplication of an existing topic, but rather a split, expressly excluded from A10. You're clutching at straws here. DuncanHill (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Especially when viewed in conjunction with her blocks of Boleyn's declared alternative accounts. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Time to add WP:SPLIT to your reading list, Duncan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a sourced stub on a notable subject is preferable to not having an article on the subject. Therefore these articles should probably be kept. I'm not seeing anything problematic about User:Boleyn2's actions here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a sourced stub is great. But the whole point of this nomination is that Boleyn has been creating dozens of unsourced sub-stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Being unsourced and being a stub are not valid reasons for deletion. Looks like a perfectly valid stub to me, and last time I checked, stubs aren't evil. Jeni (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have no idea (and I don't care) about why Boleyn made all of these, but the people therein do seem to be of minor importance, and the presence of a stub (a) does no harm, and (b) might encourage future users to expand. Boleyn does seem to have made some effort to put in some sources / references since this all began, so if they could do this straight away in future it might avoid all this. Chris (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. I think that the listed articles technically meet the requirements in WP:STUB, but I don't think they meet the spirit. The subjects are notable, that is pretty clear, but the articles need work to become solid stub articles. Move them to Boleyn's userspace and let her work on them there. Then she can move them to live space when they are better sourced. George Blagge should be removed from this AfD. Movementarian (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - MPs are regarded as notable for Wikipedia purposes (and I wouldn't want to edit an ec-ncyclopaedia that regarded them otherwise), frankly I find this mass nomination of clearly notable subjects disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And you find nothing at all disruptive about Boleyn creating dozens of utterly pointless one-line sub-stub articles with no evidence of any research, no sources, etc? As the nomination says, "without prejudice to re-creating it if and when someone has some sources to write even a meaningful stub article". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing like as disruptive as your misuse of AfD and admin tools to further a grudge. DuncanHill (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So creating crap content with no research , and "improving it" by "referencing" it to a paranormal investigation team website is just fine, but trying to stem the flow of this rubbish is a "grudge".
    Just as well we're not here to create an encyclopedia, Duncan, or you'd be on very shaky ground. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These MPs are inherently notable, and many of the articles above have at least one seemingly reliable source to satsify WP:V. If any of these fail WP:V, I think they should be userfied instead of deleted. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These subjects are worthy of separate articles in their own right even if all that can be said with any certainty about any of them is a couple sentences. They fall within the core subjects you'd expect to be covered in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All and a trout to the nominator while we're at it. MPs are inherently notable, if you don't like that it's a short stub then fix it. I don't give a damn whether all the creators "articles I've started" contain one line each. We're BUILDING an encyclopedia, so if you're irked by a short article then make it longer. Simples. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes absolutely no sense at all to take one line item from a list, strip out some of the info, and place it in a standalone article. Trout me as much as you like, but creating these 10-word "articles" remains folly. It's like chopping up a 20-item paper list into 20 little pieces of paper: useless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Might be a case for merging MPs from this far back into a list article if this is more useful, but you won't make WP more useful by deleting the information completely. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no suggestion of deleting the info completely. The sub-stub article I nominated contained less information than is in the long-existng list at [[Tamworth (UK Parliament constituency)#MPs_1660-1885]; deleting the sub-stub article would not remove any information from wikipedia, it would just remove a pointless content fork.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All MPs are notable. Starting an article (no matter how short) for a missing topic can only be a good thing. There's a huge culture on here of editors who are unable or unwilling to start new articles (that debate's for another day), but once the bare-bones are there, they're only too happy to add and expand. Think of the time wasted on bringing them all to AfD and debating this, when that time/effort could have been used to improve the starting points. Lugnuts (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the readers who follow their way to one of these 10-word sub-stubs only to find that there is virtually nothing there? That's a waste of their time and a blow to wikipedia's reputation. By all means start a stub article (I have created thousands of them), but these pointless snippets require a lot of work even to bring them up to standard of a very basic stub ... and because they are being systematically created without the relevant categories or stub tags, they are hard for editors to find; they became useless confetti drifting in the wind. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as no valid or coherent rationale for deletion given. Eliteimp (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tamworth (UK Parliament constituency)#MPs_1660-1885 the articles on Rivers and Bromfield, MPs for whom there is no significant referenced information in the individual article beyond the info contained in that list. If some referenced facts about any MP in the list are found, then create a separate article for that person. Thomas Fox in fact does have considerable information at [62] which is a reference for his article. Fanshawe and Hales also have more info than makes sense in a list. Edison (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thought consensus was that all MPs are notable, but in any case, this MP appears to have a fair amount of good RS info out there about him....Vartanza (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. For some where it is not possible to source, such as Richard Yarward, merger is a valid option. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. The nomination has been withdrawn, and though one "delete" recommendation still stands, it has no realistic chance of success.—S Marshall T/C 21:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge John Hales (MP for Lancaster) to John Hales (MP). Not sure about George Rivers. Keep the rest, though I can understand BHG's frustration at these minimal stubs. (My sympathy for BHG's case has increased substantially since going through these and other similar to provide references & a bit more detail: despite their length, these seem pretty error-prone, & copying unchecked bits at the edge of WP doesn't seem to me to help the project.) Dsp13 (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Bid’a

edit

The result was Delete and redirect to Bid'ah. (Non-admin closure) Maashatra11 (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is not written like an Wikipedia Article.There are no sourced information by author Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 07:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as a copyvio and tagged as such. I've no objection to somebody creating a redirect after the material is deleted, but there is no good reason for keeping copyrighted material in a redirect history. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gearslutz

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

Fails WP:WEB. Coverage I can see are alexa rankings (which aren't useful) and an interview on an unreliable website concerning the guy who designed the site. Ironholds (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newman Grace Inc.

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

Non-notable marketing firm. Provided references all fail WP:RS and most are self-published. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will amend per your notes. This firm and owner Jerri Hemsworth have been recognized by business journals and other publications for the following reasons: one of the larger women-owned marketing firms in North Los Angeles/Ventura County, and for its work as non-profit communications firm. Non-profit communications is an emerging specialty, with few firms focused on this area. Will update immediately per your notes above with appropriate third party references. OBillyHill (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revised entry to clarify and identify company and owner information, as well as information about women-owned business history and political accomplishments of owner. Added references (including California State Senate publication, Ventura Country Star article reference, two references from San Fernando Valley Business Journal, and USA Advertising Agency reference. Also deleted some of the references to company's own website.OBillyHill (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Who is Max P. Bull and why was his only edit to try and add a "hangon" template to this article? [63]. Please note the Conflict of Interest policy. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added reference information on National Association of Women Business Owners - California chapter. OBillyHill (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local firm which has won local awards and gotten local news coverage. Nothing to indicate notability outside of the San Fernando Valley. 38th most notable woman-owned business in the San Fernando Valley? That almost defines non-notable from the standpoint of an international encyclopedia. OBillyHill has done a great job of supplying references and citations, but they still add up to a firm which is not notable outside of its own community. If a person or firm is simply not notable by Wikipedia standards, no amount of rewriting or sourcing is going to make it so. --MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN is not incorrect about her facts, but I will choose a different position on the significance. Some perspective: the population of the San Fernando Valley is 1.7 million, if it were a city, it would be the 5th largest in the United States (larger than Philadelphia, San Francisco, Dallas, Washington D.C, Boston, Phoenix, Detroit, Seattle, Devner and virtually every other city other than New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston). I believe that puts the "38th largest women-owned business" in a different perspective. Granted, 38th doesn't sound very impressive, but remember that Newman Grace is a marketing firm, not manufacturing, financial services, or distribution. I believe that makes it more impressive. The first has also consistently ranked in Medical Media & Marketing magazine's list of top medical marketing firms, but the publication does not post the data online, and is therefore hard to source as a credible reference. The firm and its president have been active, for a decade, in California politics for women-owned business and the issues of women-business owners. Hemsworth, president of the firm, was part of the team that got the Governor to sign AB1643 on behalf of small businesses. Hemsworth served as the president of NAWBO/California (National Association of Women Business Owners) at the state level. Her firm has been an agency of NAWBO both at the state level and local level, but I thought that notation might be too promotional. The firm is also one of very few firms (in the country) that has a division specializing in non-profit marketing communications. Since there is a lack of firms doing this, and it is an emerging area of marketing specialization, it is difficult to find credible references listing or ranking the firms. I believe this is a firm that, while not large, has become notable locally, at the state level, and even nationally, not as a firm boasting its artistic awards, but rather as a firm serving an impressive client base, serving the business community of California politically, and now as a national resource for non-profit corporations and charities. 99.89.52.169 (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC) — 99.89.52.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You argue well, and I don't mean to be minimizing the importance of the San Fernando Valley. But I would feel the same way if the claim to fame was "38th most notable woman-owned business in New York City." It's just not that significant. All of the awards, all of the references are purely local, not even regional - like an award from the county chapter of a national organization. I couldn't find a single reference to this firm in the Los Angeles Times, the regional paper-of-record, and if it were even regionally notable, the LAT would surely have covered it. On Wikipedia, notability is based on whether there is significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources - and in this case there just isn't. For example, you argue that the firm is notable because it has a division specializing in non-profit marketing communications. But your saying so isn't enough; somebody has to have written about that aspect for it to be notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MelanineN - I understand your perspective. I will guess you are probably thinking of this firm like a J. Walter Thompson type consumer ad agency. While their client list shows some consumer clients, they are primarily a business-to-business firm, which does not generate anywhere near type of publicity consumer firms do. Wikipedia's entries on Marketing & Non-Profit Organizations, Business Marketing, Women In Business support this argument. I just did a quick scan of other firms listed on Wikipedia's Advertising Agencies of the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Advertising_agencies_of_the_United_States) and in approximately a dozen checks, Newman Grace had significantly more references than the majority of regional firms, all of which were in smaller markets. There are, nonetheless, numerous other references which indicate, albeit not to you standards, notoriety beyond the local, including L.A. Times references. The non-profit marketing was referenced above as "Agency Gets Message Out of Work Done by Charities". Here are some other references your search may have missed: L.A. Times reference to "business leader" http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/30/local/me-preschool30/2 ; Los Angeles Business Journal reference as "tireless campaigner for important policy issues" in California" in Women Making A Difference feature (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Los+Angeles+Business+Journal/2006/May/8-p52); Hemsworth quoted as business and non-profit authority in national insurance publication "http://www.insuranceday.org/giving-each-person-a-role-important-in-teambuilding/ ; web article by Los Angeles Business Journal of non-profit work "http://www.labusinessjournal.com/news/la-services/?page=3" ; Hemsworth as speaker at national conference of journalists http://vimeo.com/12113912 ; Hemsworth quoted in national feature on diversity in business http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/woman/business_finance/newstream_health_insurance_survey_0904.asp ; referenced in Emerging Minds publication http://emergingminds.org/Businesses-Owned-by-Women-of-Color-Growing-Faster-than-the-Overall-Economy.html ; Brian Hemsworth (president of firm) reference for co-authoring book on Legal Marketing referenced at http://legalwatercoolerblog.com/legal-marketing-resources/handouts-and-downloads/law-firm-marketing-leaders-tips-from-a-collection-of-experts/ ; B. Hemsworth quoted as marketing expert on sponsorships in Brazilian publication http://www.kabarbola.com/?page=gosip&sub=detail&id=16&t=Stadion-stadion%20Bernama%20Sponsor ; B. Hemsworth interviewed by Indiana newspaper as social media expert in http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20100328/BIZ01/303289967/0/BIZ01 ; B. Hemsworth sourced in national restaurant magazine as marketing and branding expert in http://www.qsrweb.com/article/97835/Taking-the-guesswork-out-of-an-online-campaign . OBillyHill (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good. The one LA Times article does mention her (but not the company). The Business Journal needs a more specific link but sounds promising. Those two publications (if not the others) qualify as "independent reliable sources". If this gets deleted as a non-notable company, you might consider writing an article about Hemsworth. She may be more notable than her company. I'm not saying she is - it would depend on the sourcing, which is still pretty minimal compared to the Wikipedia standard of "significant coverage from independent reliable sources" - but she might have a better shot. There seems to be a lot more coverage about her than about the company --MelanieN (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MelanieN. I appreciate all of your suggestions and will review the references per your comments.OBillyHill (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Histacom

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

Non-notable free game only released last May. Zero reliable references provided. Was a contested prod. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There ARE sources... wikipedia wont let me use them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.106.80 (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I Understand your reason for wanting to delete this article. Let me just confirm with the below reasons.

1. It needs to be made by a registered company. 2. It needs to be on a gaming website and needs reviews.

I did try uploading to CNet but was unable to due to the fact that to upload games you need to type in a company name. Unfortunately I don't have a company name.

Maybe In 5 years from now an article may once again be here about Histacom. Only then it will be once a lot more development has occurred and its on proper websites.

Unless You have advice for what I should do to make this page work/stay without being a registered business/company you may remove it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.152.150 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The consensus seems to go for a keep Tone 21:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lewis (of Harpton)

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

Unsourced sub-stub or a 16th century Member of Parliament (in the pre-1707 Parliament of England), no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry, and I see no reasonable prospect of expansion beyond a one-line stub. It should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating it if and when someone has some sources to write even a meaningful stub article.

Per WP:POLITICIAN, Members of Parliament are presumed to be notabile ... but notability of a topic does mean that it is any way helpful to the reader to create a one-line sub-stub article which says no more than can be found at Radnorshire (UK_Parliament_constituency)#1542-1640 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep MPs are regarded as notable. One of a series of noms made by BrownHairedGirl aimed at the contributions of Boleyn for reasons of her own. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a pity that DuncanHill apparently didn't read the nomination. Those "reasons of her own" are that the article as created is one a long series of wholly unreferenced sub-stubs of a dozen words or less, created by splat-pasting and littered with very errors. Notability is irrelevant: the nom acknowledges that the topic has presumed notability, and proposes "should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating it if and when someone has some sources to write even a meaningful stub article". I have since noticed that the sub-stub which I nominated fails WP:CSD#A10, so I should have just speedy-deleted it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a lot of experience dealing with over-enthusiastic admins on speedy sprees, please don't go down that road. As for not reading the nom, I felt it kinder to ignore the ludicrous assertion "no evidence of any possibility of expansion" and put it down to the heat. 17:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: I've added a reference to the page from which a few more details could be added. Dsp13 (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless someone has a good reason why MPs from that far back are unlikely to have enough information to create more than a stub. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is one of many disruptive nominations from a user bullying another. The notability guidelines are pretty clear on this one. Jeni (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Any MP, from however long ago, deserves his or her own article. If it's too short for your liking, make it better. This article is no worse than tens of thousands of other stubs on notable subjects.Minnowtaur (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability guidelines should not be applied robotically as black letter law. They are guidelines and only give rise to presumptions of notability and inclusion. I would support in some cases the deletion of nano-stubs about technically notable people that offer no prospect of expansion. On the other hand, short sourced stubs about non-living notable people do little harm. In this case, I think there is barely enough information to support inclusion, noting that the article has been expanded somewhat since the nomination.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there may be MPs about which nothing is known but, in this case, there are a couple of paragraphs in The House of Commons 1509-1558, and I've used these and a local history to expand the article. Warofdreams talk 16:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Clearly notable as a member of Parliament. Edward321 (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 14:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bevan J. Leisner

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

Bio article about a non-notable actor. Searching for Bevan J. Leisner, along with the name of one of his films bring up NO results. No media coverage.
This page's name is a way to avoid the history of the article Bevan Leisner, which has been CSD'd 3 times.mboverload@ 06:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 14:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Francis

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

Bio article about a non-notable actor. Searching for Matt Francis, along with the name of one of his films bring up only 2 results: IMDB (which you don't have to be notable to get into) and the company's website.
No media coverage. mboverload@ 05:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/addendum - I now say delete with complete and utter prejudice against any recreation of the article by Madameovary or any meat or sockpuppets that editor may or in the future may possess/create/acquire due to this edit. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HTML-to-PDF

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

Contested prod. No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. All references are primary. SnottyWong talk 04:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the author's addition here is appropriate for software of this type and level of importance. SnottyWong squeal 19:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An interesting free product but brand new (initial release on April 2010) which gives a very limited time-frame to acquire independent coverage or encyclopedic value. Pxtreme75 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 21:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shasta Shootout

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

Simply not notable. TexasAndroid (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not disagree with your assessment of the article, IMHO the subject does not meet any of the narrow topics that are eligible for A7 speedy. Or else I would have already deleted it myself. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, personal/family trivia. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 14:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This face wants on my iPhone

edit
This face wants on my iPhone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No particular indication that this thing has any notability at this point. TexasAndroid (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Both sides of the deletion discussion seemed to suggest merging as a viable compromise, along with the other arguments for merging. I believe a rough consensus has been struck with this regard. Furthermore, if little or no discussion resulted from the merge proposal, I doubt going back to the talk space will spark anymore at this point. –MuZemike 23:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Beauregarde & Veruca Salt

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

Nom - Merge tag was up for a few weeks. A couple of editors supported the merge, so I merged. Since there was nothing sourced, it ended up just as a redirect. An anon-IP reverted it (an obvious sock with only the revert for an edit), I reverted it back with a note about the merge tag and existing consensus, and User:For An Angel ignored the merge tag, time laps, and discussion and reverted again stating that this article had to go through AfD. While I think a merge is much more appropriate than an AfD, I'm not going to revert again. We can do it this way, instead. Personally, I recommend a speedy merge as other editors had the opportunity to comment on the merge and only did so after it took place. Even they couldn't find any material to move into the main article because there's nothing sourced. This article primarily consists of original research contributed by a user currently banned for spending several years adding original research to articles and ignoring all requests to stop. Rklawton (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either merge or delete outright -- anything relevant is probably already in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Shouldn't this be a joint AfD for all the character articles, since they follow the same format and lack of sourcing? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joint AfD - it might be, I have only checked out one other article - and merged following the same process. That particular article merge hasn't been challenged. I haven't read the other articles, so for all I know they're sourced. If they aren't, we can wait to see how this AfD turns out. If it turns out "merge/delete" then I'll go back and do the same for the rest - if appropriate. Or you could add them to this one. It's all the same to me. Rklawton (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and my commendations to the nominator for trying to follow the least intrusive process before bringing to AfD. I suspect that there might be enough content for a separate list of characters article, but the destination can be left to normal editing. Jclemens (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically my !vote is speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1: Neither the nominator, nor any other participant in this debate, believes deletion is the best way to handle this content. In terms of the practical outcome I agree with Jclemens in every respect: congratulations to the nominator for trying to avoid this discussion, there might well be enough for a separate list of characters article, a merge is also a realistic option, and none of this is a matter for AfD.—S Marshall T/C 21:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Veruca Salt - here's the other article (I haven't checked the other characters). The circumstances are identical. I'm going to post an AfD on it and direct it to this discussion. Rklawton (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Veruca Salt) - it seems like a {{mergefrom}} tag should have been placed on the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory article. none of the information from Veruca Salt was placed in that article. indeed, the articles cite no sources, but unsourced information should be challenged before removal, perhaps by use of the {{cn}} tag. there is no reason the hatnote is insufficient for disambiguation between Veruca Salt, the character, and the band. for these reasons, i restored Veruca Salt. please use the cn tag for any information that is dubious, and it can likely be sourced. Also, please refer to wikipedia:merging for the correct way to merge pages, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) for correct construction of disambiguation pages. Badmachine (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The article has been tagged for zero sources since February. If there's some bit of unsourced information you feel is important to move over to the main article, then feel free, but that's absolutely not a reason to restore the article - or to keep it. Rklawton (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • reply: by "merging" the article without placing the appropriate template on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and without transferring anything from Veruca Salt to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, you essentially deleted the page without consensus. im a relative newb but that seems wrong to me. Badmachine (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's wrong to have articles that aren't sourced. You could look at it the other way, too. I merged very single bit of sourced material from one article to the other so as not to lose anything - just as we do with any merge. The fact that there wasn't anything at all that was sourced, really isn't relevant. Indeed, it's just another indicator that we could have just as easily deleted this article outright, instead. Rklawton (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then create a dab page for the band and the charlie and the chocolate factory article. Entirely unsourced, in universe piddle. Plenty of mention of this character (also unsourced) in the target article already, so there's nothing to be merged.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe nobody objected to the merge proposal but nobody supported it either. If sources are need then they can be added, that isn't the issue here. The question is whether or not this subject deserves it's own article. I agree that it's not perfect now but we can work together to give it the article it deserves. For An Angel (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in the couple of weeks the merge tags were up, we had one supporter[64] and none opposed. The one opposed you'll see on the page now came after the merge. Sound reasoning also applies. These articles have been up and unsourced for years - and there's little likelihood that will change. Rklawton (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although merging Veruca, Violet, Augustus and Mike into a single page would probably be a decent compromise. Is there any unsourced info on those pages that isn't straight from the book or movies themselves? 28bytes (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I fail to see how a single page of unsourced cruft is any better than multiple pages of unsourced cruft. 14:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Reply I'm afraid I'm with S Marshall and Jclemens on this one. There's at least enough in the Violet and Veruca pages to merit a merge into a list of characters or "Differences between movie/film versions" article or what have you, if the individual characters don't merit articles themselves. Merging would be preferable to deleting in this case. (Actual merging, not a redirect masquerading as a merge.) 28bytes (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay, so having looked at the pages mentioned (I was amazed when I saw that a page so important was up for deletion, by the by), I personally think that the best course of action is probably either leaving the pages as-is (one for each, with the appropriate novel/first film/second film descriptions) or merging them into a "Characters in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" article.. of course, the latter creates the obvious issue of the first film having had a different name, but a redirect from "Characters in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" could easily solve that issue. Then each character could have their own section, with subsections for each version of the story (novel, first film, second film) within that one article. I assume that that would sate all the people pitching a fit about too many pages? Roxycurtisredd (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for the sake of building a consensus. A few of the delete and keep votes acknowledge that merging is ok. Can split the article back out later once there are enough sources to WP:verifynotability. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 22:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky hojun lee

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

A soccer (everyone else: football) player who plays for a Canadian team that doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Google search for the team name, "Surrey UTD" gets 1,600 results.
NO Google results for player name.
Does not meet notability requirements. May be a CSD. -mboverload@ 03:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. NW (Talk) 14:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark–Moldova relations

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

this is a recreated article of a something that previously past through as delete. my previous reasons stand. no embassies, no agreements except a weak memo of understanding, no state visits, not much coverage [65]. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to where? LibStar (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suppose it could be redirected to Foreign relations of Moldova, since it seems to be written from the Moldovan point of view. The limited information in here would easily fit in the FRO articles of the two nations. Citations should be made to facts like "In 2005 the total volume of the trade with Denmark was 24.400 USD" -- I'm not sure if that means $24.40 (more than was paid for Manhattan), or $24,400 (someone bought a small car?). While I do understand why-why-why someone would want to write about this, it's not notable enough for a separate article. Mandsford 12:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Foreign relations of Moldova per Mandsford. (The redirect is in order to comply with the GFDL/CC-BY-SA: we can preserve the history under it.) I agree that this content is best covered in the Foreign Relations Of articles.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. And if not keep, merge. A little more time to improve the article after it's been created is in order. I've found a few sources that show a relationship between the countries exists based on political, humanitarian and technical aid. I also still think that these articles should be considered per se notable as has been previously suggested and not just by myself. Plus, I'm notifying the creator of the article (who is new to wikipedia) that the article he created has been nominated for deletion which has not been done by the nominator.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Political, technical and humanitarian assistance section in the article shows they have a notable relationship. Also Moldova has 3.5 million people and a 1/4th of them survive on just $2 a day. So the financial aid that Denmark gave them(along with Sweden and the UN) for $3 million dollars is probably a significant amount. [66] Helping them rebuild their country, while the rest of the world seems to be ignoring them. Dream Focus 04:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the fact that Moldova is a poor country and a rich country is helping is hardly generating a lot of news coverage. the article fails to state how much precisely Denmark is contributing to this. and in any case $3 million over 4 years is a small fraction of Denmark's foreign aid budget. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.
  • Delete and salt per consensus established a year ago at the previous AfD, although now that ARS has been notified we are sure to get plenty of keep votes. Nothing has changed between these two countries in the last year, and this article should not have been recreated. These two countries do not have a notable relationship. See the rough guidelines at Wikipedia:International relations#Bilateral relations. There are 18,915 2-country combinations (assuming 195 countries in the world). They don't all deserve articles. SnottyWong gab 05:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith. ARS doesn't just go around posting keep everywhere. Also many people seem to follow the ARS around at times just to say delete, strangely enough. Could just be my imagination though. Dream Focus 05:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nominator, as per previous AFD, nothing has changed, salt to stop future recreations. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per Off2riorob. Reyk YO! 02:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Changing my vote, since the history indicates that two editors are actually trying to improve the article, so I disagree with the idea that "nothing has changed". Given that people are actually walking the walk instead of just talking the talk, I'm not going to discourage actual good-faith attempts to improve articles. There's no reason for this to be "salted" either. Mandsford 18:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per improvements by editors Richard Arthur Norton and Cdogsimmons being sufficient to establish noteablity. Another change is that bilateral relations have became even more important in the last year due to the rise of multi polarity. E.G. see this Financial Times article about the G8's change of heart just last week to start backing bilateral agreements, another reason why its all the more important for us to cover bilateral relations. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Retracted by nominator with no outstanding delete votes, NACUmbralcorax (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Heynen

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

Looking for input. Biographical article about an actress. See the references section. Not sure if this meets the notability guidelines. Willing to retract AfD if shown to be in compliance. mboverload@ 02:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the issues of regional stage actors/actresses has come up before. I argued at that point that multiple reviews in major regional papers (like the Baltimore Sun, Washington Post) qualify for notability. She appears to cross that threshold Vartanza (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO ADMIN: Please close this AfD. I, mboverload, have retracted it --Mboverload (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 14:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamer Hands

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

Technopat (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Doesn't seem very encyclopaedic and only reference is a chat/blog. --Technopat (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not disagreeing: Which criterion? --mboverload@ 03:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G3 as a blatant hoax. I think. Shall I put a CSD? --Rockstonetalk to me! 02:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the original AfD proposer, I thought it better to go through AfD rather than have the creator of the article simply remove the prod template. Unfortunately speedy doesn't cover these cases, or if it does... --Technopat (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD g3, obvious hoax Shimeru 20:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake in Tioga

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

Completely unsourced article about a movie named "Earthquake in Tioga". No references. No google results. mboverload@ 01:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Health effects of radon. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Watras

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

Person who falls under WP:ONEEVENT as someone who was involved in the discovery of radon exposure. While radon exposure is certainly notable, this person doesn't seem to meet that criteria at all. PROD removed, IP is upset about the previous redirect to the radon exposure page. We should just delete this article and be done with it. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You asked me for input, so: Really don't know enough to know if it should be deleted or not, but that's kind of the point. Right now (or immediately prior to this CfD) the article redirected to a peripherally related page that didn't cover the subject. The page didn't mention "Stanley Watras", and the incident he was reportedly involved in is only covered by the page in the most vague and non-specific language (not even the location and name of the Nuclear plant is mentioned, only the year and country.) There are pages that link to Stanley Watras, notably Radon. That was my concern. If those links become red links, then at least users of Wikipedia will understand that Wikipedia does not contain information on the person in question. If the incident that Watras was involved in is notable enough for there to be links to his name across Wikipedia, then it would make sense to cover the incident in more detail, in a short but appropriate article. I suspect that was the logic behind writing the article in the first place. Either way, if such an article were to be written, and Stanley Watras was to be a redirect to it, the name "Stanley Watras" should appear in the article, or else the redirect should not exist. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Health effects of radon. Inniverse (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Health effects of radon, good case study to have there. Claritas § 17:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Health effects of radon, possibly in the Health policies on public exposure section, either near the beginning of the first subsection or as its own subsection. I originally created that article, but now I realize that it was probably pointless because there's so little to say about him. some page -- TurtleBoy0 05:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guess what? Merge and redirect etc etc. In fact, I've already edited Health effects of radon to describe the "Watras incident" (by which name this happening is frequently referred to) at the level of detail I think appropriate. This article should redict to Health effects of radon#Accumulation in dwellings. You'll note in my version of Health eff. of Rn I just refer to "Watras incident" and never mention "Stanley" -- I don't think full name is desireable or necessary, esp. since one assertion is, in effect, that Mr. W and his family have a hugely increased lifetime risk of cancer, which I don't think needs to be broadcast (and it's not even true, apparently -- they hadn't lived in the house long before the problem was detected and they got the h--- out). Despite what the excitable Mr. 66.149.58.8 *(see Talk:Stanley Watras#Delete it, keep it, or direct it to an article that actually mentions Stanley Watras) says above, a reader who comes looking for "Stanley Watras" and is redirected to "Health effects" will easily infer that the text on "Watras incident" is what he's looking for. In addition, much of the info given in the current article here, on Watras conflicts with the sources, or are just silly e.g. "first time evidence of the danger of radon exposure was found" (absurd), "most" homeowners became concerned about radon (um... really? most?).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discounting BITE keep reason, and figuring out the user actually requested it be deleted, also seeing the additional delete !vote, I'll close as Delete. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McCormack

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

Neither notable nor encyclopaedic. Technopat (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I have addressed these issues. Please view the changes to the page. I contend that this entry is notable. Please compare to Fred Figglehorn - what makes him "notable"? I saw him on YouTube once. How many people know Fred? There are thousands of Wikipedia articles of "Fred" notability and less. Remember the Jedi links. If there is a specific issue with the article that can be addressed, please let me know. Someone wanted a citation added (that was great!) I had missed it and I used a biased word "inspired" which I missed as well. Due to this specific issue that was raised, I added a citation and changed the language. I've added more citations, including a secular London newspaper link. Your comment was at 6:41. Please review the current changes and advise me of specific things. I really appreciate all the advice so far, but the vaguness of your comment above and in light of all the entries on Wikipedia that fall into that camp (though this entry exceeds it in droves) I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Thanks again!  :—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildrenOfLight (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Technopat, I didn't see your response on my page - must have been too busy writing this :). I'll just wait for your next response now. Thanks!  ::—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildrenOfLight (talk • contribs) 16:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to show me this article merits a place, The fact that Fred has an article is not a reason for Ian to have one. (I usually use Bill and Ben as examples...) I'm not quite sure why Fred does, in fact. The article strikes me as promotional (non-profit maybe, but promotional nonetheless). (A non-profit prophet?) (Sorry.) I can't see widespread coverage in reliable independent sources in the references, either. I'm willing to be proved wrong, as always. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What are reliable, independent sources to you? Can religious figures not be included in Wikipedia simply because they haven't been interviewed on CNN or The New York Times? How are you determining what is a reliable independent source? I came to writing this article from reading Wikipedia, not from any preconceived notions I might have of what is "objective" or what is "notable" or what is "reliable". How else do we as editors of Wikipedia judge what is Wikipedic than by what Wikipedia IS?
I've come across fascinating people of all religious backgrounds who are chronicled here - without what some people seem to think are "reliable independent sources". What about Jerald F. Dirks andRobert J. Fox? I could list many, many more What makes them notable? They are known by countless people IN their religious tradition and maybe by a few people outside.
And yes, the fact that Fred has a page did lend itself against people who said that just because someone has YouTube videos doesn't mean they are encyclopedic. I was glad to find Fred on Wikipedia. I saw him once on YouTube and thought he was really funny (some of the times). I wanted to find out more about him and where to go to do that? Wikipedia of course! This is why I like Wikipedia. Why do you like Wikipedia?
As to the "promotional" aspects of the article, please be specific - I will gladly edit what is truly promotional. I have already had some very good advice which I have taken to heart and made changes. If you are going to be critical of the article please leave something that is constructive for me to work with. The subject of this article is known for his story - everywhere he goes he tells his story. Since his story IS largely who he is, I have included it in some detail. I don't understand how it is promotional to do that in a situation where the person's story is the reason they are known.
Again, I really, really appreciate specifics and constructive criticisms that can help me as the creator of this page into a better one (I'm finding it really difficult to take anything away from these vague posts to make the article better). Thank you again,

Sincerely :ChildrenOfLight (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amending my last. The article does not establish the notability of its subject beyond his brush with death. The listed references do not seem to amount to significant coverage and come from questionably reliable secondary sources. Gobonobo T C 21:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dissagree Gobonobo and have pasted appart of my answer below to Peridon: "As far as I can tell the only thing that needs to be varified in a situation such as this is that the person is really who he says he is (Ian McCormack) and that he is somebody of note with exposure. CBN, Sight Magazine, Revelation TV interview, etc verify that he isn't my next door neighbor or a ficticious person; The TV interviews, published book, Google search results on his name, YouTube presence, etc show that he is noteworthy by Wikipedia standards - probably not by Britanica :)). What else needs to be verified? The supernatural aspects of his story? No where does it say in the article that his story is true - it is simply his story that has made him popular. What needs to be varified? Again, that he isn't my nextdoor neighbor, someone I know, some fictitious person that I put up on Wikipedia. Ian's story is not on trial here. That he is who he says he is and who I've said he is, of course, is on trial and that is perfectly illustrated through my citations. All we need to know is that he isn't some fraud who has no popularity or coverage that I'm putting on Wikipedia and who you can't find if you Googled him - who's story you couldn't find if you Googled it.
Religious articles on wikipedia that do not stray into politics don't deserve the kind of scrutiny that Pat Robertson has. He has said some very politically charged things that 3rd party, independant, secular, mainstream media has covered - is that the only way a notable Muslim, Buhdist, or Christian speaker can be accepted on Wikipedia by your standards? To say some nasty things about people so that CNN will tune in and then we all get a mainstream secular source for the article? I certainly hope not because it isn't very Wikipedian." Thanks for the ammend, and really, this should not be an exercise in editors sharpening their swords on some new guy. It seems like you guys are really going the extra mile here to make this endangered animal extinct. The article is innocent and unpolitical. Think of it as a cute little rabbit or a majestic wolf that some vicious Sarah Palins with guns are trying to blow away :)
ChildrenOfLight (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gobonobo, the WP:SINGLEEVENT nowhere suggests the deletion of such articles but rather is a discussion of whether the event be covered or the person. I believe Ian falls into this category: "In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved." I don't understand the logic you used here in calling for the deletion of this article. Wikipedia is a different breed of encyclopedia than what we grew up with and I love it for that. I cannot understand all of this persecution over an article that has many relevant sources and extensive links. The only thing people seem to be arguing over at this point is whether or not they subjectively feel it has a place at Wikipedia. I declare, what makes people think they can determine for other people what is "encyclopedic" or not? If there are 13,000 people who have viewed just one of Ian's many different interviews and videos on YouTube, not to mention the thousands upon thousands he's personally talked to since the 80's, don't you think those people would like to find a summary on Wikipedia? What on earth do you use Wikipedia for? I'm a scientist - do I use Wikipedia for scientific relevance? No, I don't because I've found it to be inaccurate and faulty on a number of occasions. If you want to apply the editor's sword somewhere do it there! That being said, all the constructive editing suggestions I've received so far have been great - it has really made it a better article and I'd be happy to receive more. But I can't understand the logic I'm seeing here on this page. Please explain to me how WP:SINGLEVENT allows for the deletion of an article. Thanks for your comment
Sincerely ChildrenOfLight (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC) 208.38.107.242 (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you find inaccuracies, please correct them - or at least join in the talk page discussions about them. Peridon (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sightmagazine piece is not really a piece 'about' - it's mainly quote. I'm not sure about the status of the magazine, either. CBN? Easily confused with CNN or CBS, but it is the Christian Broadcasting Network - founded by Pat Robertson. Both are Christian publications, not mainstream independent journalism. I especially have doubts about anything connected with Robertson. As to WP:SINGLEVENT, I'd also point to WP:NOT#NEWS. Peridon (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged Dinks and Fox for their lack of good referencing. Peridon (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peridon, first, thanks for the reply, I appreciate it. 3rd party independant sources do not have to be mainstream. Jerald F. Dirks (what, are people deleting these things now?) andRobert J. Fox as a few examples. As I understand 3rd party and Independent, the Christian Broadcasting Network is both to the subject of this article - they were not involved in his experience (3rd party) and they are in no way associated with his organization or church (independent) other than the fact that they are both share a common faith. How is this an issue in this case? Let's get to the bottom of what needs verifying here.
As far as I can tell the only thing that needs to be varified in a situation such as this is that the person is really who he says he is (Ian McCormack) and that he is somebody of note with exposure. CBN, Sight Magazine, Revelation TV interview, etc verify that he isn't my next door neighbor or a ficticious person; The TV interviews, published book, Google search results on his name, YouTube presence, etc show that he is noteworthy by Wikipedia standards - probably not by Britanica :)). What else needs to be verified? The supernatural aspects of his story? No where does it say in the article that his story is true - it is simply his story that has made him popular. What needs to be varified? Again, that he isn't my nextdoor neighbor, someone I know, some fictitious person that I put up on Wikipedia. Ian's story is not on trial here. That he is who he says he is and who I've said he is, of course, is on trial and that is perfectly illustrated through my citations. All we need to know is that he isn't some fraud who has no popularity or coverage that I'm putting on Wikipedia and who you can't find if you Googled him - who's story you couldn't find if you Googled it.
Religious articles on wikipedia that do not stray into politics don't deserve the kind of scrutiny that Pat Robertson has. He has said some very politically charged things that 3rd party, independant, secular, mainstream media has covered - is that the only way a notable Muslim, Buhdist, or Christian speaker can be accepted on Wikipedia by your standards? To say some nasty things about people so that CNN will tune in and then we all get a mainstream secular source for the article? I certainly hope not because it isn't very Wikipedian. Thanks again for the reply,

SincerelyChildrenOfLight (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think the content from the Christian sources qualifies as independent, it more closely resembles promotional material. That leaves the article as it is with insignificant coverage in a local paper, but no reports from medical sources or other significant coverage. Hekerui 23:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hekerui,
The Christian sources only need to varify that Ian McCormack is who he says he is and not what I'm saying he is. They don't need to varify his story. They prove he isn't my nextdoor neighbor, someone I know, some fictitious person that I put up on Wikipedia and they help establish, along with the videos, google searches, YouTube presence, etc that he is "notable" by Wikipedia standards.
His story is not what is on trial. He says it happened just like Smith Wigglesworth "believed that God had cured him of hemorrhoids". It is his personal story that happened to him that he is sharing with the world. If I remove the part about him being certified dead by doctors, since at this point I don't have any 3rd party independent medical sources, would that satisfy you? He still claims he died and came back to life, but on Wikipedia there is no mention of doctors and certification. I feel like I might have got somewhere here - I will edit the article forthwith. Thanks for the input and please sign your post so that I can see who you are and keep up the conversation. thanks,

ChildrenOfLight (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT

Okay everybody, I deleted all references to medical certification of death and time period for death and doctors doing anything. I think it is now entirely in Ian's mind without reference to others. His story as it is doesn't need any sources other than himself (unless I've missed something) per Smith Wigglesworth "believed that God had cured him of hemorrhoids". All the other sources establish his notability and the fact that I'm not putting up my buddy or youth pastor or whatever and that this article isn't a prank. Let me know how you feel - I totally see Hekerui's point and maybe this is what you all have been saying all along. I think it reads a lot better and makes more "encyclopedic" sense. Thanks

ChildrenOfLight (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GnuDoyng, thanks for the KEEP - and congratulations! You are the very first person to ask to keep this page. REMARKABLE! I would appreciate any input you have on the article to make it better. Thanks,
ChildrenOfLight (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DONTBITE refers to treatment of users, not articles. "As a Christian I have voted for keeping this entry." really takes the cake. Hekerui (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to meet you Hekerui, I'd appreciate it if you addressed the COMMENT and looked at the changes on my article page. I'd appreciate any other specific suggestions you have (the medical thing really helped) - if there is somewhere else in his story that we need 3rd party independent references, let me know. As to who he is, I think I have extablished that beyond a doubt through Wikipedia standards. Thanks again and I'd appreciate any input,

ChildrenOfLight (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Peridon, what is notable in your opinion? Explain to me why Ian McCormack isn't notable with all the references and links by Wikipedia standards. What articles do you think ARE notable? He certainly is more notable than Judith A. Ramaley. I'm writing as I read, not as I think (ie I'm judging notability by what I like to see on Wikipedia - articles about movies, YouTube people with a strong presence, characters I come across on the web with a strong presence there, obscure Jedi warrior facts :), Lord of the Rings character Bios, etc). I wouldn't use Wikipedia to write an article about the Queen of England - its not safe for that - would you? (It would be a good starting place to write an article on the Queen of England if the references and links are good).
I'm convinced now, that what is happening here is entirely subjective at this point. People who would never even glance at anything remotely resembling a 'Near Death Experience' or never feel that arthritic spiritual/religious bone in their body are the ones arguing it isn't a notable article. How many people need to see something or know about it before it becomes "notable"? Hundreds of thousands (at least) of people in the US think CBN is noteworthy, but you obviously aren't one of them :). You know there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of examples on Wikipedia of Expanded Universe fame, whether they are comic book characters, comic book writers, illustraters, etc. How many people know about them? Are they notable to you? Maybe to you and everyone you know, but certainly not to other people. I'm okay with that - that is what makes Wikipedia different. Are you against what Wikipedia IS?
Thanks for the comment (although it was kind of vague, and frustrating, and sabertooth, and...:)). Please be specific.
ChildrenOfLight (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I wouldn't use a Wikipedia article on Queen Elizabeth to write a college paper on her unless I used the links and references as a starting point for scholarly sources. Reading my post above just a few minutes ago struck me that people might think I was suggesting we delete Queen Eizabeth's page :(. Which wasn't what I meant at all. I like the Queen...and her dogs. All I'm trying to say is that you thinking Ian isn't notable is an extremely subjective determination that would flatten the majority of Wikipedia articles. Most Wikipedia articles are about people or things that you and I have never heard of before, nor are they notable (judging by your standards) Not a soul I know in the whole country knows who Judith A. Ramaley is and I can guarantee its far less than those that know Ian McCormack. So how do we "subjectively" determine notability? I think it ought to be off web presence (if the person is known well that way) or positions attained (such as Judith - even if they aren't notable for anything they did and aren't known by anyone) and I'm sure there are more, but these are pertinent to the discussion at hand. Do you see the dangerous dance this is becoming? Let's be objective here and realize that there are an awful lot of people who YOU don't know about (and OBVIOUSLY don't care to know anything about) who ARE notable to a certain large populace (in this case mostly Christians). Thanks for the post and sorry I had to add more to it :)
ChildrenOfLight (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT

Peridon pointed out on his talk page that a professor such as Judith A. Ramaley might be covered under WP:PROF. This may be so, I'm not sure yet, but while I was reviewing this page, I discovered that there are guidlines for porn stars but not for religious leaders - that's pretty sad and shows a subjective biased in my opinion. It seems like religious figures are simply tolerated here but not encouraged whereas pornstars actually have guidelines (it is disputed only over the awards given). I understand if a religious person is political or vocally opposes other religions that we need to be really careful how we as editors deal with that just like with politicians, but Ian falls more into a "celebrity" standard than a religious or political figure. His videos and interviews seem to come more from that angle. He is not on a stage of debate like many other religious figures (aka Pat Robertson) and ALL political figures are. I certainly hope I'm not seeing things the way they are. Please help clarify this secular versus religious source issue in light of my post's peculiar situation. Thanks everybody, and remember "secular" doesn't equate to "objective". I posted Peridon and my discussion below as it is directly relevant and probably should have been done entirely here. ChildrenOfLight (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Discussion with Peridon
There's a lot of articles that aren't currently referenced properly, or about notable subjects. They get found eventually - mostly... (There's about 13 million articles.....) Ramaley is the president of a university - so far as I can see, she meets WP:PROF. There isn't a Queen of England at present to write about - Liz II is Queen of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There already is an article about her - Elizabeth II. This is an encyclopaedia - things here should be verifiable in reliable sources. I prefer sources that don't have a religious or political bias - or suspicion of - and definitely ones that combine the two. I also don't like trade sites that base their 'reviews' on press releases. Am I against what Wikipedia is? Would I have made 8,400 edits if I was against it? I don't like rap, but I worked to save an threatened article on a particular rapper because I could see notability there (unlike in many other rappers). I don't see it here. Peridon (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying then that you are only interested in seeing articles with secular sources? Are you saying that someone who is notable within a religion or movement but hasn't done anything stupid or outlandish or a stunt to get secular publicity isn't notable? Sounds to me like you're gearing up to remove all the religious articles that don't have secular sources. That is very dangerous and is, in other words "censorship". I am not promoting anything here, I am sharing an article on someone who has notability on Google, TV channels, YouTube, and within the Christian faith.
I don't agree with your belief that sites that have religious bias can't be sourced as reliable in this situation - we are not dealing with anything political in this post, nor are we "verifying" Ian's belief and proving it - it can't be proved - its his personal belief. Why do we need a secular source? I am not writing an article on Pat Robertson who said some very hurtful things and earned some of your precious secular sources by hurting people and gaining notoriety. As I've said so many times it now comes easily to my tongue, Ian's story is not on trial here (it was until I removed "certified dead by doctors"), the trial is whether he is a fraud who no one knows and has no web presence, figment of my imagination, someone I personally know, or sombody that has no Web presence. Just because you've been an editor for some time doesn't mean you're objective. Please provide me with the link to your rapper - I'd like to know what you find notable and how you subjectively determined it. I'm glad to hear you don't suggest every article for deletion - I was worried there for a while :). Remember, Ian's views are not on trial - what needs varifying at this point is simply that he exists and that he is notable by Wikipedia standards. Thanks for your post and I appreciate your reply. Thanks again ChildrenOfLight (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you don't agree about the sources. Let's leave it to the consensus. As to the rapper, that was probably a couple of thousand edits ago and I can't remember his name. Can you remember what you had for tea on 27th May 2008? I just remember it being unusual for me to get involved with it, and that I seem to remember digging out some sources (and probably doing a copy-ed as well - I just itch when I see bad text). I don't doubt Ian exists. What I'm trying to do is establish if there is notability. I am always prepared to change my mind - but by seeing evidence not by being hectored. Peridon (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I can remember, it was Earl Grey tea (the only kind I drink in spring). Remember, you gave the example, so don't get ruffled about it. I genuinly want to know how people who took the time to request my page be deleted are judging that it should be deleted and since I can't get at the bottom of it, I thought maybe if I look at stuff you've done, I can figure it out. You took the time to suggest my article be deleted - it isn't very polite to then call my requests for more details as "hectoring". I want to know what standards you use for "notability" since you have based your position on a vague concept that really comes down to subjectivity. And the "consensus" is inately biased against anyone new here, so that isn't a very constructive way of going about it either. I hope you're not upset that someone is trying to defend their article from deletion and is asking for rock solid reasons, wouldn't you? Thanks for your reply and I hope you don't consider this "hectoring" - makes me wonder who Hector was to get it named after him :) ChildrenOfLight (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant the meal 'tea' but no worries. Peridon (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildrenOfLight (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Comment

Okay, I'm compromising again :). I don't feel we need any more "secular" sources than the blurb I posted from a local "secular" paper, but just for those who want to see more...I've some "secular" blurbs about Ian - basically just telling the local community who he is and where he'll be speaking.

http://www.hawkesbaytoday.co.nz/local/news/man-who-died-to-give-talk/3656811/

http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/s/36122_what_happened_when_i_died_talk

http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/4212622.Death_survivor_to_give_talk_in_Manorbier/

It's just more verification that he exists. Should I add any of them? As far as further notability goes, I could add a ton of links to churches that have advertised his talks (but I feel that it is all secondary to what I have already posted). Thanks, ChildrenOfLight (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, Fayenatic, you are agreeing with the others that "independent" really means "secular"? I think this needs to be established in the rules then and I'm not at all a proponent of doing so. It seems to me that there is an interesting dichotomy becoming apparent through this exercise between the people who use Wikipedia and the people who "professionally" edit it - at least the one's I'm meeting here on this AFD page. I'm not at all in favor of turning the Wikipedia I know and use into an online free version of Britannica, but I've come across a lot of editors who seem to have this as their goal (I particularly like Peridon saying, in effect, that they'll "eventually get to them all" - most likely all the articles I like to read :)).
Don't get me wrong, I think exercises like this AFD discussion are good because they test the material to see if there is something genuinely behind it (I would, however, have appreciated more discussion before it was instantly put up for AFD - felt like someone was a little trigger happy - "shoot first, ask questions later" :)) or if it is simply someone making stuff up or posting an article about a local car garage that has no notability except to a local town. I feel I have more than adequately done so for Wikipedia standards and its coming down to a subjective discussion of what is "notable" and what is "independent". By web standards alone, I'd say Ian is notable, not to mention the rest, so why are people still asking for secular sources? I suppose if he sold his story, made lots of money off it, and lobbied to get onto CNN, everyone would be happy (like a lot of the evangilists you can find here). That is really sad :(. Ian doesn't lobby to get any fame or notoriety, he comes on air because he is ASKED. With that in mind, its incredible he has notability at all! Someone point me to where "independent" = "secular". Thanks for your post Fayenatic but I disagree with your logic - please prove me wrong. Also, why is everyone posting "as a Christian" now, as if that somehow adds weight to their argument (specifically Fayenatic and Gnudoyng)? Thanks,
ChildrenOfLight (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Fayenatic, I think you're looking atWP:IRS and taking the most skeptical, critical, approach to applying it here. Where there is room for valid disagreement, one should take caution before proposing judgement - as Tolkien wrote (through Gandalf), "do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement." (I hope I'm not geeking anyone out here by quoting such a source :)) Perhaps you have taken great care in your decision to cast the vote - you know best :), but I think we'd all agree, that there is "the letter of the law" which can be applied rather harshly and "the spirit of the law" which is what we all would prefer to operate under, I think (I hope). Thanks again.

ChildrenOfLight (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of a religious speaker, a secular source would be demonstrably independent. Without that, we have to look for multiple sources that are of broadsheet quality an with coverage that is not promotional in nature. I thought there was only CBN, but having looked at SightMagazine.com it looks not bad -- but I've never heard of it before, and it has no article here yet, so I'm not sure how solid a source it is. These articles, however, are essentially autobiographical; there is no independent journalism verifying them. I remember an AFD about another evangelist where I'm sorry to say I concluded that the guy had exaggerated the parts of his story that gave him notability. I'm not doubting McCormack's integrity, but we need more solid coverage than those interviews to support an article in Wikipedia.
"As a Christian" was to acknowledge that the majority-view participants here are interpreting sound policies objectively, not targeting Christian articles for deletion. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying Fayenatic, but Ian's story (as it is written on Wikipedia) can't be verified because it all happened "once he died". His story is his personal belief and no one is saying that it is true or false.
I disagree with "we need more solid coverage than those interviews to support an article in Wikipedia" because it often doesn't. This is a valid argument (despite your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) because we must judge what is Wikipedian by what IS Wikipedian. Should we throw out Smith Wigglesworth because there aren't any of your precious secular sources? (at least I didn't see any there) Should we scrutinize him because there aren't medical sources to the issues he said he was suffering from and then "believed he was healed from" - its just unbelievable how we're all stretching here to swing the axe. Again, I think prudence is the better part of valor and very few people seem to be thinking in a Wikipedian fashion (judging new articles by what Wikipedia IS). Thanks for the comment - the debate is fascinating :)
ChildrenOfLight (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what was the name of that evangelist? It would be nice to get some specifics so I can do a little of my own research here (both you and Peridon used a vague entity that you didn't name as supporting evidence) - I'm sure you can name him and I'll look him up on Google :) Thanks,
Sincerely ChildrenOfLight (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • THE LONG GOODBYE

I have decided to remove the page Ian McCormack for the time being rather than drive the issue to a glorious last stand (epic though it might be :)). I have appreciated all the comments and discussion we have had here - looking back, this is an incredible work we've done here in so short a time. I personally maintain my article's merits, but will endeavor to meet some of the standards I feel the community has pressed rather harshly upon me. I understand I am new and the first AFD is somewhat of an initiation process to make sure young inexperienced whippersnappers know what their getting into. Though not falling into this category myself, I have learned a great deal about how to write a better article from this debate.

Sourcing

I'm a little bit concerned about the "religious" sourcing argument and people calling for "secular" sources as somehow "more reliable". People who have faith don't really think that just because someone (or an organization) doesn't have faith, somehow their investigation into "faith" is going to be objective. People who don't have faith generally do think that a secular mode of investigation is somehow "objective" AND they certainly don't think that a religious network is going to be. There is no such thing as objectivity - we may approach it at times, but I think it’s always better to state what you believe so others will know your slight bent. Fox news says it’s balanced but it really isn't - its conservative (I wouldn't trust it for objective info on Obama). CNN argues its objective but it isn't - its liberal (I never trusted it for objective news on Bush). Muslims best trust Muslim sources (on issues of their faith), Christians best trust Christian sources (about their faith), and atheists, agnostics, and the like best trust secular sources (about anybody else's faith). Just a thought. Anyways this is turning into a whole discussion in and of itself:).

Dichotomy

I feel that there is a dangerous dichotomy developing within Wikipedia (perhaps it has always been there). I have used Wikipedia since my college days in the early 2000's and I found the fount of popular (but not necessarily "notable") material fascinating and welcome. I loved finding stuff here that I'd never find in any encyclopedia (comic book characters, religious zealots, lesser known actor bios, YouTube stations, and the like). I respect those who believe it should be "more serious" but perhaps they should recognize the vast amount of users who enjoy it for what it is now (ha! maybe what it was then - who knows maybe all the stuff I used to look up has been deleted). I will refer to them as the Wikitannicans (Wikipedia +Britannica). I'm not sure why they want to exclude so much (is there a size limit to Wikipedia that I don't know about?).

The Prophecy

It would be unfortunate (for everyone) if a split occurred and we users had to go elsewhere (consider this a prophetic warning if things keep going that way - maybe you all know this and I just think I'm on to something :)).

The End of All Things...or is it?

That being said, I know that most editors started out as users and still are, of course. Maybe some of them need to return to their Wiki-childhood :). I look forward to further collaboration with you all and will attempt to do what little I can to make Wikipedia a better place (in a few years maybe I'll be a Wikitannican working on Wikitannia - who knows, maybe I'm too liberal right now:)) Thank you all for the ride - I'll fall on my own sword now :) Sincerely ChildrenOfLight (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I hope we are all on the same page regarding how to evaluate this article. The question should be whether McCormack is notable as a speaker and evangelist. What we think about his claimed death/near-death experience and vision is irrelevant to whether he should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I did a search in the Google News Archive for articles containing the words "Ian McCormack" and either "Christian" or "jellyfish", and I only found a few. So if he has not been in the news that much, particularly for a person who is active in the present day, I tend to think he is not notable. However, particularly if the film in development about him actually gets produced and commercially released, that may change in the future. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Federal Signal Corporation. –MuZemike 22:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Signal 2001

edit
Federal Signal 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason JustInn014 (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC) This article is full of crap information, and is just unfixable at this point. I'd tried revamping this article a while back, but there's no feasable way to explain each siren type's difference in words. There's people popping in and spewing unverified (and from what I've personally observed, FALSE) information.[reply]

We really need to cut down the tornado siren articles on here. There really isn't a need for so many.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If no one's going to help me with this, I'll just prod the article for speedy deletion. --JustInn014 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per the lone reason for retention, accompanied by said article's improvement, which has not been rebutted. –MuZemike 22:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SubAudible Hum

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

fails WP:MUSIC. no signficant coverage [67]. LibStar (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Wagner

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

Appears to fail WP:ATH guidance. Fæ (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Nicholson, Jr.

edit
Roland Nicholson, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Perhaps estimable but not demonstrably notable person; sources not sufficient for BLP; blp-prod declined. PhGustaf (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references are a mess, and this is forgivable given that this is User:Columbia Student's first article. But even if everything in the text were fully documented, this is not a notable person. PhGustaf (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete His best claim to notability appears to be as drought coordinator for NYC, which could be a major position during a drought, but I couldn't find any coverage of him doing this or of the position itself Vartanza (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Waterloo Road characters. T. Canens (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Kelly (Waterloo Road)

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

Fictional character who does not meet WP:GNG and has only in-universe importance. Claritas § 13:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list is at List of Waterloo Road characters, for your information, although if this and other articles on individual characters are deleted, it will probably have to be split. Claritas § 19:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Smith (journalist)

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

Non-notable writer and political organizer. Cerejota (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fear some folks are still more equal than others, and when it comes to notability, Mr. Smith is not yet one of them. State coordinator for a third-party campaign seems below the threshold Vartanza (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Arguments seem to be split equally in three directions – retention, deletion, and merging. My suggestion is to continue discussion on a possible merge locally and try build consensus there. –MuZemike 22:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Benn

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

Not notable. Unsuccesful parliamentary candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Kittybrewster ☎ 21:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Her campaign received plenty of national coverage due to her being one of the youngest candidates in the history of Great Britain and her famous family. She has a reasonably high profile and appears to be a favorite daughter of the Labour Party; she'll almost certainly keep on running until she wins a seat in Parliament.Minnowtaur (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to East Worthing and Shoreham. All of the refs simply establish that she was a parliamentary candidate - and she failed in that thus missing the notability threshold for politicians. The rest establish that she's related to someone famous which again is not notable. Valenciano (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Failed candidate = NN; granddaughter of Tony Benn = NN - notability is not inherited. Summary NN. Also delete the paragraph on her for the constituency article. If there is an article on the youngest MPs/candidates, someting might be merged there, but I hav not looked for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rough consensus indicates that the article does not meet the relevant notability guidelines. –MuZemike 22:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Technologies

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

Non notable software company, Fails WP:CORP - the only coverage is not significant, most of it reproductions of press releases. Also adding XML Studio it's main product, article is promotional and also lack of coverage (even less than the links about may indicate as there looks like there are two products called XML Studio) so fails WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nominator needs to read the guideline that an article isn't spam merely because its subject is a commercial body. Copyediting would be useful and if the time of copyeditors wasn't continually wasted in farcical AfDs, it might even get done. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but XML Studio reads like a sales brochure, product lacks any form of significant coverage and as a result fails WP:GNG, as for the company again no significant coverage, falis WP:GNG - I am unable to see what any amount of Copyediting could help with the notability of both the company and it's software. Codf1977 (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the Pops 2002 Volume 2

edit
Top of the Pops 2002 Volume 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "Deletion log - Wikipedia".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_June_28&oldid=1142640927"